Federal Register Vol. 80, No.70,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 70 (April 13, 2015)

Page Range19511-19868
FR Document

80_FR_70
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 19734 - Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management SystemsPDF
80 FR 19865 - National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 19648 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 19649 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19678 - Record of Decision for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement; Fairbanks, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 19665 - American International Mailing, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 19660 - Decision To Issue Clean Air Act Permit for the Four Corners Power PlantPDF
80 FR 19728 - Notice of Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee and Preparations for Upcoming International Telecommunications MeetingsPDF
80 FR 19728 - In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia also known as FARC; also known as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amendedPDF
80 FR 19727 - Certification Related to the Government of Haiti Under Section 7045(E)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015PDF
80 FR 19673 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Food and Drug Administration's ‘Fresh Empire’ Multicultural Youth Tobacco Prevention CampaignPDF
80 FR 19591 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing; Flexible Package Printing; and Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and SolventsPDF
80 FR 19639 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Block Island Transmission SystemPDF
80 FR 19705 - Submission for Review: Election Regarding Payment of Health and/or Life Insurance Premiums (Negative Net Annuity), RI 79-31, 3206-XXXXPDF
80 FR 19633 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 106 Under Alternative Site Framework Oklahoma City, OklahomaPDF
80 FR 19632 - Expansion of Subzone 116B; Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., Port Arthur and Jefferson County, TexasPDF
80 FR 19633 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 174 Under Alternative Site Framework, Tucson, ArizonaPDF
80 FR 19635 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 19594 - Television Market Modification; Statutory ImplementationPDF
80 FR 19633 - Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 19659 - Proposed CERCLA Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action: Former Synergy Site, Claremont, New HampshirePDF
80 FR 19659 - Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Adam Spell, St. Albans Gas and Light Company Site, St. Albans, VermontPDF
80 FR 19660 - San Gabriel Valley Area 2 Superfund Site; Proposed Notice of Administrative SettlementPDF
80 FR 19611 - International Affairs; High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing VesselsPDF
80 FR 19649 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Saracen Power LPPDF
80 FR 19637 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2012PDF
80 FR 19533 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
80 FR 19544 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 19591 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 19553 - Tire Identification and RecordkeepingPDF
80 FR 19541 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia-Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of “Regulated NSR Pollutant” Concerning Condensable Particulate MatterPDF
80 FR 19593 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia-Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of “Regulated NSR Pollutant” Concerning Condensable Particulate MatterPDF
80 FR 19732 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 19696 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Containment Structural Wall Module Design DetailsPDF
80 FR 19642 - Service Contract Inventory for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014PDF
80 FR 19702 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Palisades Nuclear PlantPDF
80 FR 19685 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0165PDF
80 FR 19734 - Mutual Savings Association Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 19734 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19650 - Adelanto Solar II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 19658 - GenOn Energy Management, LLC v. ISO New England Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 19650 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 19657 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 19668 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19697 - Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power StationPDF
80 FR 19564 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management Reference Point Updates for Three Stocks of Pacific SalmonPDF
80 FR 19704 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1PDF
80 FR 19730 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 19686 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Joint Stipulation of Settlement Under the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and the Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-To-Know ActPDF
80 FR 19640 - National Technical Information Service Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 19534 - Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National CemeteryPDF
80 FR 19735 - Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National CemeteryPDF
80 FR 19666 - Network Solutions, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 19663 - TES Franchising, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 19729 - Public Notice for Waiver for Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance at Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City, OKPDF
80 FR 19701 - Information Collection: General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct MaterialPDF
80 FR 19703 - Information Collection: Standards for Protection Against RadiationPDF
80 FR 19705 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 19695 - Data Users Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting and AgendaPDF
80 FR 19643 - Applications for New Awards; Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 19686 - Plan of Operations and Related Categorical Exclusion for Plugging and Reclamation of Two Natural Gas Wells, Big Thicket National Preserve, TexasPDF
80 FR 19532 - Syrian Sanctions RegulationsPDF
80 FR 19663 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 19632 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 19658 - Mountaineer Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 19651 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 19656 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 19735 - Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19669 - Expedited Access for Premarket Approval and De Novo Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Diseases or Conditions; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 19672 - Balancing Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection for Devices Subject to Premarket Approval; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 19671 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ELVITEGRAVIRPDF
80 FR 19589 - Performance Standards for Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 19530 - Performance Standards for Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 19668 - Preparation for International Conference on Harmonization Steering Committee and Expert Working Group Meetings in Fukuoka, Japan; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 19675 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19662 - Solicitation of Statements of Interest for Membership on the Community Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 19638 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19640 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19630 - Notice of Intent To Accept Applications To Be an Intermediary Under the Loan Application Packaging Pilot Program Within the Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing ProgramPDF
80 FR 19721 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 19722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.11, and 11.16 Regarding the Limit Up-Limit Down PlanPDF
80 FR 19709 - Sprott Focus Trust, Inc. and Sprott Asset Management LP; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 19707 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 20.6 To Adopt a New Provision To Account for Erroneous Trades Occurring From Disruptions and/or Malfunctions of Exchange SystemsPDF
80 FR 19713 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Arbitration ForumPDF
80 FR 19715 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.11, and 11.16 Regarding the Limit Up-Limit Down PlanPDF
80 FR 19574 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19728 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods From KoreaPDF
80 FR 19695 - Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 19691 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 19694 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 19641 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19631 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-45, Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies With Foreign PersonsPDF
80 FR 19693 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 19693 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 19641 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19642 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19687 - Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
80 FR 19675 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 19551 - Use of Electronic Chain of Custody and Control Form in DOT-Regulated Drug Testing ProgramsPDF
80 FR 19678 - Accreditation of Nexeo Solutions LLC, as a Commercial LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 19677 - Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt, LP, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 19676 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 19522 - Revised Listings for Growth Disorders and Weight Loss in ChildrenPDF
80 FR 19538 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Approval of Air Pollution Emergency Episode PlanPDF
80 FR 19661 - Information Collection Approval for the Certification of TV Broadcast Licensee Technical Information in Advance of Incentive AuctionPDF
80 FR 19576 - Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport; Notice of Availability of Responses to Clarifying Questions; Request for Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 19548 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 19567 - Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-Up PeriodPDF
80 FR 19569 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Hearth ProductsPDF
80 FR 19851 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2015-16 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and Requests for 2017 Spring and Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in AlaskaPDF
80 FR 19511 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19515 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19520 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19517 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19577 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 19572 - Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19570 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 19737 - Protecting and Promoting the Open InternetPDF

Issue

80 70 Monday, April 13, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-up Period, 19567-19569 2015-08163 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19668 2015-08397 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Technical Information Service

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee, 19734-19735 2015-08404 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19641 2015-08315 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Post Card Application, 19641-19642 2015-08303 Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, 19642 2015-08302
Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies with Foreign Persons, 19631-19632 2015-08314 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 19632 2015-08370 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Impact Aid Discretionary Construction Grant Program, 19643-19648 2015-08376 Service Contract Inventories; FY 2014, 19642-19643 2015-08410 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19648-19649 2015-08530 2015-08531 2015-08532 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions; Exemptions, 19687-19691 2015-08301 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Worker Adjustment Assistance; Eligibility Investigations, 2015-08312 19693-19695 2015-08316 Worker and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Eligibility Determinations, 19691-19694 2015-08313 2015-08317 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Hearth Products, 19569-19570 2015-08154 NOTICES Applications to Export Electric Energy: Saracen Power, LP, 19649 2015-08424
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Revisions, 19544-19548 2015-08421 District of Columbia; Air Pollution Emergency Episode Plan, 19538-19541 2015-08182 Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 19548-19551 2015-08164 Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter, 19541-19544 2015-08417 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Revisions, 19591 2015-08419 Pennsylvania; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing; Flexible Package Printing; and Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and Solvents, 19591-19593 2015-08462 Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter, 19593-19594 2015-08414 NOTICES Permits: Four Corners Power Plant; Clean Air Act, 19660-19661 2015-08476 Settlements: Adam Spell, St. Albans Gas and Light Co. Site, St. Albans, VT, 19659-19660 2015-08428 Former Synergy Superfund Site in Claremont, NH, 19659 2015-08429 San Gabriel Valley Area 2 Superfund Site, 19660 2015-08427 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 19511-19522 2015-08103 2015-08113 2015-08114 2015-08116 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 19570-19572, 19574-19576 2015-08073 2015-08329 Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes, 19572-19574 2015-08074 Slots Management and Transparency: LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport; Responses to Clarifying Questions; Comment Period Extension, 19576-19577 2015-08168 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 19577-19589 2015-08098 NOTICES Aeronautical Land-use Assurances: Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Waiver, 19729-19730 2015-08382 Proposed Consent Orders: TES Franchising, LLC, 19663-19665 2015-08385 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, 19738-19850 2015-07841 PROPOSED RULES Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation, 19594-19611 2015-08435 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19661-19662 2015-08178 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 19650-19658 2015-08366 2015-08367 2015-08398 2015-08399 Complaints: GenOn Energy Management, LLC v. ISO New England, Inc., 19658-19659 2015-08400 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Adelanto Solar II, LLC, 19650-19651 2015-08401 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Mountaineer Gas Co., LLC, 19658 2015-08368 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 19732-19734 2015-08413 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 19730-19732 2015-08392 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 19663 2015-08372 Requests for Nominations: Community Advisory Council, 19662-19663 2015-08354 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Consent Orders: American International Mailing, Inc., 19665-19666 2015-08480 Network Solutions, LLC, 19666-19667 2015-08386 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations with Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and Spring and Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska, 19852-19863 2015-08152 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Fairbanks, AK; Record of Decision; Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 19678-19685 2015-08526 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Performance Standards: Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment, 19530-19532 2015-08360 PROPOSED RULES Performance Standards: Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment, 19589-19591 2015-08361 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of Fresh Empire Multicultural Youth Tobacco Prevention Campaign, 19673-19675 2015-08466 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Balancing Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection for Devices Subject to Premarket Approval, 19672-19673 2015-08363 Expedited Access for Premarket Approval and De Novo Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Diseases or Conditions, 19669-19671 2015-08364 Meetings: Harmonization Steering Committee and Expert Working Group Meetings; Fukuoka, Japan; International Conference, 19668-19669 2015-08359 Patent Extension Regulatory Review Periods: ELVITEGRAVIR, 19671-19672 2015-08362 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Syrian Sanctions, 19532-19533 2015-08374 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Reorganization under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 106, Oklahoma City, OK, 19633 2015-08457 Foreign-Trade Zone 174, Tucson, AZ, 19633 2015-08444 Expansions: Total Petrochemicals and Refining USA, Inc., Subzone 116B, Port Arthur and Jefferson County, TX, 19632-19633 2015-08456 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19675 2015-08298
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, 19633-19635 2015-08430 Lined Paper Products from India, 19637-19638 2015-08423 Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 19635-19637 2015-08436 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Settlements: Clean Air Act, CERCLA, and Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-To-Know Act; Proposed Joint Stipulations, 19686-19687 2015-08391 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Data Users Advisory Committee, 19695 2015-08378 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19685 2015-08408 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, 19553-19564 2015-08418 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Pacific Salmon; Three Stocks; Management Reference Point Updates, 19564-19566 2015-08394 PROPOSED RULES International Affairs: High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels, 19611-19629 2015-08425 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-08352 19638-19640 2015-08353 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Construction of the Block Island Transmission System, 19639-19640 2015-08461 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Plans of Operation and Related Categorical Exclusions: Plugging and Reclamation of Two Natural Gas Wells, Big Thicket National Preserve, TX, 19686 2015-08375 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 19695-19696 2015-08322 National Technical National Technical Information Service NOTICES Meetings: National Technical Information Service Advisory Board, 19640 2015-08390 Navy Navy Department RULES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; Certifications and Exemptions, 19533-19534 2015-08422 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct Material, 19701-19702 2015-08381 Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 19703-19704 2015-08380 Exemptions: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station, 19697-19701 2015-08395 Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Co.; Containment Structural Wall Module Design Details; License Amendment, 19696-19697 2015-08411 License Amendment Applications: Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, 19704 2015-08393 Petitions: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Decision, 19702-19703 2015-08409 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Election Regarding Payment of Health and/or Life Insurance Premiums; Negative Net Annuity, 19705 2015-08460 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Safety -- Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management Systems, 19734 C1--2015--08115 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day (Proc. 9252), 19865-19868 2015-08606 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Applications: Intermediaries under the Loan Application Packaging Pilot Program Within the Direct Single Family Housing Program, 19630-19631 2015-08351 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Sprott Focus Trust, Inc. and Sprott Asset Management, LP, 19709-19713 2015-08338 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 19707-19709 2015-08337 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 19705-19707, 19713-19715, 19721-19722 2015-08336 2015-08340 2015-08379 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 19722-19727 2015-08339 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 19715-19721 2015-08335 Social Social Security Administration RULES Revised Listings for Growth Disorders and Weight Loss in Children, 19522-19530 2015-08185 State Department State Department NOTICES Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia also known as FARC also known as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, 19728 2015-08472 Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act: Certifications Related to Government of Haiti, 19727-19728 2015-08468 Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 19728 2015-08475 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19675-19676 2015-08358 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States: Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 19728-19729 2015-08326 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

RULES Use of Electronic Chain of Custody and Control Form in DOT-Regulated Drug Testing Programs, 19551-19553 2015-08256 NOTICES Meetings: Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee, 19734 2015-08403
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Intertek, USA, Inc., Carteret, NJ, 19676-19677 2015-08188 Nexeo Solutions, LLC, Pasadena, TX, 19678 2015-08190 Saybolt, LP, Wilmington, NC, 19677-19678 2015-08189 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National Cemetery, 19534-19538 2015-08388 NOTICES Meetings: Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, 19735 2015-08365 Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National Cemetery, 19735-19736 2015-08387 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 19738-19850 2015-07841 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 19852-19863 2015-08152 Part IV Presidential Documents, 19865-19868 2015-08606 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 70 Monday, April 13, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31011; Amdt. No. 3638] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 13, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication
AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7718 02/27/15 This NOTAM, published in TL 15-09, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 30-Apr-15 IA Decorah Decorah Muni 4/0112 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 ND Dickinson Dickinson—Theodore Roosevelt Rgnl 4/0517 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig. 30-Apr-15 MN Duluth Duluth Intl 4/0964 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 10. 30-Apr-15 MN Duluth Duluth Intl 4/0967 03/17/15 COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 MN Duluth Duluth Intl 4/0969 03/17/15 VOR OR TACAN RWY 3, Amdt 21. 30-Apr-15 MN Duluth Duluth Intl 4/0971 03/17/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 21, Amdt 15. 30-Apr-15 FL Tallahassee Tallahassee Rgnl 4/1324 03/16/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 36, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 FL Tallahassee Tallahassee Rgnl 4/1325 03/16/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 36, Amdt 25. 30-Apr-15 FL Tallahassee Tallahassee Rgnl 4/1326 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 FL Tallahassee Tallahassee Rgnl 4/1327 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 FL Tallahassee Tallahassee Rgnl 4/1328 03/16/15 VOR RWY 18, Amdt 12. 30-Apr-15 OH Dayton James M Cox Dayton Intl 4/9763 03/17/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 6L, Orig. 30-Apr-15 OH Dayton James M Cox Dayton Intl 4/9819 03/17/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 24R, Orig. 30-Apr-15 MS Tupelo Tupelo Rgnl 5/0003 03/17/15 NDB RWY 36, Amdt 5. 30-Apr-15 KY Murray Kyle-Oakley Field 5/0031 03/12/15 LOC RWY 23, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 NE O'Neill The O'Neill Muni-John L Baker Field 5/0039 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 NE O'Neill The O'Neill Muni-John L Baker Field 5/0040 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 NE O'Neill The O'Neill Muni-John L Baker Field 5/0041 03/12/15 VOR RWY 13, Amdt 5C. 30-Apr-15 NE O'Neill The O'Neill Muni-John L Baker Field 5/0042 03/12/15 VOR RWY 31, Amdt 1B. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/0170 03/12/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, ILS RWY 26L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 26L (CAT II & III), Amdt 21B. 30-Apr-15 IL Champaign/Urbana University Of Illinois-Willard 5/0172 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32R, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 GA Donalsonville Donalsonville Muni 5/0261 03/12/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 30-Apr-15 GA Donalsonville Donalsonville Muni 5/0262 03/12/15 VOR/DME A, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 IL Cahokia/St Louis St Louis Downtown 5/0302 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30L, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 MI Cheboygan Cheboygan County 5/0357 03/12/15 VOR RWY 10, Amdt 9A. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/0820 03/12/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 12L, ILS RWY 12L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 12L (CAT II & III), Amdt 10. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/0826 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 12R, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/0828 03/12/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 12R, ILS RWY 12R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 12 R (CAT II & III), Amdt 11. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/0829 03/12/15 ILS V RWY 30R (CONVERGING), Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/1099 03/12/15 LOC RWY 4, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/1100 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/1101 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2A. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/1104 03/12/15 LOC RWY 22, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MN Minneapolis Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 5/1105 03/12/15 LOC RWY 17, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 AK Deadhorse Deadhorse 5/1136 03/17/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 AK Deadhorse Deadhorse 5/1218 03/17/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 GA Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Muni 5/1448 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 TN Somerville Fayette County 5/1454 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2A. 30-Apr-15 TN Somerville Fayette County 5/1455 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 TN Somerville Fayette County 5/1456 03/12/15 NDB RWY 19, Amdt 1B. 30-Apr-15 KY Greenville Muhlenberg County 5/1460 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 KY Greenville Muhlenberg County 5/1461 03/12/15 VOR/DME A, Amdt 5A. 30-Apr-15 KY Greenville Muhlenberg County 5/1462 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig. 30-Apr-15 FL Marianna Marianna Muni 5/1463 03/12/15 NDB-C, Amdt 4A. 30-Apr-15 FL Marianna Marianna Muni 5/1464 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig. 30-Apr-15 FL Marianna Marianna Muni 5/1465 03/12/15 VOR-A, Amdt 12. 30-Apr-15 FL Marianna Marianna Muni 5/1466 03/12/15 VOR-B, Amdt 5. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/1479 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Amdt 2C. 30-Apr-15 NC Elizabeth City Elizabeth City CG Air Station/Rgnl 5/2546 03/12/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 IL Champaign/Urbana University Of Illinois-Willard 5/3060 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston Ellington 5/3252 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston Ellington 5/3285 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 3E. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3680 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 33L, ILS RWY 33L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 33L (CAT II & III), Amdt 5B. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3681 03/18/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 4R (CAT II & III), Amdt 10A. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3683 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Amdt 8A. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3684 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2B. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3685 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 15R, Amdt 1D. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3686 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3687 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15R, Amdt 1B. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3688 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3689 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-C. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3690 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-E. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3691 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33L, Amdt 2A. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3692 03/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 27, Amdt 2D. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3693 03/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 33L, Amdt 2E. 30-Apr-15 MA Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5/3694 03/17/15 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 IL Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling Chicago Executive 5/3702 03/17/15 VOR RWY 16, Orig-D. 30-Apr-15 IL Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling Chicago Executive 5/3703 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1C. 30-Apr-15 IL Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling Chicago Executive 5/3704 03/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 2B. 30-Apr-15 MS Tupelo Tupelo Rgnl 5/3740 03/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 18, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 IL Sparta Sparta Community-Hunter Field 5/3776 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 IL Sparta Sparta Community-Hunter Field 5/3777 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3880 03/16/15 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 9D. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3881 03/16/15 NDB RWY 31, Amdt 9A. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3882 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3883 03/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3884 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 GA Winder Barrow County 5/3885 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig. 30-Apr-15 AL Montgomery Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field) 5/3898 03/16/15 ILS Y OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 11A. 30-Apr-15 AL Montgomery Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field) 5/3899 03/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 23H. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3912 03/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3913 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3914 03/16/15 VOR RWY 24, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3916 03/16/15 VOR RWY 6, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3918 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2B. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3924 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 5/3925 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 VA Bumpass Lake Anna 5/3929 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig. 30-Apr-15 VA Bumpass Lake Anna 5/3931 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig. 30-Apr-15 AL Fort Payne Isbell Field 5/3934 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig. 30-Apr-15 AL Fort Payne Isbell Field 5/3935 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 22, Orig. 30-Apr-15 AL Fort Payne Isbell Field 5/3936 03/16/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 22, Orig. 30-Apr-15 AL Fort Payne Isbell Field 5/3937 03/16/15 NDB-A, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 GA Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Muni 5/3938 03/16/15 LOC/NDB RWY 2, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 NY Saratoga Springs Saratoga County 5/3940 03/17/15 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 NY Saratoga Springs Saratoga County 5/3941 03/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 NY Ithaca Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl 5/3973 03/18/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Orig. 30-Apr-15 NY Ithaca Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl 5/3974 03/18/15 VOR RWY 14, Amdt 14. 30-Apr-15 NY Ithaca Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl 5/3975 03/18/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 30-Apr-15 NY Ithaca Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl 5/3976 03/18/15 VOR RWY 32, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 NY Ithaca Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl 5/3977 03/18/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 6. 30-Apr-15 IL De Kalb De Kalb Taylor Muni 5/4154 03/17/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 4. 30-Apr-15 AK Minchumina Minchumina 5/6388 03/24/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 AK Minchumina Minchumina 5/6392 03/24/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 NE Broken Bow Broken Bow Muni/Keith Glaze Fld 5/7325 03/04/15 VOR/DME RWY 32, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 NE Broken Bow Broken Bow Muni/Keith Glaze Fld 5/7326 03/04/15 VOR RWY 14, Amdt 4B. 30-Apr-15 IN Bloomington Monroe County 5/7722 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/8164 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2A. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/8165 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2B. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/8169 03/12/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/8170 03/12/15 NDB RWY 1, Amdt 14A. 30-Apr-15 NY Farmingdale Republic 5/8171 03/12/15 ILS OR LOC RWY14, Amdt 8D. 30-Apr-15 IN Bedford Virgil I Grissom Muni 5/9652 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 IN Bedford Virgil I Grissom Muni 5/9653 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston Ellington 5/9655 03/17/15 TACAN RWY 4, Orig. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston Ellington 5/9673 03/17/15 TACAN RWY 22, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 IN French Lick French Lick Muni 5/9708 03/05/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 IN French Lick French Lick Muni 5/9709 03/05/15 RNAV (GPS) 26, Orig. 30-Apr-15 IL Moline Quad City Intl 5/9716 03/05/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 31.
[FR Doc. 2015-08116 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31010; Amdt. No. 3637] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 13, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 30 April 2015 Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 1 Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 26R, Amdt 4 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, Amdt 3A Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16R, ILS RWY 16R (CAT II), ILS RWY 16R (CAT III), ILS RWY 16R (SA CAT I), Amdt 16A Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 7D Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16L, Amdt 2A Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16R, Amdt 2A Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, Amdt 2 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Amdt 1 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Amdt 1 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34L, Amdt 1 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34R, Amdt 1 San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 3 Plainville, CT, Robertson Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig Plainville, CT, Robertson Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Y RWY 19, Orig Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Z RWY 19, Amdt 3 Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, ROSSLYN LDA RWY 19, Amdt 15, CANCELED Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (RNP) RWY 19, Amdt 2 Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 1L, ILS RWY 1L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 1L (CAT II), ILS RWY 1L (CAT III), Amdt 17 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5L, ILS RWY 5L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 5L (CAT II), ILS RWY 5L (CAT III), Amdt 4 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, ILS RWY 5R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 5R (CAT II), ILS RWY 5R (CAT III), Amdt 6 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 6 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23L, Amdt 6 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23R, Amdt 4 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 20 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5L, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5R, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 14, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23L, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23R, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32, Amdt 3 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5L, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5R, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23L, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23R, Amdt 1 Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32, Amdt 1 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 30R, Orig Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 35, Amdt 2 Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl, RADAR-1, Amdt 12 Canandaigua, NY, Canandaigua, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1 Dunkirk, NY, Chautauqua County/Dunkirk, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 8 Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, ILS OR LOC RWY 13R, Amdt 10 Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, NDB-B, Amdt 3 Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13R, Amdt 2 Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31L, Amdt 1 Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, VOR/DME-C, Amdt 1 Salem, OR, McNary Fld, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 31, Amdt 30 Salem, OR, McNary Fld, LOC/DME BC RWY 13, Amdt 8 Salem, OR, McNary Fld, LOC Y RWY 31, Amdt 3 Salem, OR, McNary Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 3 Rapid City, SD, Rapid City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2B Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, NDB-A, Amdt 1A Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-C Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clyde Ice Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-C Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 15, Amdt 24 Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1 Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 15, Orig-D, CANCELED Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 11F, CANCELED Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, VOR/DME RWY 1, Orig
[FR Doc. 2015-08114 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31009; Amdt. No. 3636] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 13, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
§§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication
AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 30-Apr-15 PA Doylestown Doylestown 5/1883 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 PA Doylestown Doylestown 5/1884 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig. 30-Apr-15 WI Lone Rock Tri-County Rgnl 5/2415 02/27/15 VOR A, Amdt 7. 30-Apr-15 WI Lone Rock Tri-County Rgnl 5/2416 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig. 30-Apr-15 WI Lone Rock Tri-County Rgnl 5/2417 02/27/15 LOC RWY 27, Orig. 30-Apr-15 FL Tampa Tampa Intl 5/3591 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19L, Amdt 2C. 30-Apr-15 FL Tampa Tampa Intl 5/3592 02/27/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 19L, Amdt 1D. 30-Apr-15 FL Tampa Tampa Intl 5/3593 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MO Columbia Columbia Rgnl 5/3800 02/27/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 2, Amdt 15. 30-Apr-15 WI Lone Rock Tri-County Rgnl 5/5432 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig. 30-Apr-15 TX Dallas Dallas Love Field 5/5494 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13R, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 TX Dallas Dallas Love Field 5/5495 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31L, Amdt 1B. 30-Apr-15 TN Clarksville Outlaw Field 5/5846 02/27/15 LOC RWY 35, Amdt 5G. 30-Apr-15 TN Clarksville Outlaw Field 5/5847 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 TN Clarksville Outlaw Field 5/5848 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 TN Clarksville Outlaw Field 5/5849 02/27/15 VOR RWY 35, Amdt 15F. 30-Apr-15 KY Jackson Julian Carroll 5/5917 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 KY Jackson Julian Carroll 5/5918 02/27/15 VOR/DME RWY 1, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 NJ Mount Holly South Jersey Rgnl 5/5999 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 NJ Mount Holly South Jersey Rgnl 5/6004 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 NJ Mount Holly South Jersey Rgnl 5/6005 02/27/15 VOR RWY 26, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 MI Frankfort Frankfort Dow Memorial Field 5/6376 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 MI Frankfort Frankfort Dow Memorial Field 5/6377 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 MI Frankfort Frankfort Dow Memorial Field 5/6378 02/27/15 VOR/DME A, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 FL Jacksonville Jacksonville Intl 5/6411 03/04/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 14, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 FL Jacksonville Jacksonville Intl 5/6412 03/04/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 8, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 NY Hamilton Hamilton Muni 5/6691 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17, Orig. 30-Apr-15 NY Hamilton Hamilton Muni 5/6692 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 17, Orig. 30-Apr-15 NY Hamilton Hamilton Muni 5/6693 03/02/15 VOR-A, Amdt 4. 30-Apr-15 NY Hamilton Hamilton Muni 5/6694 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 MI Alma Gratiot Community 5/6701 02/27/15 VOR/DME RWY 18, Amdt 1. 4/30/2015 OH Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Rgnl 5/6702 02/27/15 VOR/DME RWY 27, Amdt 6C. 30-Apr-15 OH Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Rgnl 5/6703 02/27/15 VOR RWY 9, Orig-C. 30-Apr-15 OH Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Rgnl 5/6704 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 OH Ashtabula Northeast Ohio Rgnl 5/6705 02/27/05 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-B. 30-Apr-15 MI Alma Gratiot Community 5/6709 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 AR Fayetteville Drake Field 5/6847 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 IN Fort Wayne Fort Wayne Intl 5/7035 02/27/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 30. 30-Apr-15 IN Fort Wayne Fort Wayne Intl 5/7036 02/27/15 LOC BC RWY 14, Amdt 15A. 30-Apr-15 IN Logansport Logansport/Cass County 5/7038 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 WI Friendship (Adams) Adams County Legion Field 5/7707 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig. 30-Apr-15 IA Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Muni 5/7708 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig. 30-Apr-15 IA Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Muni 5/7709 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig. 30-Apr-15 IA Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Muni 5/7710 02/27/15 NDB RWY 33, Amdt 6. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7714 02/27/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 27, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7716 02/27/15 GLS RWY 27, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7717 02/27/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 27, ILS RWY 27 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 27 (CAT II & III), Amdt 10A. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7718 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 26R, Amdt 4. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7719 02/27/15 GLS RWY 26R, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7720 02/27/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 26R, ILS RWY 26R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 26R (CAT II & III), Amdt 4. 30-Apr-15 TX Houston George Bush Intercontinental/Houston 5/7721 02/27/15 GLS RWY 8L, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 IL Marion Williamson County Rgnl 5/7723 03/04/15 VOR RWY 2, Amdt 13C. 30-Apr-15 IL Macomb Macomb Muni 5/7726 03/04/15 LOC RWY 27, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 IL Macomb Macomb Muni 5/7727 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 MI Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker 5/7728 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 MI Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker 5/7729 02/27/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MI Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker 5/7730 02/27/15 VOR RWY 28, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 MI Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker 5/7731 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 MI Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker 5/7732 02/27/15 VOR RWY 10, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 KY Falmouth Gene Snyder 5/8172 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 KY Falmouth Gene Snyder 5/8173 03/02/15 VOR-A, Amdt 3. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8180 03/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 21L, Amdt 8A. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8181 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) RWY 3R, Amdt 2. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8182 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 21L, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8183 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21L, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8184 03/02/15 VOR/DME RWY 21L, Amdt 2A. 30-Apr-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/8185 03/02/15 VOR/DME-D, Amdt 1. 30-Apr-15 TN Winchester Winchester Muni 5/8190 03/02/15 NDB RWY 18, Amdt 6. 30-Apr-15 TN Winchester Winchester Muni 5/8191 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 30-Apr-15 TN Winchester Winchester Muni 5/8192 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 18, Orig. 30-Apr-15 TN Winchester Winchester Muni 5/8193 03/02/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18, Orig. 30-Apr-15 ME Millinocket Millinocket Muni 5/8194 02/27/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1A. 30-Apr-15 ME Millinocket Millinocket Muni 5/8195 03/02/15 VOR RWY 29, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8357 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34R, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8358 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8359 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8360 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8361 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8362 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8363 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 CO Denver Denver Intl 5/8364 03/02/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34L, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 IL Savanna Tri-Township 5/9649 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A. 30-Apr-15 IL Decatur Decatur 5/9650 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig. 30-Apr-15 IL Decatur Decatur 5/9651 03/04/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1.
[FR Doc. 2015-08103 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31008; Amdt. No. 3635] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 13, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

Part 97—Standard Instrument Approach Procedures 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 30 April 2015 Conway, AR, Dennis F Cantrell Field, NDB-A, Amdt 2, CANCELED Conway, AR, Dennis F Cantrell Field, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig, CANCELED Conway, AR, Dennis F Cantrell Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2, CANCELED San Jose, CA, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30R, Amdt 3 Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 10 Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 2 Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 6E Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 7C Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 15B Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2 Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1A Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1B Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1B Peoria, IL, General Downing—Peoria Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Peoria, IL, Mount Hawley Auxiliary, VOR-A, Amdt 4, CANCELED Peoria, IL, Mount Hawley Auxiliary, VOR/DME-A, Orig Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 27E Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 11B Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 2D Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1D Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 17C Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan Field, VOR/DME RWY 22R, Amdt 8H Gonzales, LA, Louisiana Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B Gonzales, LA, Louisiana Rgnl, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A Lafayette, LA, Lafayette Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-B New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1A New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 2A New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4A Detroit, MI, Willow Run, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 10A Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, ILS V RWY 35 (CONVERGING), Amdt 4 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, ILS Z OR LOC RWY 35, ILS Z RWY 35 (SA CAT I), ILS Z RWY 35 (CAT II), ILS Z RWY 35 (CAT III), Amdt 4 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 30L, Amdt 4 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 35, Amdt 3 Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 12L, Orig Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 12R, Orig Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 30L, Orig New Ulm, MN, New Ulm Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 2A, CANCELED New Ulm, MN, New Ulm Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 2A, CANCELED Steele, MO, Steele Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig Steele, MO, Steele Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig Steele, MO, Steele Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 28R, Amdt 2 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10L, Amdt 3 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 3 Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Orig Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 7 Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, GPS RWY 1, Orig, CANCELED Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, GPS RWY 19, Orig, CANCELED Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, Amdt 8 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, ILS RWY 18R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 18R (CAT II), ILS RWY 18R (CAT III), Amdt 1 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36L, ILS RWY 36L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 36L (CAT II), ILS RWY 36L (CAT III), Amdt 1 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36R, ILS RWY 36R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 36R (CAT II), ILS RWY 36R (CAT III), Amdt 12 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18L, Amdt 4 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 18R, Amdt 1 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36L, Amdt 1 Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36R, Amdt 4 Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, ILS OR LOC Y RWY 3, Orig Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 3, Amdt 2 Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 2 Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1 Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1 Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Curtis, NE., Curtis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig Curtis, NE., Curtis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig Curtis, NE., Curtis Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Oklahoma City, OK, Wiley Post, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Amdt 2A Houston, TX, Houston Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A Kingsville, TX, Kleberg County, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 6, CANCELED New Braunfels, TX, New Braunfels Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1 New Braunfels, TX, New Braunfels Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1 Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2 Siren, WI, Burnett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig Siren, WI, Burnett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig Siren, WI, Burnett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig Siren, WI, Burnett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig Siren, WI, Burnett County, VOR RWY 5, Amdt 3
[FR Doc. 2015-08113 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2011-0081] RIN 0960-AG28 Revised Listings for Growth Disorders and Weight Loss in Children AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule adopts, with one change, the rule for evaluating growth disorders in children we proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2013. Several body systems in the Listing of Impairments (listings) contain listings for children based on impairment of linear growth or weight loss. We are replacing those listings with new listings for low birth weight (LBW) and failure to thrive; a new listing for genitourinary impairments; and revised listings for growth failure in combination with a respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, or immune system disorder. These revisions reflect our program experience, advances in medical knowledge, and comments we received from medical experts and the public.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

We are adopting, as final, the rule for evaluating growth disorders in children we proposed in an NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2013 at 78 FR 30249. We made one addition to this rule as the result of a public comment suggesting we provide guidance for evaluating LBW in children born at less than 32 weeks gestation or weighing less than 1325 grams. We revised the table in listing 100.04B to include 32 weeks in the Gestational Age column because we believe that this guidance is appropriate.

The preamble to the NPRM discussed the remaining changes from our current rule and our reasons for proposing those changes. To the extent that we are adopting the proposed rule as published, we are not repeating that information here. Interested readers may refer to the preamble to the NPRM, available at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number SSA-2011-0081.

Why are we revising the listings for evaluating growth disorders in children?

We are revising the listings for evaluating growth disorders in children to update the medical criteria, provide more information on how we evaluate growth disorders, reflect our program experience, and address adjudicator questions.

Public Comments on the NPRM

In the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period, which ended on July 22, 2013. We received six comments. The commenters included state agencies that make disability determinations for us, the National Association of Disability Examiners, medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, and advocacy groups, such as the Endocrine Society. We carefully considered all of the comments, summarized the commenters' views, and responded to all of the significant issues that were within the scope of this rule. Some commenters noted provisions with which they agreed and did not make suggestions for changes in those provisions. We did not summarize or respond to those comments.

Listing 100.04 Low Birth Weight in Infants From Birth to Attainment of Age 1 Low Birth Weight

Comment: One commenter suggested that we provide guidance in the listings at 100.04A or 100.04B, or in the introductory text at 100.00, on diaries used to schedule continuing disability reviews (CDR) for LBW infants. The commenter believes that, while this guidance is already in our internal operating instructions, providing it in the regulations would reduce the number of incorrect diaries being set for LBW cases.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. In 100.00B, we include a reference to our rule for CDRs for LBW cases at § 416.990(b)(11). Additionally, the Act requires, with one exception, that we perform a CDR not later than 12 months after the birth of an infant whose LBW is a contributing factor material to the determination that the infant is disabled. We will continue to provide guidance on diaries for LBW cases and cases involving other disabling impairments in our internal operating instructions. We do not believe it is necessary to repeat this guidance in the regulation.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that listing 100.04 suggests that LBW is a disability. The commenter felt that it should be clear that weight is “a proxy measure for prematurity, dysphagia, and other functional impairments that are associated with disabilities, rather than weight as a disability itself.” The commenter did not provide suggested language to include in our rule.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. We agree that, for the purposes of listing 100.04, weight is a proxy measure for disability in infants from birth to the attainment of age 1. However, we do not believe that providing additional guidance is necessary for the clarity of our rule. As we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we based listing 100.04 on sections 416.926a(m)(6) and (m)(7) of our functional equivalence rule.1 Our adjudicators have over 20 years of experience evaluating claims filed on behalf of children based on LBW under our functional equivalence rule. In our experience applying this rule, we have not found that the type of guidance the commenter suggested is necessary in order to apply the rule properly.

1 78 FR at 30350.

Evaluating Infants Born at 33 Weeks Weighing Less Than 1325 Grams

Comment: One commenter suggested that we add guidance for evaluating infants who weigh between 1200 grams and 1325 grams, and who are born at gestational ages of 32 weeks or less.

Response: We partially adopted this comment. We agree that it is appropriate to provide guidance for evaluating LBW in infants who are born at 32 weeks gestational age. We revised the table in 100.04B to provide a birth weight value of 1250 grams or less for the gestational age of 32 weeks. However, we did not provide birth weight values for gestational ages less than 32 weeks. The birth weight values that we would provide for infants born at less than 32 weeks would be less than 1200 grams and, thus, the birth weight would meet the criterion in 100.04A.

Listing 100.05 Failure To Thrive in Children From Birth to Attainment of Age 3 Growth Measurements

Comment: One commenter recommended including growth curves in 100.05A to make administrative processing for pediatricians easier. Another commenter suggested that we make determinations based on growth measurements alone without requiring a diagnosis of developmental delay.

Response: We did not adopt these comments. In 100.05A, we require three weight-for-length measurements or body mass index (BMI)-for-age measurements that are within a 12-month period, at least 60-days apart, and less than the third percentile on the appropriate table in listing 105.08B.2. The adjudicator making the disability determination uses the information from growth curves provided by the child's pediatrician to find the corresponding values on the tables provided. We do not believe it is necessary to include the growth curves in the listing because our adjudicators use the listing, rather than the pediatrician who evaluates a child.

As we stated in the NPRM, our program experience has shown that growth failure alone is not disabling (78 FR at 30251). To meet the severity requirements for listing 100.05B, the child must have growth failure with a developmental delay of the appropriate severity required by the listing. Children with growth failure without developmental delay may be evaluated in the appropriate body system of the underlying condition causing the growth failure.

Developmental Testing

Comment: One commenter questioned the requirement for two narrative developmental reports in 100.05C and the requirement that these two reports be at least 120 days apart. This commenter suggested that, if we keep the requirement for two reports, we should require a shorter period of either 30 or 60 days between them. Another commenter also expressed concern about the requirements for the evidence of developmental delay. This commenter was concerned about the availability of these records from providers.

Response: We did not adopt these comments. In 100.05C, we require two narrative developmental reports when a report of a standardized developmental assessment required by 100.05B is not available. As we explained in the NPRM, abnormal findings noted on repeated examinations, and information in narrative developmental reports, that may include the results of developmental screening tests, can identify a child who is not developing or achieving skills within expected timeframes.2

2 78 FR at 30251.

We do not believe that 30 or 60 days is enough time for these kinds of changes to appear on testing. We believe that 120 days is an appropriate period for developmental testing to be performed and to allow for any changes in development to show on testing.

While we understand the commenter's concern about the availability of evidence, we believe that, for the children whose impairments we evaluate under listing 100.05, evidence generally will be available from providers because these children are likely to be identified, and subsequently treated because of their identification, by early intervention programs.

Comment: One commenter noted that most early intervention programs use “a 25 percent delay criteria as opposed to the two-thirds criteria” required in 100.05C. However, the commenter did not provide any suggestions for changing the criterion.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. We recognize that early intervention programs often use a 25 percent delay criterion to determine eligibility for intervention services and to identify the needed services. In contrast, we evaluate a child's delay to determine whether the underlying impairment is disabling because it results in “marked and severe functional limitations.” An impairment results in “marked and severe functional limitations” only if it meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the listings. An impairment is of listing-level severity if it results in “marked” limitations in two domains of functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one domain.3 The level of delay that we require in 100.05C is consistent with our definition of “marked limitation” in § 416.926a(e)(2)(ii).

3 See 20 CFR 416.926a(a).

Comment: One commenter expressed concern about acceptable timeframes for performing developmental testing in relation to disability determinations stated in 100.05B and 100.05C. The commenter suggested that the testing to establish the child's current level of development be performed within 6 months of adjudication.

Response: We partially adopted this comment. We agree that evidence about a child's development must be recent and current in relation to a disability determination, and we have revised listings 100.05B and 100.05C2 to clarify this requirement. However, the facts in a specific case determine whether the evidence is current. Determining factors include, but are not limited to, the age of the child, the amount of delay, and the developmental trajectory documented over time. We are not setting specific timeframes for when developmental testing must be performed, but we are specifying that the evidence must reflect the child's current development.

Linear Growth

Comment: One commenter agreed with our use of weight-for-length and BMI-for-age charts to evaluate growth failure, rather than of linear (height or length) growth charts. The commenter expressed concern, however, that an underlying condition could cause a child to have such profound growth failure that BMI for the child's age would become normal, despite his or her significant growth failure.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. We understand the commenter's concerns that some children may have underlying conditions that cause linear growth impairments while their BMI-for-age measurements are normal. After attainment of age 2, most children without an underlying medical disorder follow a growth trajectory that remains fairly constant during childhood.

Our adjudicative experience has shown that a declining linear growth rate is not always indicative of a disabling condition. Short stature, length, or height below the third percentile, in and of itself, is not a medically determinable impairment, although it can be the result of a medically determinable impairment. We will evaluate children with growth failure that does not meet the requirements of listings 100.04 and 100.05 and is associated with a known medically determinable impairment under the affected body system.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that, while the majority of children over the age of 3 with growth failure have signs and symptoms of an underlying disorder in the respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, genitourinary, or immune body system, some children over the age of 3 will not. This commenter suggested that we include exceptions for conditions, such as Turner syndrome (female hypogonadism) and acquired growth hormone deficiency, where growth failure may be a significant component of the disease process.

Response: We did not adopt this comment. After a child attains age 3, we will evaluate his or her impairment under the affected body system. The two examples provided by the commenter are endocrine disorders. Although these two disorders are not listed impairments for children, they may rise to listing-level severity because of their effects in other body systems. As the commenter explained, children with Turner syndrome may experience complications, such as heart disease, to a degree that is disabling. We would evaluate the complications under the affected body system.

Listing 103.06 Growth Failure Due to Any Chronic Respiratory Disorder

Comment: Two commenters were concerned with the requirement for oxygen supplementation in 103.06A. The commenters noted that some respiratory disorders, such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, could result in listing-level growth failure without requiring oxygen supplementation.

Response: We did not adopt these comments. We agree with the commenters that some respiratory disorders could result in listing-level growth failure without requiring oxygen supplementation; however, we did not revise 103.06 as a result. We use other listings, such as 103.02, 103.03, and 103.04, in the respiratory body system to evaluate these disorders.4 We believe that these respiratory listings, and our functional equivalence rule for evaluating disability in children, adequately address the disorders referred to by the commenters.5

4 See 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, Appendix 1.

5 See 20 CFR 416.924a and 416.926a.

What is our authority to make rules and set procedures for determining whether a person is disabled under the statutory definition?

The Act authorizes us to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to implement them.6

6 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 902(a)(5), and 1383(d)(1).

When will we use this final rule?

We will begin to use this final rule on its effective date. We will continue to use the current listings until the date this final rule becomes effective. We will apply the final rule to new applications filed on or after the effective date of the final rule and to claims that are pending on or after the effective date.7

7 This means that we will use this final rule on and after its effective date in any case in which we make a determination or decision. We expect that Federal courts will review our final decisions using the rule that was in effect at the time we issued the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a case for further administrative proceedings after the effective date of this final rule, we will apply this final rule to the entire period at issue in the decision we make after the court's remand.

How long will this final rule be effective?

This final rule will remain in effect for 5 years after the date it becomes effective, unless we extend it or revise and issue it again.

Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.

20 CFR Part 416

Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I as set forth below:

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

Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

2. Amend appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 as follows: a. Revise item 1 of the introductory text before part A of appendix 1. b. Amend part B by revising the body system name for section 100.00 in the table of contents. c. Revise sections 100.00 and 100.01 of part B. d. Remove sections 100.02 and 100.03 of part B. e. Add sections 100.04 and 100.05 of part B f. Add section 103.00F of part B. g. Add listing 103.06 of part B. h. Revise section 104.00C2b introductory text of part B. i. Revise section 104.00C2b(ii) of part B. j. Add section 104.00C3 of part B. k. Revise listing 104.02C of part B. l. Revise section 105.00G of part B. m. Revise listing 105.08 of part B. n. Redesignate section 106.00C5 of part B as 106.00C6 and add new section 106.00C5. o. Add listing 106.08 of part B. p. Add section 114.00F4d of part B. q. Revise listing 114.08H of part B.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

APPENDIX 1 TO SUBPART P OF PART 404—LISTING OF IMPAIRMENTS

1. Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive (100.00): June 12, 2020.

Part B

100.00 Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive.

100.00 LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND FAILURE TO THRIVE

A. What conditions do we evaluate under these listings? We evaluate low birth weight (LBW) in infants from birth to attainment of age 1 and failure to thrive (FTT) in infants and toddlers from birth to attainment of age 3.

B. How do we evaluate disability based on LBW under 100.04? In 100.04A and 100.04B, we use an infant's birth weight as documented by an original or certified copy of the infant's birth certificate or by a medical record signed by a physician. Birth weight means the first weight recorded after birth. In 100.04B, gestational age is the infant's age based on the date of conception as recorded in the medical record. If the infant's impairment meets the requirements for listing 100.04A or 100.04B, we will follow the rule in § 416.990(b)(11) of this chapter.

C. How do we evaluate disability based on FTT under 100.05?

1. General. We establish FTT with or without a known cause when we have documentation of an infant's or a toddler's growth failure and developmental delay from an acceptable medical source(s) as defined in § 416.913(a) of this chapter. We require documentation of growth measurements in 100.05A and developmental delay described in 100.05B or 100.05C within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of developmental testing and reports may be different from the dates of growth measurements. After the attainment of age 3, we evaluate growth failure under the affected body system(s).

2. Growth failure. Under 100.05A, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile. The child does not need to have a digestive disorder for purposes of 100.05.

a. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

b. For children age 2 to attainment of age 3, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

c. BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

d. Growth measurements. The weight-for-length measurements for children from birth to the attainment of age 2 and BMI-for-age measurements for children age 2 to attainment of age 3 that are required for this listing must be obtained within a 12-month period and at least 60 days apart. If a child attains age 2 during the evaluation period, additional measurements are not needed. Any measurements taken before the child attains age 2 can be used to evaluate the impairment under the appropriate listing for the child's age. If the child attains age 3 during the evaluation period, the measurements can be used to evaluate the impairment in the affected body system.

3. Developmental delay.

a. Under 100.05B and C, we use reports from acceptable medical sources to establish delay in a child's development.

b. Under 100.05B, we document the severity of developmental delay with results from a standardized developmental assessment, which compares a child's level of development to the level typically expected for his or her chronological age. If the child was born prematurely, we may use the corrected chronological age (CCA) for comparison. (See § 416.924b(b) of this chapter.) CCA is the chronological age adjusted by a period of gestational prematurity. CCA = (chronological age)—(number of weeks premature). Acceptable medical sources or early intervention specialists, physical or occupational therapists, and other sources may conduct standardized developmental assessments and developmental screenings. The results of these tests and screenings must be accompanied by a statement or records from an acceptable medical source who established the child has a developmental delay.

c. Under 100.05C, when there are no results from a standardized developmental assessment in the case record, we need narrative developmental reports from the child's medical sources in sufficient detail to assess the severity of his or her developmental delay. A narrative developmental report is based on clinical observations, progress notes, and well-baby check-ups. To meet the requirements for 100.05C, the report must include: The child's developmental history; examination findings (with abnormal findings noted on repeated examinations); and an overall assessment of the child's development (that is, more than one or two isolated skills) by the medical source. Some narrative developmental reports may include results from developmental screening tests, which can identify a child who is not developing or achieving skills within expected timeframes. Although medical sources may refer to screening test results as supporting evidence in the narrative developmental report, screening test results alone cannot establish a diagnosis or the severity of developmental delay.

D. How do we evaluate disorders that do not meet one of these listings?

1. We may find infants disabled due to other disorders when their birth weights are greater than 1200 grams but less than 2000 grams and their weight and gestational age do not meet listing 100.04. The most common disorders of prematurity and LBW include retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), chronic lung disease of infancy (CLD, previously known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and periventricular leukomalacia (PVL). Other disorders include poor nutrition and growth failure, hearing disorders, seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, and developmental disorders. We evaluate these disorders under the affected body systems.

2. We may evaluate infants and toddlers with growth failure that is associated with a known medical disorder under the body system of that medical disorder, for example, the respiratory or digestive body systems.

3. If an infant or toddler has a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet the criteria of any listing, we must also consider whether the child has an impairment(s) that medically equals a listing (see § 416.926 of this chapter). If the child's impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, we will determine whether the child's impairment(s) functionally equals the listings (see § 416.926a of this chapter) considering the factors in § 416.924a of this chapter. We use the rule in § 416.994a of this chapter when we decide whether a child continues to be disabled.

100.01 Category of Impairments, Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive

100.04 Low birth weight in infants from birth to attainment of age 1.

A. Birth weight (see 100.00B) of less than 1200 grams.

OR

B. The following gestational age and birth weight:

Gestational age
  • (in weeks)
  • Birth weight
    37-40 2000 grams or less. 36 1875 grams or less. 35 1700 grams or less. 34 1500 grams or less. 33 1325 grams or less. 32 1250 grams or less.

    100.05 Failure to thrive in children from birth to attainment of age 3 (see 100.00C), documented by A and B, or A and C.

    A. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table in listing 105.08B1; or

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 3, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table in listing 105.08B2.

    AND

    B. Developmental delay (see 100.00C1 and C3), established by an acceptable medical source and documented by findings from one current report of a standardized developmental assessment (see 100.00C3b) that:

    1. Shows development not more than two-thirds of the level typically expected for the child's age; or

    2. Results in a valid score that is at least two standard deviations below the mean.

    OR

    C. Developmental delay (see 100.00C3), established by an acceptable medical source and documented by findings from two narrative developmental reports (see 100.00C3c) that:

    1. Are dated at least 120 days apart (see 100.00C1); and

    2. Indicate current development not more than two-thirds of the level typically expected for the child's age.

    103.00 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

    F. How do we evaluate growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder?

    1. To evaluate growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder, we require documentation of the oxygen supplementation described in 103.06A and the growth measurements in 103.06B within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of oxygen supplementation may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    2. Under 103.06B, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.

    a. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

    b. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

    c. BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

    103.06 Growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder (see 103.00F), documented by:

    A. Hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 L/min of oxygen supplementation for at least 4 hours per day and for at least 90 consecutive days.

    AND

    B. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.

    104.00 CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM

    C. Evaluating Chronic Heart Failure

    2. What evidence of CHF do we need?

    b. To establish that you have chronic heart failure, we require that your medical history and physical examination describe characteristic symptoms and signs of pulmonary or systemic congestion or of limited cardiac output associated with abnormal findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging. When a remediable factor, such as arrhythmia, triggers an acute episode of heart failure, you may experience restored cardiac function, and a chronic impairment may not be present.

    (ii) During infancy, other manifestations of chronic heart failure may include repeated lower respiratory tract infections.

    3. How do we evaluate growth failure due to CHF?

    a. To evaluate growth failure due to CHF, we require documentation of the clinical findings of CHF described in 104.00C2 and the growth measurements in 104.02C within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of clinical findings may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    b. Under 104.02C, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.

    (i) For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

    (ii) For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

    (iii) BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

    104.02 * * *

    C. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.

    105.00 DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

    G. How do we evaluate growth failure due to any digestive disorder?

    1. To evaluate growth failure due to any digestive disorder, we require documentation of the laboratory findings of chronic nutritional deficiency described in 105.08A and the growth measurements in 105.08B within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of laboratory findings may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    2. Under 105.08B, we evaluate a child's growth failure by using the appropriate table for age and gender.

    a. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table (see Table I or Table II).

    b. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table (see Tables III or IV).

    c. BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of the child's height. We calculate BMI using one of the following formulas:

    English Formula BMI = [Weight in Pounds/(Height in Inches × Height in Inches)] × 703 Metric Formulas BMI = Weight in Kilograms/(Height in Meters × Height in Meters) BMI = [Weight in Kilograms/(Height in Centimeters × Height in Centimeters)] × 10,000

    105.08 Growth failure due to any digestive disorder (see 105.00G), documented by A and B:

    A. Chronic nutritional deficiency present on at least two evaluations at least 60 days apart within a consecutive 12-month period documented by one of the following:

    1. Anemia with hemoglobin less than 10.0 g/dL; or

    2. Serum albumin of 3.0 g/dL or less;

    AND

    B. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on Table I or Table II; or

    Table I—Males Birth to Attainment of Age 2 [Third Percentile Values for Weight-for-Length] Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • 45.0 1.597 64.5 6.132 84.5 10.301 45.5 1.703 65.5 6.359 85.5 10.499 46.5 1.919 66.5 6.584 86.5 10.696 47.5 2.139 67.5 6.807 87.5 10.895 48.5 2.364 68.5 7.027 88.5 11.095 49.5 2.592 69.5 7.245 89.5 11.296 50.5 2.824 70.5 7.461 90.5 11.498 51.5 3.058 71.5 7.674 91.5 11.703 52.5 3.294 72.5 7.885 92.5 11.910 53.5 3.532 73.5 8.094 93.5 12.119 54.5 3.771 74.5 8.301 94.5 12.331 55.5 4.010 75.5 8.507 95.5 12.546 56.5 4.250 76.5 8.710 96.5 12.764 57.5 4.489 77.5 8.913 97.5 12.987 58.5 4.728 78.5 9.113 98.5 13.213 59.5 4.966 79.5 9.313 99.5 13.443 60.5 5.203 80.5 9.512 100.5 13.678 61.5 5.438 81.5 9.710 101.5 13.918 62.5 5.671 82.5 9.907 102.5 14.163 63.5 5.903 83.5 10.104 103.5 14.413
    Table II—Females Birth to Attainment of Age 2 [Third Percentile Values for Weight-for-Length] Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • Length
  • (centimeters)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • 45.0 1.613 64.5 5.985 84.5 10.071 45.5 1.724 65.5 6.200 85.5 10.270 46.5 1.946 66.5 6.413 86.5 10.469 47.5 2.171 67.5 6.625 87.5 10.670 48.5 2.397 68.5 6.836 88.5 10.871 49.5 2.624 69.5 7.046 89.5 11.074 50.5 2.852 70.5 7.254 90.5 11.278 51.5 3.081 71.5 7.461 91.5 11.484 52.5 3.310 72.5 7.667 92.5 11.691 53.5 3.538 73.5 7.871 93.5 11.901 54.5 3.767 74.5 8.075 94.5 12.112 55.5 3.994 75.5 8.277 95.5 12.326 56.5 4.220 76.5 8.479 96.5 12.541 57.5 4.445 77.5 8.679 97.5 12.760 58.5 4.892 78.5 8.879 98.5 12.981 59.5 5.113 79.5 9.078 99.5 13.205 60.5 5.333 80.5 9.277 100.5 13.431 61.5 5.552 81.5 9.476 101.5 13.661 62.5 5.769 82.5 9.674 102.5 13.895 63.5 5.769 83.5 9.872 103.5 14.132

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on Table III or Table IV.

    Table III—Males Age 2 to Attainment of Age 18 [Third Percentile Values for BMI-for-Age] Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI
    2.0 to 2.1 14.5 10.11 to 11.2 14.3 14.9 to 14.10 16.1 2.2 to 2.4 14.4 11.3 to 11.5 14.4 14.11 to 15.0 16.2 2.5 to 2.7 14.3 11.6 to 11.8 14.5 15.1 to 15.3 16.3 2.8 to 2.11 14.2 11.9 to 11.11 14.6 15.4 to 15.5 16.4 3.0 to 3.2 14.1 12.0 to 12.1 14.7 15.6 to 15.7 16.5 3.3 to 3.6 14.0 12.2 to 12.4 14.8 15.8 to 15.9 16.6 3.7 to 3.11 13.9 12.5 to 12.7 14.9 15.10 to 15.11 16.7 4.0 to 4.5 13.8 12.8 to 12.9 15.0 16.0 to 16.1 16.8 4.6 to 5.0 13.7 12.10 to 13.0 15.1 16.2 to 16.3 16.9 5.1 to 6.0 13.6 13.1 to 13.2 15.2 16.4 to 16.5 17.0 6.1 to 7.6 13.5 13.3 to 13.4 15.3 16.6 to 16.8 17.1 7.7 to 8.6 13.6 13.5 to 13.7 15.4 16.9 to 16.10 17.2 8.7 to 9.1 13.7 13.8 to 13.9 15.5 16.11 to 17.0 17.3 9.2 to 9.6 13.8 13.10 to 13.11 15.6 17.1 to 17.2 17.4 9.7 to 9.11 13.9 14.0 to 14.1 15.7 17.3 to 17.5 17.5 10.0 to 10.3 14.0 14.2 to 14.4 15.8 17.6 to 17.7 17.6 10.4 to 10.7 14.1 14.5 to 14.6 15.9 17.8 to 17.9 17.7 10.8 to 10.10 14.2 14.7 to 14.8 16.0 17.10 to 17.11 17.8
    Table IV—Females Age 2 to Attainment of Age 18 [Third Percentile Values for BMI-for-Age] Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI Age
  • (yrs. and mos.)
  • BMI
    2.0 to 2.2 14.1 10.8 to 10.10 14.0 14.3 to 14.5 15.6 2.3 to 2.6 14.0 10.11 to 11.2 14.1 14.6 to 14.7 15.7 2.7 to 2.10 13.9 11.3 to 11.5 14.2 14.8 to 14.9 15.8 2.11 to 3.2 13.8 11.6 to 11.7 14.3 14.10 to 15.0 15.9 3.3 to 3.6 13.7 11.8 to 11.10 14.4 15.1 to 15.2 16.0 3.7 to 3.11 13.6 11.11 to 12.1 14.5 15.3 to 15.5 16.1 4.0 to 4.4 13.5 12.2 to 12.4 14.6 15.6 to 15.7 16.2 4.5 to 4.11 13.4 12.5 to 12.6 14.7 15.8 to 15.10 16.3 5.0 to 5.9 13.3 12.7 to 12.9 14.8 15.11 to 16.0 16.4 5.10 to 7.6 13.2 12.10 to 12.11 14.9 16.1 to 16.3 16.5 7.7 to 8.4 13.3 13.0 to 13.2 15.0 16.4 to 16.6 16.6 8.5 to 8.10 13.4 13.3 to 13.4 15.1 16.7 to 16.9 16.7 8.11 to 9.3 13.5 13.5 to 13.7 15.2 16.10 to 17.0 16.8 9.4 to 9.8 13.6 13.8 to 13.9 15.3 17.1 to 17.3 16.9 9.9 to 10.0 13.7 13.10 to 14.0 15.4 17.4 to 17.7 17.0 10.1 to 10.4 13.8 14.1 to 14.2 15.5 17.8 to 17.11 17.1 10.5 to 10.7 13.9
    106.00 GENITOURINARY IMPAIRMENTS

    C. What other factors do we consider when we evaluate your genitourinary disorder?

    5. Growth failure due to any chronic renal disease.

    a. To evaluate growth failure due to any chronic renal disease, we require documentation of the laboratory findings described in 106.08A and the growth measurements in 106.08B within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of laboratory findings may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    b. Under 106.08B, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.

    (i) For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

    (ii) For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

    (iii) BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

    106.08 Growth failure due to any chronic renal disease (see 106.00C5), with:

    A. Serum creatinine of 2 mg/dL or greater, documented at least two times within a consecutive 12-month period with at least 60 days between measurements.

    AND

    B. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.

    114.00 IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDERS

    F. * * *

    4. HIV infection manifestations specific to children.

    d. Growth failure due to HIV immune suppression.

    (i) To evaluate growth failure due to HIV immune suppression, we require documentation of the laboratory values described in 114.08H1 and the growth measurements in 114.08H2 or 114.08H3 within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of laboratory findings may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    (ii) Under 114.08H2 and 114.08H3, we use the appropriate table under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.

    (A) For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

    (B) For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

    (C) BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

    114.08 * * *

    H. Immune suppression and growth failure (see 114.00F4d) documented by 1 and 2, or by 1 and 3.

    1. CD4 measurement:

    a. For children from birth to attainment of age 5, CD4 percentage of less than 20 percent; or

    b. For children age 5 to attainment of age 18, absolute CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mm3, or CD4 percentage of less than 14 percent; and

    2. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or

    3. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.

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

    Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).

    4. Amend § 416.924b by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 416.924b Age as a factor of evaluation in the sequential evaluation process for children.

    (b) Correcting chronological age of premature infants. We generally use chronological age (a child's age based on birth date) when we decide whether, or the extent to which, a physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments causes functional limitations. However, if you were born prematurely, we may consider you younger than your chronological age when we evaluate your development. We may use a “corrected” chronological age (CCA); that is, your chronological age adjusted by a period of gestational prematurity. We consider an infant born at less than 37 weeks' gestation to be born prematurely.

    (1) We compute your CCA by subtracting the number of weeks of prematurity (the difference between 40 weeks of full-term gestation and the number of actual weeks of gestation) from your chronological age. For example, if your chronological age is 20 weeks but you were born at 32 weeks gestation (8 weeks premature), then your CCA is 12 weeks.

    (2) We evaluate developmental delay in a premature child until the child's prematurity is no longer a relevant factor, generally no later than about chronological age 2.

    (i) If you have not attained age 1 and were born prematurely, we will assess your development using your CCA.

    (ii) If you are over age 1 and have a developmental delay, and prematurity is still a relevant factor, we will decide whether to correct your chronological age. We will base our decision on our judgment and all the facts in your case. If we decide to correct your chronological age, we may correct it by subtracting the full number of weeks of prematurity or a lesser number of weeks. If your developmental delay is the result of your medically determinable impairment(s) and is not attributable to your prematurity, we will decide not to correct your chronological age.

    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, we will not compute a CCA if the medical evidence shows that your treating source or other medical source has already taken your prematurity into consideration in his or her assessment of your development. We will not compute a CCA when we find you disabled under listing 100.04 of the Listing of Impairments.

    § 416.926a [Amended]
    5. Amend § 416.926a by removing paragraphs (m)(6) and (m)(7) and redesignating paragraph (m)(8) as (m)(6). 6. Amend § 416.934 by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as follows:
    § 416.934 Impairments which may warrant a finding of presumptive disability or presumptive blindness.

    (j) Infants weighing less than 1200 grams at birth, until attainment of 1 year of age.

    (k) Infants weighing at least 1200 but less than 2000 grams at birth, and who are small for gestational age, until attainment of 1 year of age. (Small for gestational age means a birth weight that is at or more than 2 standard deviations below the mean or that is less than the third growth percentile for the gestational age of the infant.)

    [FR Doc. 2015-08185 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1020 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0828] Performance Standards for Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending a Federal performance standard for ionizing radiation to correct a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement. We are taking this action to ensure clarity and improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 26, 2015. Submit electronic or written comments on this direct final rule or its companion proposed rule by June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

    Written Submissions

    Submit written comments in the following ways:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0828 for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Gonzalez, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4641, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5889.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What is the background of this Rule?

    FDA is correcting a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement in § 1020.32 (21 CFR 1020.32). We are publishing this direct final rule because it is intended to make a noncontroversial amendment to § 1020.32, and we do not anticipate any significant adverse comments. Specifically, this amendment changes the words “any linear dimension” in the current regulation to read “every linear dimension” (§ 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A)). The alternative performance standard, § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(B), currently contains the same phrase but remains unchanged. We are amending the language to make the performance standards mutually exclusive. This will ensure clarity and improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    FDA first proposed the performance standards in the Federal Register of December 10, 2002 (67 FR 76056), to account for technological changes in fluoroscopic equipment. The proposed rule did not specify which measurement of the visible area of an image receptor determined the applicable performance standard (67 FR 76056 at 76092). When we addressed comments to the proposed rule in the Federal Register of June 10, 2005, we agreed with one comment that adding the words “any linear dimension” would clarify the determination of the performance standard (70 FR 33998 at 34007).

    FDA ultimately incorporated the phrase in two places, potentially reducing the clarity of the rule (70 FR 33998 at 34040). Section 1020.32(b)(4)(ii) sets performance standards based on a threshold, so the language for each standard should be mutually exclusive. That is, only one standard, and not the other, should apply to the image receptor in question. However, some image receptors may have linear dimensions that are both greater than and less than 34 cm, for example, receptors with a hexagonal shape. In such cases, the performance standards may not be mutually exclusive, so both standards may appear to apply. This direct final rule amends § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A) to read “every linear dimension” to ensure the standards are mutually exclusive. The amendment will improve the clarity and accuracy of the regulations.

    II. What are the procedures for issuing a direct Final Rule?

    In the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA announced the availability of the guidance document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures” that described when and how we will employ direct final rulemaking. We believe that this rule is appropriate for direct final rulemaking because it is intended to make a noncontroversial amendment for a minor correction to an existing regulation. We anticipate no significant adverse comments.

    Consistent with FDA's procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are publishing a companion proposed rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That proposed rule is identical in substance to this direct final rule. The companion proposal will provide a procedural framework to finalize a new rule in the event we withdraw this direct final rule because we receive significant adverse comment. The comment period for this direct final rule runs concurrently with the comment period of the companion proposed rule. We will consider any comments that we receive in response to the companion proposed rule to be comments also regarding this direct final rule and vice versa.

    If FDA receives any significant adverse comments, we will withdraw this direct final rule before its effective date by publishing a notice in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends. A significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate (including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach), ineffective, or unacceptable without change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants withdrawing a direct final rule, we consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.

    If we withdraw this direct final rule, FDA will consider all comments that we received regarding the companion proposed rule as we develop a final rule through the usual notice-and-comment procedures of the APA (5 U.S.C. 552a, et seq.). If we receive no significant adverse comments during the specified comment period regarding this direct final rule, we intend to publish a confirmation document in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends.

    III. What is the legal authority for this Rule?

    This rule, if finalized, would amend § 1020.32. FDA's authority to modify § 1020.32 arises from the same authority under which FDA initially issued this regulation, the device and general administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360e-360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, and 381).

    IV. What is the environmental impact of this Rule?

    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and 25.34(a) 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.

    V. What is the economic analysis of impact of this Rule?

    FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule does not add any additional regulatory burdens, the Agency certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $141 million, using the most current (2013) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in a 1-year expenditure that meets or exceeds this amount.

    The purpose of this final rule is to correct a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement in a performance standard for ionizing radiation. The amendment will improve the clarity and accuracy of the regulations. Because this final rule is a technical correction and would impose no additional regulatory burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs, and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    VI. How does the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 apply to this Rule?

    This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    VII. What are the Federalism implications of this Rule?

    FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    VIII. How do you submit comments on this Rule?

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify 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.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1020

    Electronic products, Medical devices, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television, X-rays.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1020 is amended as follows:

    PART 1020—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR IONIZING RADIATION EMITTING PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1020 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360e-360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, 381.

    2. Revise § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
    § 1020.32 Fluoroscopic equipment.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) When every linear dimension of the visible area of the image receptor measured through the center of the visible area is less than or equal to 34 cm in any direction, at least 80 percent of the area of the x-ray field overlaps the visible area of the image.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08360 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 542 Syrian Sanctions Regulations AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is amending the Syrian Sanctions Regulations to authorize by general license certain activities relating to publishing, not already exempt from regulation, that support the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper and electronic format.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622-6746, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel: 202/622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic and Facsimile Availability

    This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

    Background

    On April 5, 2005, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 542 (the “Regulations”) (70 FR 17201, April 5, 2005), to implement Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004) (E.O. 13338), pursuant to, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA). On May 2, 2014, OFAC amended the Regulations to implement Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (71 FR 25059, April 28, 2006) (E.O. 13399), Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (73 FR 8991, February 15, 2008) (E.O. 13460), Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (76 FR 24787, May 3, 2011) (E.O. 13572), Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (76 FR 29143, May 20, 2011) (E.O. 13573), Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (76 FR 52209, August 22, 2011) (E.O. 13582), and Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012 (77 FR 24571, April 24, 2012) (E.O. 13606). Today, OFAC is amending the Regulations to authorize certain activities relating to publishing.

    With certain exceptions, the exportation or importation of information or informational materials to or from any country is exempt from regulation by the President under IEEPA. See 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3); 31 CFR 542.211(b). OFAC is issuing a new general license set forth at 31 CFR 542.532 to authorize, subject to certain limitations, transactions not already exempt from regulation that support the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers, in paper or electronic format.

    Public Participation

    Because the amendment of the Regulations involves a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 542

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Information, Services, Syria.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 542 as set forth below:

    PART 542—SYRIAN SANCTIONS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 542 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 18 U.S.C. 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 168; E.O. 13399, 71 FR 25059, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 13460, 73 FR 8991, 3 CFR 2008 Comp., p. 181; E.O. 13572, 76 FR 24787, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p.236; E.O. 13573, 76 FR 29143, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p. 241; E.O. 13582, 76 FR 52209, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p. 264; E.O. 13606, 77 FR 24571, 3 CFR 2012 Comp., p.243.

    Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy 2. Add new § 542.532 to read as follows:
    § 542.532 Authorized transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to publishing.

    (a) Subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, U.S. persons are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper or electronic format (collectively, “written publications”). This section does not apply if the parties to the transactions described in this paragraph include the Government of Syria or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 542.201. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Syria” includes the state and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, which includes the Central Bank of Syria, and any person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of the foregoing with respect to the transactions described in this paragraph. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Syria” does not include any academic or research institutions and their personnel. Pursuant to this section, the following activities are authorized, provided that U.S. persons ensure that they are not engaging, without separate authorization, in the activities identified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:

    (1) Commissioning and making advance payments for identifiable written publications not yet in existence, to the extent consistent with industry practice;

    (2) Collaborating on the creation and enhancement of written publications;

    (3)(i) Augmenting written publications through the addition of items such as photographs, artwork, translation, explanatory text, and, for a written publication in electronic format, the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publication; and

    (ii) Exporting embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching a written publication in electronic format, provided that the software is designated as “EAR99” under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (the “EAR”), or is not subject to the EAR;

    (4) Substantive editing of written publications;

    (5) Payment of royalties for written publications;

    (6) Creating or undertaking a marketing campaign to promote a written publication; and

    (7) Other transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in this paragraph (a).

    (b) This section does not authorize transactions involving the provision of goods or services not necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in paragraph (a) of this section. For example, this section does not authorize U.S. persons:

    (1) To provide or, if involving blocked property, to receive individualized or customized services (including accounting, legal, design, or consulting services), other than those necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications, even though such individualized or customized services are delivered through the use of information or informational materials;

    (2) To create or undertake for any person a marketing campaign with respect to any service or product other than a written publication, or to create or undertake a marketing campaign of any kind for the benefit of the Government of Syria;

    (3) To engage in the exportation or, if involving blocked property, the importation of goods to or from Syria other than the exportation of embedded software described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section; or

    (4) To operate a publishing house, sales outlet, or other office in Syria.

    Note to paragraph (b) of § 542.532:

    The importation from Syria and the exportation to Syria of information or informational materials, as defined in § 542.307, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part. See § 542.211(b).

    (c) This section does not authorize U.S. persons to engage the services of publishing houses or translators in Syria that involves dealing in property unless such activity is primarily for the dissemination of written publications in Syria.

    (d) This section does not authorize:

    (1) The exportation from or, if involving blocked property, the importation into the United States of services for the development, production, or design of software;

    (2) Transactions for the development, production, design, or marketing of technology specifically controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (the “ITAR”), the EAR, or the Department of Energy Regulations set forth at 10 CFR part 810;

    (3) The exportation of information or technology subject to the authorization requirements of 10 CFR part 810, or Restricted Data as defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or of other information, data, or technology the release of which is controlled under the Atomic Energy Act and regulations therein;

    (4) The exportation of any item (including information) subject to the EAR where a U.S. person knows or has reason to know that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, with respect to certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or nuclear-maritime end-uses as set forth in part 744 of the EAR. In addition, U.S. persons are precluded from exporting any item subject to the EAR to certain restricted end-users, as set forth in part 744 of the EAR, as well as certain persons whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to parts 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce; or

    (5) The exportation of information subject to licensing requirements under the ITAR or exchanges of information that are subject to regulation by other government agencies.

    John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08374 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS CORONADO (LCS 4) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 13, 2015 and is applicable beginning April 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS CORONADO (LCS 4) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to the task light's horizontal distance from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

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

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended in Table Five by revising the entry for USS CORONADO (LCS 4) to read as follows:
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Four Vessel Number Horizontal
  • distance from
  • the fore
  • and aft
  • centerline of
  • the vessel in
  • the athwart
  • ship direction
  • *    *    *    *    * USS CORONADO LCS 4 0.18 *    *    *    *    *
    Approved: April 1, 2015. A.B. Fischer, Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: April 6, 2015. N. A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08422 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 38 RIN 2900-AO99 Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National Cemetery AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Cemetery Administration (NCA) amends its regulations to establish a new program to provide reimbursement for caskets and urns for the interment of the remains of veterans with no known next-of-kin and where sufficient financial resources are not available for this purpose.

    DATES:

    Effective date: The final rule is effective May 13, 2015. Applicability date: The final rule applies to claims for reimbursement for burial receptacles for individuals who died on or after January 10, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrina Brown, Office of Field Programs (41A), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: (202) 461-6833 (this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a document published on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37698), VA proposed revising its regulations governing burial in national cemeteries to implement new authority under section 2306 of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), to furnish a casket or urn for interment in a VA national cemetery of the unclaimed remains of veterans for whom VA cannot identify a next-of-kin and determines that sufficient financial resources for the furnishing of a casket or urn for burial are not otherwise available. The 30-day public comment period ended on August 1, 2014. VA received fourteen comments from interested individuals and organizations. To address some of those comments, as will be explained in detail below, VA added a new paragraph (b) and redesignated proposed paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively.

    Eight commenters expressed support for the proposed amendment. We thank these individuals for taking the time to review and comment on the rulemaking. We make no changes to the regulation based on these comments.

    One commenter suggested that VA contract with online providers of caskets and urns to make bulk purchases of caskets and urns, which would then be shipped to individuals who apply online. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, VA considered the direct purchase option but determined that would be a less efficient and economical means of administering this benefit. Development of an online application portal and establishment of contractual relationships with suppliers would require considerable time and would delay VA's ability to timely provide this benefit as needs arise. The expense required to contract and to build an online portal would decrease the resources available to provide the benefit itself. The commenter stated that he felt the suggestion would allow for “quality control.” As we indicated in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, unclaimed veteran remains are often in the custody of funeral homes or others who are authorized under state law to dispose of unclaimed remains. 79 FR at 37699. Therefore, we believe they are likely familiar with procuring burial receptacles. We further expect that those who will provide caskets or urns will use the same suppliers from whom they purchase caskets and urns for the families they serve in their normal course of business and that the caskets and urns they purchase will be of no lesser quality than those provided for family-requested funeral services. Further, as we provide in redesignated § 38.628(c)(5), VA will visually inspect the casket or urn when it is presented at the national cemetery to ensure that it corresponds to the description in the invoice and meets NCA's specifications, which are intended to ensure safe handling and integrity of veteran remains. Accordingly, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    Another commenter urged that we implement this benefit so that it is “not cumbersome to administer and is fair in the time it takes to reimburse.” We believe that the reimbursement program we have outlined in our regulation meets both of those criteria. The commenter further suggested that VA develop a form and process for eligible veterans to “pre-order [and] get pre-authorized” to assist them with advance planning. Generally, VA encourages veterans and their families to plan for their burial needs. However, while such a plan may include a stated desire to be buried in a national cemetery, VA has no authority to pre-determine eligibility for burial or memorialization, because eligibility decisions must be made based on the law in effect at the time the individual dies. If, upon the death of an eligible veteran, VA is made aware of the veteran's wishes regarding burial, VA will try to accommodate those wishes to the fullest extent possible. This regulation, however, is applicable when a veteran dies without sufficient funds available for burial and has no known next-of-kin. Third parties, such as public administrators, local coroners, funeral directors or volunteer organizations, who may have assumed responsibility for the burial of these unclaimed remains, will likely be unaware of any wishes for burial arrangements. However, even without knowing the burial wishes of the deceased veteran, by establishing a means to reimburse these third parties for the expense of a burial receptacle at a time of need, VA will ensure that these veterans receive an appropriate burial in a national cemetery. VA will make no changes based on this comment.

    VA received comments from a funeral services trade association on two issues. The first issue concerned our reference to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations that define “alternative container” which VA construed as applicable to cremation urns. The commenter stated that “alternative container,” in the funeral industry, “is the receptacle that the body is placed into prior to cremation.” The commenter also stated that plastic is “generally not deemed appropriate for use as an urn.” The commenter then suggested that we revise our regulation to include wood or metal, in addition to durable plastic, as an acceptable material for urns subject to reimbursement under § 38.628. We reviewed the FTC regulation in light of this feedback and believe that the commenter's statement that an alternative container refers to a receptacle for the body prior to cremation is an accurate interpretation of the FTC regulation, which states that requiring the public to purchase a casket for direct cremations is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a funeral provider and requires funeral providers to “make an alternative container available for direct cremations.” See 16 CFR 453.4(a)(2). We wish to correct the statement made in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 79 FR at 37699). However, we did not “base” the definition of “urn” in § 38.628 on the phrase “alternative container” (we did use the definition of “casket” from the FTC regulation) nor was “alternative container” used elsewhere in the proposed rulemaking. Our definition of urn was developed using the elements we felt necessary for a burial receptacle that would ensure that the cremated remains of veterans, in the absence of a family member to make such determinations, are laid to rest in a consistently dignified manner. We have decided that, for purposes of reimbursement, an urn made of durable plastic would be the minimum requirement because we must ensure that we use the finite resources at our disposal to provide this benefit for as many veterans, without family or resources, as we can. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that durable plastic is “generally not deemed appropriate for use as an urn.” In fact, many of the inurnments at national cemeteries are of urns constructed of durable plastic, so while the commenter is correct that many families may choose to place the remains in urns of different construction, we can confirm that many find a durable plastic urn to be appropriate for the remains of their loved one.

    Regarding the commenter's request that we amend the regulation to include other materials for urn construction, although we stated in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking that we do not prohibit individuals or entities from purchasing burial receptacles of higher standard, such as a stronger gauge metal for caskets, or wood or metal for urns, this comment indicates that our information was not sufficiently clear as to the types of caskets and urns that would be acceptable for reimbursement, and therefore we are making changes to the regulation to address the issue the commenter raises, although we will not be using the amendment suggested in the comment.

    Proposed § 38.628(b)(5), now redesignated § 38.628(c)(5), was intended to prescribe certain minimum standards for caskets and urns that would ensure that each veteran, in the absence of a family member to make burial decisions, is laid to rest in a consistently dignified manner. We are making changes to redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(ii) to specifically address the commenter's concern by stating that individuals or entities may purchase and request reimbursement for urns constructed of materials other than durable plastic, including wood, metal, or ceramic, even though reimbursement will be limited to the average cost of a durable plastic urn. In reviewing this provision, we also noted that the casket provision may be subject to misinterpretation so we have amended redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(i) to clarify that the caskets must be of metal construction, but may be of a thicker gauge metal, even though reimbursement will be limited to the average cost of a casket of 20-gauge metal construction. We note that these changes will allow for only one material, metal, for the construction of caskets while urns may be constructed of a variety of materials. As stated in the proposed rulemaking, we established minimum standards to ensure the burial receptacles could withstand disinterment and reinterment, should that need arise. We explicitly require metal caskets because we believe they will endure the environmental conditions of in-ground burial better than other materials and keep the remains intact. Urns may be inurned in above-ground niches, so their construction may not need to endure the rigors of in-ground burial. For those that will be inurned in the ground, we note that an urn will include an interior container for the cremated remains that will help ensure their integrity if the outer construction should fail.

    While we have amended the language regarding the construction of a casket or an urn, we do not change the standard used to calculate the maximum reimbursement amount under redesignated paragraph (d). As stated in the proposed rule, we established a maximum reimbursement amount based on the minimum construction standards of either a casket or an urn. VA will reimburse for the actual cost of a burial receptacle, as shown on an invoice, up to a maximum reimbursement amount that is equal to the average cost of receptacles meeting the minimum standards for the fiscal year preceding the calendar year of when a claim for reimbursement is received. To ensure that the edits to redesignated paragraph (c) described above do not confuse how we calculate the average cost, we will state the minimum standards in redesignated paragraph (d), which establishes the maximum reimbursement amount. We reiterate here that VA will only reimburse for a single casket or urn purchased on behalf of any decedent and that, under redesignated § 38.628(c)(5), the cemetery director receiving the remains will visually inspect the casket or urn that is presented for burial or inurnment to ensure that it matches the description on the invoice submitted for payment. Therefore, if, as the commenter explained, the cremated remains are moved from one container to another of a different material, we will only reimburse for the cost of the urn presented for burial, subject to the maximum reimbursement amount. Any individual or entity seeking reimbursement must ensure that the invoice presented for payment is the invoice for the burial receptacle presented for burial.

    The same commenter noted a second issue regarding proposed paragraph (b)(2), now redesignated paragraph (c)(2), and the requirement that individuals seeking reimbursement certify that they cannot identify the decedent's next-of-kin and that VA's records do not identify the next-of-kin. The commenter objected that, because they do not have access to VA's records, they could not certify as to whether a next-of-kin was identified there. The commenter also added that funeral homes are often faced with a dilemma in which a deceased veteran's next-of-kin is identified but is unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for burial arrangements. The commenter suggested a clarification to reflect that an applicant who provides a casket or urn because of an uncooperative next-of-kin would still be entitled to reimbursement. We acknowledge the commenter's concerns are valid.

    As an initial matter, we have determined that the required findings that a veteran have no known next-of-kin or sufficient resources to furnish a casket or urn can be satisfied by the applicant's certification to that effect. State and local laws governing the disposition of unclaimed remains require, generally, that a search be performed to identify a decedent's next-of-kin or authorized representative who may assume responsibility for the final disposition of the remains. VA believes that it would be reasonable to rely on the applicant's certification that no next-of-kin was identified as a result of an independent search performed in compliance with the legal requirements of that jurisdiction. The intent of the Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (the Act) is to assist individuals or entities in possession of remains that are unclaimed in providing for the final disposition of those remains. Because we believe that an additional search by VA of its own records would be duplicative of this process and could potentially delay or even deter individuals or entities from bringing unclaimed veteran remains to VA for burial, we find that reliance on the applicant's certification that no next-of-kin has been identified is reasonable. Moreover, because laws related to the disposition of unclaimed remains also involve determinations of the decedent's indigency, VA will also accept the applicant's certification that, based upon available information, there are insufficient financial resources available to furnish a burial receptacle. Accordingly, we have added paragraph (b) to state that we will rely on the applicant's certification. Proposed paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) will now become paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and we further amend redesignated paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) to eliminate any requirement that an individual or entity seeking reimbursement must certify as to what is in VA records.

    In redesignated paragraph (c)(2), we explicitly allow for the circumstance of the “uncooperative next-of-kin,” as described by the commenter. As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we cannot compel an identified next-of-kin of a deceased veteran who is unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for the deceased veteran's burial. We recognize that relevant state and local laws include provisions applicable to the type of situation described by the commenter. These laws often address the situation by allowing individuals or entities in possession of remains that are unclaimed to arrange for burial after a defined period of time, despite the existence of an uncooperative relative who may have means, but refuses to claim the decedent's remains or arrange for final disposition. We therefore add a provision to redesignated paragraph (c)(2) to require the applicant to certify that they have followed the relevant state or local laws relating to the disposition of remains. VA will accept an applicant's certification that an identified next-of-kin is unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for the deceased veteran's burial arrangements as meeting the requirements that the decedent has no next-of-kin and insufficient resources to purchase the casket or urn.

    We received a comment suggesting that we make provision for certain veterans who died prior to January 10, 2014. The effective date was defined in the authorizing statute and VA has no authority to provide caskets or urns for veterans who died prior to that date. The commenter also suggested, in his original comment and in a follow-up comment, that we make changes to regulatory provisions relating to our definition of applicant. That provision is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but VA is planning to address it in another rulemaking soon. We make no changes to this regulation based on these comments.

    One commenter questioned our estimate on the number of applications we anticipated we would receive under this regulation. We estimated that we would receive approximately 670 applications for reimbursement for a burial receptacle purchased in 2014 and that this number would decrease in years to come. The commenter appears to believe our estimate is too low, based on estimates of the total number of veterans who die yearly. Our estimate uses the total annual number of veteran deaths, but adjusts that number based on VA statistics to determine the number of veterans without a next-of-kin and where sufficient resources are unavailable to furnish a casket or urn, to determine the number that may need to be furnished a burial receptacle under this regulation. We make no changes based on this comment.

    In redesignated paragraph (d), we indicate that we will publish an annual notice providing the average cost of a casket or urn that will be the maximum allowable reimbursement amount for each type of burial receptacle. In the proposed rule, we indicated we would pay these rates based on the year the burial receptacle was purchased. However, we have determined that it will be more efficient to process applications using the maximum reimbursement amounts based on the year in which the application is received instead of the date the burial receptacle was purchased. We have changed paragraph (d) to indicate that these maximum rates apply to applications received for the purchase of a burial receptacle in a given calendar year and have deleted the reference to the date of purchase.

    Finally, we are also updating redesignated paragraph (e) to indicate that we will reimburse those individuals who have been waiting for the publication of this final rule to submit their applications at the reimbursement rates for 2015. VA advised these individuals to hold their receipts until the publication of the final rule. Because publication has been delayed, and they could not submit those applications in calendar year 2014, the current maximum rates should apply. As indicated in the notice published elsewhere in this Federal Register, the maximum reimbursement amounts for 2015 are $1,967 for a casket and $172 for an urn, which apply to all applications received in calendar year 2015.

    Based on the rationale set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes as noted above to new paragraph (b) and redesignated paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (d), and (e).

    Effect of Rulemaking

    Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because the number of claims and the amounts involved are expected to be small. This rule will only impact those third parties and entities that choose to participate in this program. Payments made under this program are not intended as benefits but to provide reimbursement for privately purchased caskets and urns. We estimate the average price of a burial receptacle (and therefore the average reimbursement) for 2014 will be less than $2,000 for caskets and less than $200 for urns. We also estimate that the total number of reimbursements for 2014 will be 338 caskets and 332 urns. Because the final rulemaking provides for a reimbursement, the individual or entity purchasing the burial receptacle will recoup the purchase price, up to the maximum rate established annually. Generally this will result in the individual or entity avoiding a financial loss for having made the purchase. But, because the reimbursement will not exceed the purchase price of the burial receptacle, the individual or entity will not experience any gain. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).

    This final rule will impose the following new information collection requirement. Section 38.628 will require submission of new VA Form 40-10088 by individuals seeking reimbursement from VA for the purchase of a casket or urn for the remains of a veteran who has no next-of-kin and where sufficient resources are unavailable to furnish a burial receptacle. The collection of information is necessary for VA to obtain information sufficient to determine whether reimbursement is appropriate. Information provided will include proof that the requesting individual purchased the burial receptacle and that the burial receptacle meets standards detailed in the regulation, and the purchase price of the receptacle. VA will use this information to determine whether reimbursement is appropriate and, if so, the appropriate amount of the reimbursement.

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA submitted this information collection to OMB for its review. OMB approved this new information collection requirement associated with the final rule and assigned OMB control number 2900-0799.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published.”

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title for this rule are 64.201, National Cemeteries.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, approved this document on April 7, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 38

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Veterans.

    Dated April 8, 2015. William F. Russo, Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below:

    PART 38—NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 107, 501, 512, 2306, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2408, 2411, 7105.

    2. Add § 38.628 to read as follows:
    § 38.628. Reimbursement for caskets and urns for unclaimed remains of veterans.

    (a) VA will reimburse any individual or entity for the actual cost of a casket or an urn, purchased by the individual or entity for the burial in a national cemetery of an eligible veteran who died on or after January 10, 2014, for whom VA:

    (1) Is unable to identify the veteran's next-of-kin; and

    (2) Determines that sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn.

    (b) For purposes of satisfying the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, VA will rely entirely on the requesting individual's or entity's certification as required under paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section.

    (c) An individual or entity may request reimbursement from VA under paragraph (a) of this section by completing and submitting VA Form 40-10088, and supporting documentation, in accordance with the instructions on the form. Prior to approving reimbursement VA must find all of the following:

    (1) The veteran is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery;

    (2) The individual or entity has certified that they cannot identify the veteran's next-of-kin, or that an identified next-of-kin is unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for the deceased veteran's burial arrangements, and that the individual or entity has followed applicable state or local law relating to the disposition of unclaimed remains;

    (3) The individual or entity has certified that, to the best of their knowledge, sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn;

    (4) The invoice presented by the individual or entity clearly indicates the purchase price of the casket or urn purchased by the individual or entity; and

    (5) The invoice presented by the individual or entity contains information sufficient for VA to determine, in conjunction with a visual inspection, that the casket or urn meets the following standards:

    (i) Caskets must be of metal construction of at least 20-gauge thickness, designed for containing human remains, sufficient to contain the remains of the deceased veteran, include a gasketed seal, and include external fixed rails or swing arm handles.

    (ii) Urns must be of a durable construction, such as durable plastic, wood, metal, or ceramic, designed to contain cremated human remains, and include a secure closure to contain the cremated remains.

    (d) Reimbursement for a claim received in any calendar year under paragraph (a) of this section will not exceed the average cost of a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn during the fiscal year preceding the calendar year of the claim, as determined by VA and published annually in the Federal Register.

    (e) If, before July 2, 2014, an individual or entity purchased a casket or urn for burial in a VA national cemetery of the remains of a veteran who died after January 10, 2014, and the burial receptacle is not at least a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn, VA will reimburse the purchase price of the burial receptacle, providing all other criteria in this regulation are met. The reimbursement amount will be subject to the maximum reimbursement amount calculated for 2015.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2306, 2402, 2411) (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements under this section under control number 2900-0799.)
    [FR Doc. 2015-08388 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701; FRL-9925-93-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Approval of Air Pollution Emergency Episode Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of three State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittals from the District of Columbia (the District) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The District has made three separate submittals addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. One of the submittals also includes the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia” for satisfying EPA's requirements for air quality emergency episodes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. 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 District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On January 21, 2014 (80 FR 2865), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of portions of the District's three infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The NPR also proposed approval of the District's Air Quality Emergency Plan to meet EPA's requirements for air pollution prevention contingency plans in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H and section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The District, through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE), submitted three separate revisions to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the different NAAQS. On June 6, 2014, DDOE submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. On June 13, 2014, DDOE submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 17, 2014, DDOE submitted an infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Each of the infrastructure SIP revisions addressed the following infrastructure elements for the applicable NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. The infrastructure SIP submittals do not address section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) and will be addressed in a separate process, if necessary.

    As discussed in the NPR, EPA will take separate action on the portions of the three infrastructure submittals addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requiring the SIP to address emissions from sources which significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS (also referred to as transport) in another state. In addition, EPA is not required to take rulemaking action on the PSD-related portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the District's infrastructure SIP submittals, as EPA found these portions of each of the infrastructure SIP submittals technically incomplete, because the District has not adequately addressed the SIP requirements of part C of Title I of the CAA for having a SIP-approved PSD program.1 However, EPA recognizes that the District is already subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing the Federal PSD program that addresses the relevant SIP requirements.2 EPA does not anticipate any adverse consequences to DDOE from these incompleteness findings. In addition, EPA is not subject to any further FIP duties from these incompleteness findings because a FIP has already been issued to address this SIP deficiency.

    1 EPA sent letters to DDOE in July 21, 2014 and November 4, 2014 notifying the District of these determinations for each of the applicable NAAQS. Copies of these letters are included in the docket for this rulemaking action.

    2 At present, the PSD FIP, incorporated by reference in the District SIP in 40 CFR 52.499, specifically contains the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, with the exception of paragraph (a)(1).

    In addition, the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal included the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia” to satisfy the requirements for preventing air pollution emergency episodes in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for all applicable pollutants (i.e., those for which the District is classified as a Priority I region under 40 CFR 52.471, including particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone), as well as section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA for the three subject NAAQS.

    EPA's rationale for taking this rulemaking action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be restated here. The TSD for this rulemaking is available at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. No public comments were received on the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the District's infrastructure submittals dated June 6, 2014, June 13, 2014, and July 17, 2014 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the following requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the three relevant NAAQS: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA will take later separate action on the portions of each of the submittals addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pertaining to transport. EPA is also approving as a SIP revision the “Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan for the District of Columbia,” submitted on June 13, 2014, as it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for all applicable pollutants and section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    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. 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 June 12, 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, pertaining to the District of Columbia's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone, the 2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and to the District of Columbia's contingency plan for the prevention of air pollution episodes, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart J—District of Columbia 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the following four entries at the end of the table: a. “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS”; b. “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS”; c. “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS”; and d. “Emergency Air Pollution Plan”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.470 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide 6/9/14 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). PSD related portions are addressed by FIP in 40 CFR 52.499. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 6/13/14 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). PSD related portions are addressed by FIP in 40 CFR 52.499. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide 7/17/14 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). PSD related portions are addressed by FIP in 40 CFR 52.499. Emergency Air Pollution Plan Statewide 6/13/14 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] This action addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 51, subpart H for particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone, as well as section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08182 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0593; FRL-9925-96-Region-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia—Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of “Regulated NSR Pollutant” Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a July 25, 2013 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision includes a correction to the definition of “regulated NSR [New Source Review] pollutant” as it relates to condensable particulate matter under Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The revision also includes the correction of a minor typographical error. EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 12, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 13, 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-2013-0593 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-2013-0593, David Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0593. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On July 25, 2013, VADEQ submitted a formal revision to the Virginia SIP. The SIP revision consists of an amendment to the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” for VADEQ's PSD program under Article 8 of Chapter 80 of the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC), as well as a correction of a minor typographical error. The definition revision pertains to the regulation of particulate matter, specifically, gases that condense to form particles (condensables).

    “Particulate matter” (PM) is a term used to define an air pollutant that consists of a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the ambient air. PM occurs in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. As explained further in the discussion that follows, EPA has regulated several size ranges of particles under the CAA, referred to as indicators of particles, namely PM, coarse PM (PM10), and fine PM (PM2.5).

    Initially, EPA established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM on April 30, 1971, under sections 108 and 109 of the CAA. See 36 FR 8186. Compliance with the original PM NAAQS was based on the measurement of particles in the ambient air using an indicator of particles measuring up to a nominal size of 25 to 45 micrometers (µm). EPA used the indicator name “total suspended particulate” or “TSP” to define the particle size range that was being measured. Total suspended particulate remained the indicator for the PM NAAQS until 1987 when EPA revised the NAAQS in part by replacing the TSP indicator for both the primary and secondary standards with a new indicator that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 µm (PM10).

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA made significant revisions to the PM NAAQS in several respects. While the EPA determined that the PM NAAQS should continue to focus on PM10, EPA also determined that the fine and coarse fractions of PM10 should be considered separately. Accordingly, on July 18, 1997, the EPA added a new indicator for fine particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm (PM2.5), and continued to use PM10 as the indicator for purposes of regulating the coarse fraction of PM10. See 62 FR 38652.

    On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule) to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including changes to the NSR program. See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Among other requirements, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule required states and sources to account for condensables in PM2.5 emission limits.

    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule contained an error in the regulations for PSD 1 and in the EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling.2 This error was introduced in the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” that was revised as part of the final rulemaking. The wording of that revised definition had the effect of requiring that PM emissions, PM10 emissions, and PM2.5 emissions—representing three separate size ranges or indicators of particles—must all include condensables. EPA did not intend in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that the term “particulate matter emissions” be listed with “PM2.5 emissions” and “PM10 emissions” in requirements to include the condensable fraction of primary PM. Historically, for “particulate matter emissions” often only the filterable fraction had been considered for NSR purposes, consistent with the applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for PM and the corresponding compliance test method. On October 25, 2012, EPA promulgated a final rule 3 which revised the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” to correct the error and remove the unintended new requirement on state and local agencies and the regulated community that “particulate matter emissions” must include condensables in all cases. EPA's October 25, 2012 action ensured that the originally-intended approach for regulating the three indicators for emissions of particulate matter under the PSD program was codified. Thus, “PM10 emissions” and “PM2.5 emissions” are regulated as criteria pollutants (that is, under the portion of the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” that refers to “[a]ny pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated. . .” and are required to include the condensable PM fraction emitted by a source. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 52.21(b)(50)(i). In contrast, “particulate matter emissions” is regulated as a non-criteria pollutant under the portion of the definition that refers to “[a]ny pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act,” where the condensable PM fraction generally is not required to be included in measurements to determine compliance with standards of performance for PM. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(ii) and 52.21(b)(50)(ii).

    1See 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.

    2See 40 CFR part 51, appendix S.

    3See 77 FR 65107 (October 25, 2012) (“Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5): Amendment to the Definition of `Regulated NSR Pollutant' Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter”).

    Virginia submitted and EPA previously approved a SIP revision to address the provisions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule which included the errant language relating to “particulate matter emissions.” See 79 FR 10377 (February 25, 2014). This direct final rulemaking action makes Virginia's PSD SIP consistent with EPA's original intent, as well as consistent with the corrected Federal requirements that only PM10 and PM2.5 consider condensables, unless a specific NSPS or SIP provision requires otherwise. Additional discussion on EPA's requirements to consider condensables for PM10 and PM2.5 for PSD is available in the preamble to EPA's October 25, 2012 rulemaking action, which is included in the docket for this action.

    EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA4 (hereafter, NRDC v. EPA), issued a decision that remanded the EPA's rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. The DC Circuit's remand of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this direct final rulemaking. As previously discussed, this rule promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The DC Circuit found that EPA erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The court ordered EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. However, as the requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it is EPA's position that the portions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address requirements for PM2.5 in attainment and unclassifiable areas are not affected by the DC Circuit's opinion in NRDC v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Virginia's SIP as to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with the DC Circuit's opinion.

    4See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    This action amends the previously approved definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” under 9VAC5-80-1615 to be consistent with the Federal definition and requirements for condensable PM. Additionally, 9VAC5-80-1615(B) is revised to correct a minor typographical error (a regulatory citation to an incorrect section of the VAC). The revisions being approved were effective in the Commonwealth of Virginia on May 22, 2013.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, 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 revisions to the definitions under 9VAC5-80-1615 as described in Section II of this notice. 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).

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving VADEQ's July 25, 2013 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP. 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 this 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 June 12, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 13, 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.

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

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

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

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

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 June 12, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

    This action pertaining to Virginia's PSD program 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 25, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for Section 5-80-1615 to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] *          *          *          *          *          *          * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 8 Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-80-1615 Definitions 5/22/13 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-08417 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0832; FRL-9925-33-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD or the District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted SIP revision contains the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submitted SIP revision also contains negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories for the NSAQMD. We are approving the submitted SIP revision under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 12, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 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-2014-0832, 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. 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:

    James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 244-1810, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal. A. What document did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of document? C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action. A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission? B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA's recommendations to strengthen the RACT SIP. D. Public comment and final action. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. The State's Submittal A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the document addressed by this action with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Table 1—Submitted Document Local
  • Agency
  • Document Adopted Submitted
    NSAQMD 2007 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area (“2007 RACT SIP”) 6/25/07 2/7/08

    The 2007 RACT SIP became complete by operation of law on August 7, 2008 pursuant to CAA 110(k)(1)(B).

    B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous submitted version of NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP.

    C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?

    Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit enforceable regulations that control VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above require implementation of RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and any other major stationary source of VOCs or NOX. The NSAQMD is subject to this requirement because it regulates western Nevada County, which is designated and classified as a subpart 2 moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, NSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG stationary sources of VOCs or NOX in western Nevada County.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?

    NSAQMD regulates a nonattainment area classified as subpart 2 moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305). CAA Section 182(b)(2) and (f), as well as 40 CFR 51.912(a)(1) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above require implementation of RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and any other major stationary source of VOCs or NOX. Any stationary source that emits or has a potential to emit at least 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a moderate ozone nonattainment area is considered a major stationary source (see CAA sections 182(b(2)) and (f) and 302(j)). Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG document or no other major stationary sources of VOCs or NOX, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such sources in the relevant nonattainment area (see Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers” page 7).

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT SIPs include the following:

    1. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005). 2. “Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred Dates”—Final Rule (69 FR 23858; April 30, 2004). 3. “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). 4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register, May 25, 1988, Revised January 11, 1990, U.S. EPA, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (“The Blue Book”). 5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies, August 21, 2001, U.S. EPA Region IX (the “Little Bluebook”). 6. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (“the NOX Supplement”). 7. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers.” 8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP. 9. “Final Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Classification of Areas That Were Initially Classified Under Subpart 1; Revision of the Anti-Backsliding Provisions To Address 1-Hour Contingency Measure Requirements; Deletion of Obsolete 1-Hour Standard Provision”—Final Rule (77 FR 28424; May 14, 2012). 10. “Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology”, EPA (June 1992). 11. Beyond VOC RACT Requirements”, EPA (April 1995). 12. EPA's CTGs http://www.epa.gov/glo/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html. 13. CARB's emissions inventory database http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php 14. NSAQMD, CARB and EPA Region IX databases of NSAQMD rules—NSAQMD: http://myairdistrict.com/index.php?Itemid=71, CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ridb.htm, EPA: http://epa.gov/region09/air/sips/index.html. B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?

    The 2007 RACT SIP includes three elements, as described further below:

    1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX rules for sources subject to a CTG. 2. Negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a CTG. 3. Negative declaration for major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX.

    NSAQMD provided its 2007 RACT SIP for public comment prior to the public hearing for adoption. No written comments were received by the District. NSAQMD also supplemented 2007 RACT with various other submittals as described below.

    1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX Rules for Sources Subject to a CTG

    NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP referenced various VOC rules that apply to western Nevada County. Subsequent to its adoption of the 2007 RACT SIP on June 25, 2007, NSAQMD amended a number of these rules and submitted them to EPA for approval into the SIP. These submittals effectively supersede the 2007 RACT SIP with respect to Rules 213, 214, 215 and 228. The following rules were subsequently approved by EPA into the SIP: Rule 214 (78 FR 897, January 7, 2013), Rule 215 (76 FR 44493, July 26, 2011), Rule 227 (74 FR 56120, October 30, 2009), and Rule 228 (77 FR 47536, August 9, 2011). Rule 213 was rescinded by NSAQMD (April 25, 2011), and was incorporated into the SIP-approved Rule 214.

    In our recent approvals of these rules, we found that the rules fulfilled RACT requirements. We are not aware of information suggesting that additional controls are needed to fulfill RACT since our approval of these rules. Therefore, we concur that NSAQMD implements has adopted RACT-level rules requirements for vapor recovery systems.

    2. Negative Declarations Where There Are No Facilities Subject to a CTG

    Table 2 of NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP lists not only CTGs, but also other documents relevant to establishing RACT at major sources. Negative declarations are only required for CTG source categories for which the District has no sources covered by the CTG. A negative declaration is not required for non-CTG source categories. Table 2 below lists the CTG source categories that remain after we excluded non-CTG documents from NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP Table 2. The District indicated it does not anticipate sources in these categories in the future. We searched CARB's emissions inventory database to verify there are no facilities in NSAQMD that might be subject to the CTGs listed below. We concur with the District's negative declarations.

    On August 14, 2008 and May 17, 2011, CARB submitted NSAQMD's negative declarations for 10 CTGs issued or updated by EPA between 2006 and 2008. EPA approved these declarations on April 18, 2012 (77 FR 23130).

    Table 2—NSAQMD Negative Declarations CTG Source category CTG Reference document Aerospace EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and MACT. Automobile and Light-duty Trucks, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Flat Wood Paneling, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. Gasoline Loading Terminals EPA-450/2-77-026, Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals. Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume III: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography. Large Appliances, Surface Coating of EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for Insulation of EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. Metal Furniture Coatings EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants Equipment Leaks EPA-450-83-007, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks EPA-450/2-78-047, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks. Petroleum Refineries EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. Pneumatic Rubber Tires, Manufacture of EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. Polyester Resin EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. Shipbuilding/Repair EPA-450/3-94-032, Shipbuilding/Repair. Solvent Metal Cleaning EPA-450/2-77-022, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Wood Furniture EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture. 3. Negative Declaration for Major Non-CTG Sources of VOC or NOX

    The 2007 RACT SIP included a negative declaration for major non-CTG sources of VOC and NOX. EPA agrees that there are no major non-CTG sources of NOX or VOCs in the western Nevada County nonattainment area.

    4. Conclusion

    We find that NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP submission, including the negative declarations and the rule revisions that were SIP-approved after 2007, adequately demonstrate that NSAQMD's rules satisfy RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our TSD has more information on our evaluation.

    C. EPA Recommendations To Strengthen the RACT SIP

    Our TSD describes additional revisions that we recommend for the next time NSAQMD modifies the rules.

    D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted SIP revision because we believe it fulfills 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 SIP revision. If we receive adverse comments by May 13, 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 June 12, 2015. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a specific provision of this SIP revision and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the SIP revision, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the SIP revision that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    III. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 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 June 12, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 12, 2015. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

    PART 52 [AMENDED] 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 paragraph (c)(456) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (456) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on February 7, 2008 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional Material.

    (A) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area as adopted on June 25, 2007.

    3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(9)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 52.222 Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *

    (9) * * *

    (iii) EPA-453/R-97-004 Aerospace CTG and MACT; EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks; EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; EPA-450/2-77-026, Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals; EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography; EPA-450/2-77-034 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances; EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; EPA-450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire; EPA-450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; EPA-450-83-007, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; EPA-450/2-78-047, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks; EPA-450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds; EPA-450/2-78-036 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment; EPA-450/2-78-029 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products; EPA-450/2-78-030 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires; EPA-450/3-83-008 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins; EPA-450/3-83-006 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment; EPA-450/3-94-032, Shipbuilding/Repair; EPA-450/2-77-022, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning; EPA-450/3-84-015 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; EPA-450/4-91-031 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08421 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789; FRL-9925-94-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's request to redesignate to attainment the Allentown Nonattainment Area (Allentown Area or Area) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA has determined that the Allentown Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that it continues to attain the standard. In addition, EPA is approving, as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Allentown Area maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. Furthermore, EPA is approving the 2007 base year emissions inventory, also included in the maintenance plan, for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0789. 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:

    Rose Quinto at (215) 814-2182, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On September 5, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

    On February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6019), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's September 5, 2014 request to redesignate the Allentown Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which includes the 2017 and 2025 for PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

    The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

    II. Final Actions

    EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on September 5, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through PADEP for the Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain the standard. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Allentown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for this standard. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Allentown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Allentown Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the standard.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA 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 required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application 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, 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 June 12, 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, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan and comprehensive emissions inventory for the Allentown Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    40 CFR part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: March 25, 2015. William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 an entry for 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory at the end of the table 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
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory Allentown Area (Lehigh and Northampton Counties) 9/5/14 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] See § 52.2036(t) and § 52.2059(o).
    3. Section 52.2036 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as follows:
    § 52.2036 Base year emissions inventory.

    (t) EPA approves as revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan the 2007 base year emissions inventory for the Allentown 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on September 5, 2014. The emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

    4. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 52.2059 Control strategy: Particular matter.

    (o) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Allentown nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on September 5, 2014. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for Lehigh and Northampton Counties to be applied to all future transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the Allentown nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Allentown Area's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Tons per Year Type of control strategy SIP Year PM2.5 NOX Effective date of SIP approval Maintenance Plan 2017 297 8,081 April 13, 2015. 2025 234 5,303 April 13, 2015.
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    6. Section 81.339 is amended under the table entitled “2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS” by revising the entries for “Allentown, PA” to read as follows:
    § 81.339 Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Allentown, PA: Lehigh County April 13, 2015 Attainment Northampton County April 13, 2015 Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08164 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. OST-2015-0045] RIN 2105-AE35 Use of Electronic Chain of Custody and Control Form in DOT-Regulated Drug Testing Programs AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) regulations to incorporate changes to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) chain of custody and control form (CCF) recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Specifically, this rulemaking expands the DOT's definition of the CCF to include both paper and electronic forms.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions about this action, contact Mark Snider, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-3784; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the DOT finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, is unnecessary, given that the electronic CCF (eCCF) has been approved for use by OMB and the DOT is bound by statute to follow SAMHSA's chain of custody and control procedures, to include use of an OMB-approved CCF.

    I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143, 105 Stat. 952, (Oct. 28, 1991)).

    II. Background

    The Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program was established by Executive Order 12564 on September 15, 1986, and further mandated by Congress in section 503 of Public Law 100-71 (July 11, 1987). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in developing the program, created a comprehensive set of standards for the Federal workplace drug testing program, including chain of custody procedures designed to ensure the integrity and security of specimens from the time the specimen is collected until the time the testing results are reported by the laboratory. To satisfy the congressional mandate, HHS first issued its mandatory guidelines on April 11, 1988, and in doing so, created the uniform CCF. The CCF is the tool by which agencies and participants in the testing process are assured that the specimen collected is actually that of the tested employee. At this time, DOT developed its controlled substance program, following in large part the mandatory guidelines set forth by HHS.

    On October 28, 1991, Congress passed OTETA, which codified the DOT's controlled substance testing program for its regulated entities and added a requirement to develop an alcohol testing program. In codifying the DOT program, Congress directed the Department to continue to “incorporate the [HHS] scientific and technical guidelines dated April 11, 1988, and any amendments to those guidelines, including mandatory guidelines establishing . . . strict procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for controlled substances testing.” See Pub. L. 102-143. As a result of this mandate, the DOT has required its regulated entities to use the CCF, as developed by HHS and approved by OMB. Historically, the CCF only has been available for use in paper form. On May 28, 2014, OMB approved the use of both a paper form CCF and an eCCF under the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. This final rule is necessary to expand the DOT's definition of the CCF to include the OMB-approved eCCF.

    As noted above, the CCF is used to identify a specimen and to document its handling at the collection site. The paper CCF is a carbonless form consisting of 5 copies as follows:

    Copy 1 Test Facility Copy Copy 2 Medical Review Officer Copy Copy 3 Collector Copy Copy 4 Employer Copy Copy 5 Donor Copy The eCCF requires the same collection of information and distribution of information to the relevant parties as the paper CCF requires. With the approved eCCF, HHS is not requiring collection of any new or different information. The only change from the paper CCF to the eCCF is the mechanism for collecting and transmitting the requisite information. Before implementing an eCCF, HHS-certified laboratories must provide a detailed plan and proposed standard operating procedures (SOPs) for SAMHSA to review and approve through SAMHSA's National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP). The review of validation records, specimen records, SOPs, staff training records, and practices associated with the eCCF will be part of the NLCP inspection process. Once the eCCF is approved for use through the NLCP inspection process, it may be used in the DOT drug testing program, as well as the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program. For more information regarding this approval process, please contact the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Division of Workplace Programs, National Laboratory Certification Program at (919) 541-7242, or via email at [email protected]

    It is important to note that electronic signatures are not otherwise acceptable in Part 40. The use of the eCCF will create an exception so that electronic signatures will be acceptable on these forms only and not throughout the rest of Part 40.

    To ensure that the DOT regulations conform to SAMHSA's approved chain of custody and control procedures, the DOT is issuing this final rule to expand the current definition of the CCF in 49 CFR 40.3 to include all versions of the CCF as approved by OMB. We are amending § 40.45 to explain that the 5-part form can be a paper form or an approved electronic form, as long as the employer ensures that security and confidentiality concerns are addressed. The DOT is amending § 40.73 to require entities using an eCCF to follow the eCCF procedures approved by SAMHSA through the NLCP inspection process.

    III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. Finally, section (a)(5) of division H of the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002) requires DOT to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This portion of the preamble summarizes the DOT's analyses of these impacts with respect to this final rule.

    Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 13563, as well as the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Its provisions make conforming amendments to include forms that have already been approved for use by OMB and that, by statute, the DOT is required to use. This rule does not propose any major policy changes or impose significant new costs or burdens. Rather, this rule is expected to reduce paperwork burdens for those entities that elect to use the new eCCF, as noted in SAMHSA's information collection request for the CCF that was approved by OMB. For more information, you may review SAMHSA's information collection request (ICR) 201307-0930-003 and supplemental information at www.reginfo.gov.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354, “RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and a regulatory flexibility analysis will not be required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This final rule does not require entities to use an eCCF. Rather, it presents another means of compliance for all entities, as is currently permitted under the HHS mandatory guidelines. It does not create additional burdens, but may alleviate some paperwork burdens if entities opt to use the eCCF. Thus, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The PRA requires that the DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Because the DOT is obligated by statute to use whatever procedures and forms that SAMHSA adopts with respect to chain of custody and control for drug testing specimens, SAMHSA has accounted for the DOT burden in its recently approved information collection request. For more information regarding these burdens, you may review SAMHSA's ICR 201307-0930-003 and supplemental information at www.reginfo.gov.

    Privacy Act

    The DOT conducted a PIA of this rule as required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). The assessment considers any impacts of the final rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form. In addition to the PIA issued by HHS in conjunction with its ICR for the approved CCF, the DOT issued a supplemental PIA, further explaining how the eCCF may be used by DOT-regulated entities and the measures that have been put into place to ensure not only the integrity and security of the testing process, but the privacy of individuals subject to testing. Copies of the DOT's supplemental PIA, as well as SAMHSA's PIA, have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

    V. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—1. Search the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); or

    2. Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page: www.thefederalregister.org.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Department of Transportation amends part 40 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 40—PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 101, 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.

    2. In § 40.3 revise the definition of “chain of custody” to read as follows:
    § 40.3 What do the terms of this part mean?

    Chain of custody. The procedure used to document the handling of the urine specimen from the time the employee gives the specimen to the collector until the specimen is destroyed. This procedure uses the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) as approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

    3. Amend § 40.45 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (c)(5) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 40.45 What form is used to document a DOT urine collection?

    (a) The Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) must be used to document every urine collection required by the DOT drug testing program. You may view this form on the Department's Web site (http://www.dot.gov/odapc) or the HHS Web site (http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov).

    (c) * * *

    (5) When using an electronic CCF, you must establish adequate confidentiality and security measures to ensure that confidential employee records are not available to unauthorized persons. This includes protecting the physical security of records, access controls, and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in electronic form.

    (f) An employer who uses an electronic CCF must ensure that the collection site, the primary and split laboratories, and MRO have compatible systems, and that the employee and any other program participants in the testing process will receive a legible copy of the CCF.

    4. Amend § 40.73 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 40.73 How is the collection process completed?

    (a) As the collector, when using the paper CCF, you must do the following things to complete the collection process. You must complete the steps called for in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section in the employee's presence.

    (b) As a collector, when using other forms of the CCF as approved by the Office of Management and Budget, you must follow the procedures approved for that form.

    (c) As a collector or collection site, you must ensure that each specimen you collect is shipped to a laboratory as quickly as possible, but in any case, within 24 hours or during the next business day.

    Issued under the authority provided in Pub. L. 102-143, in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary of Transportation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08256 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 574 and 579 [Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0084] RIN 2127-AL54 Tire Identification and Recordkeeping AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The tire identification number (TIN), which must appear on virtually all new and retreaded motor vehicle tires sold in the United States, plays an important role in identifying which tires are subject to recall and remedy campaigns for safety defects and noncompliances. This final rule makes two amendments to the TIN. First, because NHTSA has run out of two-symbol codes to identify new tire plants, NHTSA is expanding the first portion of the TIN, previously known as the manufacturer identifier, but more commonly referred to as a “plant code,” from two symbols to three for manufacturers of new tires. This amendment substantially increases the number of unique combinations of characters that can be used to identify individual manufacturers of new tires. Second, NHTSA is standardizing the length of the tire identification number to eliminate confusion that could arise from the variable length of tire identification numbers. This final rule standardizes the length of the TIN at 13 symbols for new tires and 7 symbols for retreaded tires, making it easier to identify a TIN from which a symbol is missing.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 13, 2015.

    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by May 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical issues, you may contact Chris Wiacek, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366-4801. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In January 1971, the agency established a requirement in 49 CFR part 574 for a tire identification number (TIN) that must be labeled on one sidewall of each tire that is newly manufactured or retreaded.1 The purpose of the TIN is to facilitate notification of purchasers of defective or noncompliant tires. Furthermore, the information contained in the TIN may be used by consumers to obtain information about the tire such as the actual manufacturer of the tire (in the case of a tire sold under a different brand) and the date of manufacture. Part 574 also provides for the registration of tires, including the collection of the TIN and the contact information of purchasers of tires, to enable manufacturers to notify tire owners of recalls.

    1 36 FR 1196 (Jan. 26, 1971).

    From its adoption in 1971, the TIN has consisted of up to four groups of symbols. The first group of symbols identifies the manufacturer of the tire. Each individual tire plant has its own identifier; thus, one tire manufacturer may have multiple codes. Although part 574 has referred to this grouping as the manufacturer's identification mark, it may also be known informally as a “plant code.” For new tires, this code consists of two symbols, and for retreaded tires, the code consists of three symbols. This plant code is assigned to new manufacturers and retreaders when they contact NHTSA and provide contact information and information about what types of tires they are producing.

    The second and third groupings provide information about the tire itself. The second grouping is up to two characters and identifies the tire size. Although the original TIN requirement had a list of tire sizes and two-symbol codes, the agency has since left it to manufacturers to determine their own codes and provide decoding information to NHTSA upon request. This change allowed manufacturers to create new tire sizes without NHTSA first having to modify its regulations to provide a tire size code.

    The third grouping may be used at the manufacturer's option to provide any other significant characteristics of the tire. Except for cases in which a tire is manufactured for a brand name owner, the third grouping is not required. As with the second grouping, a manufacturer must maintain information regarding the code used and provide it to NHTSA upon request.

    The fourth and final grouping is the date code, which identifies the week and year during which the tire was manufactured. Although this code was originally three symbols, it has been expanded to four symbols. The first two symbols have always represented the week of manufacture. For example, “01” signifies that the tire was manufactured during the first full week of the year, “02” signifies that the tire was manufactured during the second full week of the year, and so on. The third and fourth symbols (originally only one symbol) must be the last two digits of the year of manufacture.

    The TIN is required to be marked on at least one sidewall of each tire that is manufactured or retreaded. Manufacturers must use one of 30 alphanumeric symbols in the TIN. Certain letters such as G, I, O, Q, S, and Z are not allowed to be used because of the potential difficulty differentiating one symbol from another (for example, the number 5 and the letter S).

    Generally, the TIN must be molded into or onto one sidewall of the tire. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, which applies to radial tires for vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR, has an additional requirement that the other sidewall be labeled with either a full or partial TIN. A partial TIN excludes the date code and may also exclude any optional code, such as the third grouping of the TIN.

    II. July 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On July 24, 2014, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing two amendments to the TIN. First, because NHTSA was running out of two-symbol codes to identify new tire plants, NHTSA proposed to expand the plant code, from two symbols to three for manufacturers of new tires. Second, NHTSA proposed to standardize the length of the TIN 13 symbols for new tires and 7 symbols for retreaded tires.

    We received 13 comments in response to the July 2014 NPRM. Oyatullohi Maddud, Tire Rack, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Specialty Tires of America (Specialty), Gillespie Automotive Safety Services (GASS), Kojin Kitao, the Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association (JATMA), Safety Research and Strategies (SRS), the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), Zhongce Rubber Group Co. (Zhongce), the Government of Thailand (Thailand), the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada, and the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy of the Republic of Korea (Korea). The comments are addressed in the following sections.

    RMA also requested an extension of the comment period in order to gather additional information regarding the cost of converting existing molds to three-symbol plant codes and 13-symbol TINs. We agree with RMA's general assertion that additional time would be necessary in order for them to obtain this information. However, the agency is faced with the exhaustion of two-symbol plant codes and must begin issuing three-symbol plant codes immediately in order to allow new plants to open. In order to issue three-symbol plant codes immediately, RMA's petition to extend the comment period is denied. However, we believe that our approach in this final rule, in response to RMA's and others' comments, mitigates the need for extra time to respond to the NPRM.

    III. Three-Symbol Plant Code

    NHTSA, through its Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, issues new tire and retreaded tire plant codes to manufacturers when they apply for them. For new tire manufacturers, who have a two-symbol code, the entire supply of 900 plant codes has been depleted.

    In order to assign new plant codes, the agency has found it necessary to reissue previously issued, but currently unused plant codes. This shortage has arisen because of the increase over time in the number of tire manufacturers. This increase is projected to continue. However, a recent increase in the number of new plant code applications has completely depleted the supply of previously issued, but currently unused, plant codes. Without taking further action, the agency would be forced to refuse to assign new plant codes, which would make it impossible for new manufacturers to enter the tire market, or to assign identical plant codes to multiple manufacturers, which has the potential for substantial confusion and could impair tire recalls.

    To enable the agency to issue new plant codes, the agency proposed to change the two-symbol plant code to a three-symbol plant code. We believe that this is the best long-term solution to the lack of supply of new manufacturer plant codes.

    Oyatullohi Maddud, Tire Rack, GASS, RMA, Zhongce and Thailand agreed that NHTSA should begin issuing three-symbol plant codes to new tire manufacturers immediately upon running out of two-symbol codes.

    NHTSA has run out of two-symbol plant codes. Therefore, it is necessary to issue this final rule to allow the issuance of three-symbol plant codes to new tire manufacturers. We are adopting the three-symbol plant code as proposed. For existing manufacturers with two-symbol plant codes, the agency will issue new three-symbol plant codes in place of each two-symbol plant code. For nearly all manufacturers, the agency will assign a “1” symbol in front of each existing two-symbol plant code.2 For example, a manufacturer using two-symbol code “AB” will likely be assigned the three-symbol code “1AB”.

    2 NHTSA will directly contact any manufacturer whose three-symbol plant code is something other than a “1” in front of its existing two-symbol code.

    IV. Standardizing TIN Length

    The length of a TIN is not currently standardized. The second and third groupings of the TIN are required to contain no more than two and four symbols, respectively. Thus, the total length of these two groupings may be between zero and six symbols, depending on whether the tire is new or retreaded, and also on decisions by the manufacturer regarding the inclusion of optional codes. The third grouping is optional for all but non-pneumatic tire manufacturers, non-pneumatic tire assembly manufacturers, and tires manufactured for a brand name owner. Based on all of the variations in TIN length allowed, a full TIN for new tires may be anywhere between 6 and 12 symbols (which would go up to 13 after NHTSA adopts a three-symbol plant code).

    The nonstandard length of the TIN becomes more complicated by the TIN marking requirements in FMVSS No. 139. As mentioned above, FMVSS No. 139 requires a full TIN to be marked on one side of the tire and either a full TIN or a partial TIN on the other side of the tire. A partial TIN excludes the four-symbol date code and any optional code. Thus, a partial TIN may be as long as eight symbols (if a two-symbol size code is used and a four-symbol third grouping is used).

    Because both a full TIN and partial TIN could potentially be eight symbols in length, it may not always be clear whether an eight-symbol TIN obtained from one side of a tire meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is a full TIN or a partial TIN. The last four symbols in a full TIN representing the week and year of manufacture are always numeric. Nevertheless, we do not expect that everyone who records TINs for purposes such as crash reports or consumer complaints is likely to know the requirements for the various groupings of the TIN.

    The July 2014 NPRM proposed to standardize the length of a TIN for all tire manufacturers using the three-symbol plant code at 7 symbols for retreaded tires and 13 symbols for new tires. We believed that this would prevent any confusion regarding whether a TIN is a complete TIN or a partial TIN. The proposal allowed manufacturers that have previously been assigned a two-symbol plant code to continue to use the existing TIN grouping requirements until they begin using a three-symbol plant code. We expected that manufacturers to begin using both the three-symbol plant code and the 13-symbol TIN at the same time.

    We received comments from JATMA, RMA, Thailand, and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada regarding the length of the TIN. Tire Rack supported adopting a standardized-length TIN. The other commenters cited the development of a global technical regulation (GTR) on light vehicle tires. The length of the TIN in the adopted GTR is specified as 15 symbols, including an 8-symbol manufacturer code. The commenters were concerned that the 8-symbol manufacturer code in the GTR is different than the 6-symbol code specified in the NPRM. Zhongce questioned the need for the standardized six-symbol manufacturer's code. Zhongce stated that they currently use five symbols for the optional code and questioned the need to add an additional character in existing molds.

    After the comment period closed, GTR No. 15 related to passenger car tires was adopted. A TIN is included in GTR No. 15. The TIN format in the GTR is nearly identical to the July 2014 NPRM, with one notable exception. Both the GTR and the NPRM include a three-symbol plant code and a four-symbol date code. However, the GTR has an eight-symbol manufacturer code, whereas the NPRM included a six-symbol manufacturer code. Thus, the total TIN length in the GTR is 15 symbols, instead of the 13 symbols in the NPRM.

    We are not making any changes to the proposal related to these comments. Although the GTR was not mentioned in the NPRM, we were aware of the discrepancy between the then-draft GTR and the NPRM at the time of the NPRM, but chose to propose a shorter manufacturer code to minimize the cost transitioning to the new TIN format. Although an 8-symbol manufacturer code is included in the adopted GTR, we believe that a 6-symbol manufacturer code will reduce the costs of standardizing the length of the TIN. No tires currently sold have a TIN longer than 12 symbols. If we were to adopt a 15 symbol TIN, manufacturers would need to allocate space on the tire for at least three extra symbols (and possibly more). Based on the comments received from tire manufacturers regarding the expense of adding of at least one symbol to the TIN, we believe that the costs of adding at least three symbols to the TIN would be much higher. Therefore, we are not modifying the TIN length to expand the manufacturer code to eight symbols.3

    3 RMA notes the inconsistency between the GTR and the NPRM and suggests that NHTSA propose to amend the GTR to be consistent with our final rule. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking; however, we plan to request that the GTR be amended to harmonize with this final rule.

    Moreover, we cannot agree with Zhongce's suggestion to allow the use of shorter manufacturer codes, thereby making the length of the TIN nonstandard. Making all TINs using a three-symbol plant code 13 symbols long is necessary to ensure the identification of the manufacturer with the TIN. Existing TINs are up to 12 symbols long, but use two-symbol plant codes. If we allow manufacturers with three-symbol plant codes to use TINs that are 12 symbols or shorter, we will have no way of knowing whether the TIN uses a two-symbol or three-symbol plant code. Without knowing that, the manufacturer of the tire cannot be ascertained from the TIN. Thus, it is necessary for NHTSA to specify a 13-symbol TIN to accompany the three-symbol plant code.

    V. Lead Time

    In the July 2014 NPRM, we recognized that, for existing manufacturers currently using two-symbol plant codes, immediately requiring the use of a three-symbol plant code and standardized TIN length would impose additional costs with little benefit. The NPRM therefore proposed to make the use of the three-symbol plant code and standardized TIN length optional for existing manufacturers with two-symbol plant codes, beginning immediately upon issuance of a final rule implementing the proposal. NHTSA proposed that mandatory compliance with the use of the three-symbol plant code and 13-symbol TIN would be required beginning not sooner than five years after publication of a final rule implementing the proposal. NHTSA believed that five years would be sufficient lead time before manufacturers would be required to use a three-symbol plant code and 13-symbol TIN.

    Several commenters objected to requiring existing manufacturers to use a three-symbol plant code on the basis of cost and inconvenience. JATMA and Korea asserted that existing plants should not be required to adopt three-symbol plant codes because of their concern about the cost and time needed to upgrade existing molds and because they did not believe that there was sufficient space between the certification symbol and a “1” that was inserted before the plant code in an existing mold. Thailand asserted that products produced using a two-symbol plant code should be allowed to continue to be produced using a two-symbol code because increasing the number of symbols would affect cost without improvement in quality. Specialty requested that limited production tires be excluded from any requirement to use a three-symbol plant code because of the cost of modifying those molds.

    RMA requested that NHTSA provide additional lead time and further requested that the comment period by extended for RMA to provide additional information on how much lead time they believed would be necessary to minimize costs to the industry. RMA stated that requiring existing plants to convert to 13-symbol TINs imposed substantial burdens on manufacturers not using all of the currently optional portions of the TIN. RMA also stated that the agency was incorrect to assume that the average life of a mold is five years.

    RMA suggested that, because NHTSA would soon exhaust the supply of two-symbol codes, NHTSA should go forward with the three-symbol manufacturer identifier and the standardized-length TIN, but consider a longer implementation period. In its comments, RMA and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada suggested that a 10-year lead time is more appropriate. JATMA and Korea also asserted that a longer lead time was appropriate.

    Because of the immediate need for three-symbol plant codes, NHTSA must go forward with a rule allowing the use of three-symbol plant codes. Moreover, to ensure that plant codes for new tires are recognizable, we are moving forward with a requirement that manufacturers who use a three-symbol plant codes use the 13-symbol TIN. NHTSA continues to believe that eventual standardization of TIN length is valuable for ensuring quick identification of the tire manufacturer, for the reasons discussed above. However, in light of the comments received, we are extending the lead time from five years to 10 years for existing plants to adopt the three-symbol plant code and standardized 13-symbol TIN.

    NHTSA's proposed five-year lead time was based upon the assumption that the average life of a tire mold is five years. Past rulemakings related to tire labeling have offered five years of lead time or less.4 Moreover, our assumption was partially based upon RMA's comments on the adoption of FMVSS No. 139 and an NPRM proposing upgrades to truck tire requirements.5 However, the issues identified by the commenters suggest that the assumptions underlying NHTSA's assertion that manufacturers could replace or modify existing molds to use 13-symbol TINs with minimal costs may be outdated or incorrect.

    4 See 64 FR 36807 (Jul. 8, 1999) (four digit date code); 63 FR 28912 (May 27, 1998) (metric labeling on truck tires).

    5 See 67 FR 69600, 69608 (Nov. 18, 2002) (RMA comment that mold life expectancy is up to five years); Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0132-0018, at 4 (comments of RMA on truck tire NPRM stating that the average mold life for radial truck and bus tires is five years).

    Therefore, NHTSA has extended the lead time from the five years proposed in the NPRM to 10 years, as suggested by the commenters. We believe that this change, as well as others discussed below, will minimize the impact of this final rule on existing plants.

    To estimate the total cost of a 10-year lead time, we have used RMA's estimate that 20,504 molds would need to be modified at an average cost per mold of $957 (valued in 2014 dollars).6 We believe that RMA members represent approximately 62 percent of new tire production for the U.S. market and non-RMA members represent approximately 38 percent of new tire production for the U.S. market.7 We have assumed that the 20,504 molds that RMA members are required to modify represent 62 percent of the total molds that will need to be modified as a result of this rule, and that non-RMA members will need to modify 12,612 molds in order to comply with this final rule. Thus, we believe that 33,116 molds will need to be modified at a total cost of approximately $31.7 million.

    6 We believe that $957 per mold represents a high estimate of the cost of modifying a mold. Some molds may be modified simply by inserting new screw-in plates or a similarly uncomplicated process at substantially less than $957 per mold. However, in order to provide a conservative cost estimate, we will assume the cost per mold estimated by RMA.

    7 See Factbook 2014—Summary ed., Rubber Manufacturers Association.

    Although only some molds will need to be modified to comply with this final rule, we expect that the costs of this rule will be spread out over all tires sold, not just tires manufactured in the molds that must be modified. Based on the data provided by RMA in its comments regarding the rates at which molds will be retired over a 5-10 year period, we have used a linear regression to estimate that nearly all molds currently in use today will be retired within 13 years. Given an annual average tire production of approximately 300 million, we believe that approximately 3.6 billion new tires will be produced for the U.S. market during this 13-year period. We expect that the $31.7 million cost of modifying molds could be spread out over all tires produced in this 13-year period.8 Thus, the average cost increase of a tire as a result of this rule over the next 13 years is expected to be less than one cent ($0.009).9

    8 We believe the costs can be spread out over such a long period, in part, because there is no gradual phase-in for existing plants. That is, all molds that need to be modified will not need to be modified until 2025. The only molds we expect to be modified during the first half of the 10-year lead time would be molds that are moved from one plant to another. Those molds would already require some modification under the current requirements and we would reasonably expect that the additional modifications to those molds as a result of this rule could be done at a relatively low cost.

    9 We have not considered retreaders in this analysis because we believe that the process by which retreaders label the TIN on a tire does not require modification of molds. We expect the cost of any modifications that retreaders may be required to make as a result of this final rule to be negligible.

    VI. Changes to Figures 1 and 2

    The July 2014 NPRM proposed minor changes to Figures 1 and 2 of 49 CFR 574.5. For example, the new proposed Figures 1 and 2 included a requirement for a 50 mm blank space following the date code. We received comments from JATMA, RMA, Zhongce, Thailand, the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada, and Korea objecting to this requirement. RMA and the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada also stated that some Canadian tire manufacturers use the 50 mm space following the TIN to display Canada's National Safety Mark, and argued that this proposed requirement represented a barrier to trade that was not justified by safety. RMA noted that this change was not discussed in the preamble to the NPRM. Zhongce and Thailand also argued that the 50 mm blank space requirement may unnecessarily cause difficulties in tire design. Korea suggested that a 20 mm space requirement may be more appropriate.

    In light of the potential inconsistency between the proposed specification in Note 3 of Figure 1 that that there be a blank space of at least 50 mm (2 inches) after the date code and Canadian tire marking requirements, we have not included this specification in this final rule. Although we were concerned about the potential for confusing the date code with other information, we did not discuss this matter in the preamble of the NPRM and did not intend to propose it. Moreover, we have no data to suggest that any benefit to the public as a result of this change would be justified by the creation of a potential inconsistency with the Canadian tire labeling requirements.

    Separately, RMA suggested that NHTSA remove the 6 mm space requirement between the DOT symbol and the beginning of the TIN. RMA also requested that NHTSA reduce the minimum height requirement for the TIN to 4 mm for all tires rather than only for tires with smaller sidewall areas. RMA stated that these changes would give manufacturers additional flexibility to modify existing molds to include a three-symbol plant code.

    We are not adopting these suggestions in this final rule. We believe that the specified minimum space after the DOT symbol ensures that the TIN is distinguished from the certification symbol. Moreover, we believe that the 6 mm letter height (which is currently the requirement for all tires, including those with shorter sidewalls) ensures readability and that the exception for smaller letter height should only apply to tires with shorter sidewalls.

    In contrast, Tire Rack suggested that the 6 mm minimum letter height size be maintained throughout the TIN, particularly the date code. Our response is that, for the tires for which the 6 mm minimum letter height requirement applies, that requirement applies to both the TIN and the certification symbol.

    Tire Rack also suggested that condensed fonts can be difficult to distinguish and included attachments with specific examples. Tire Rack suggested that NHTSA specify the use of bold fonts and prohibit condensed and lightweight fonts. However, having examined the photographs submitted by Tire Rack, we believe that the letters used in condensed fonts can be distinguished and that specifying/prohibiting bold, condensed, or lightweight fonts is not necessary at this time.

    Additionally, on the topic of fonts, we inadvertently proposed to modify Note 1 of Figures 1 and 2 regarding requests for the use of other fonts that are submitted to NHTSA. The proposal would have modified the language to specify that requests are submitted to the “Administrator” rather than the “Administration.” Historically, NHTSA has considered the use of other fonts to be a matter of legal interpretation decided by the Chief Counsel. It was not our intent in the NPRM to reserve this authority to the Administrator. In this final rule, we are specifying that a petition to use an alternate font is submitted to NHTSA.

    RMA requested that NHTSA should continue to permit the use of print types that have previously been approved. Nothing in this rulemaking affects previously approved print types, although we have not attempted to list those types in this regulation.

    Zhongce suggested that NHTSA remove the specification for font type, or alternatively standardize the height-width ratio of the font. Zhongce argued that the specified fonts are not pleasant looking and manufacturers will want to use other fonts. We have not made any change in response to these comments. The specified fonts (and others approved by NHTSA) were chosen or approved for the ease of distinguishing characters, and the specification of font type has not, to our knowledge, had any effect on tire customers' purchasing decisions. Moreover, although the regulation does not specify the height-width ratio, we believe that the specification of fonts inherently specifies a height-width ratio for the characters. That is, if a manufacturer varies the height-width ratio for a particular font, it may not be using the specified font.

    Regarding the allowable fonts, we have discovered that the list of allowable fonts in Figures 1 and 2 has been inadvertently modified to specify that “Future Bold, Modified Condensed” or “Gothic” are the only two allowable fonts. However, the original font specification allowed four fonts: Futura Bold, Futura Modified, Futura Condensed, and Gothic. We have changed the location of the quotation marks and added commas to make clear in Figures 1 and 2 that there are four allowable fonts, not two.

    Kojin Kitao requested three clarifications regarding Figures 1 and 2: (1) Whether the DOT symbol and the TIN, or the TIN alone, must be in the specified fonts; (2) whether the entire TIN can be laser etched on a tire as in the proposed Figures 1 and 2, or whether only the date code may be laser etched as specified in § 574.5(d)(1); and (3) clarification on the location of the certification symbol and TIN on certain tires where it appeared that proposed Figure 1 had duplicate language. First, although the proposal stated that both the certification symbol and the TIN must be in the specified fonts, the version of Figures 1 and 2 in this final rule applies the font requirement solely to the TIN. We did not discuss this change in the preamble and did not intend the font requirement to apply to the certification symbol. Second, we intended to allow only the date code to be laser etched on a tire as specified in § 574.5(d)(1). We have eliminated contrary language from Figures 1 and 2 suggesting that other information may be laser etched. Third, we recognize that the proposed language in Figures 1 and 2 regarding the location on the tire for the certification symbol and DOT code contains duplicate language, and we have corrected this duplication. These changes are reflected in this final rule.

    Tire Rack included two additional suggestions in its comments. First, it requested that NHTSA standardize the location of the certification symbol by allowing it only to the left of the TIN. Tire Rack requested that NHTSA eliminate Option 2 as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, which allows the certification symbol to be located above or below the TIN. Tire Rack observed that it had not seen any tires using Option 2 and believes that its use in the future could only cause confusion. Second, Tire Rack suggested that the branding of TINs on tires should be limited to smooth locations on the sidewall and be prohibited from being branded over multiple background surfaces.

    We have not adopted these suggested changes. It was not our intent in this rulemaking to make substantive changes to the labeling of the TIN on the tire, other than to accommodate a longer plant code and TIN, and we consider these comments to be outside of the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, we are concerned that these changes would eliminate flexibility for manufacturers without necessarily improving the ability of the TIN to be quickly understood in order to facilitate safety recalls.

    Zhongce and GASS also identified errors in the pictures depicted in Figures 1 and 2. Specifically, some of the dimension lines did not line up with the dimensioning arrows. These errors have been corrected in this final rule.

    We received suggestions from GASS and Tire Rack to specify required spacing between the three groupings of symbols of the TIN. We have not adopted this suggestion, because we are concerned that it will eliminate a cost-effective option for converting existing tire molds to a 13-symbol TIN. RMA has suggested that the modification of existing molds that are transferred to new plants will not simply involve the insertion of a “1” in front of the TIN. A mandatory minimum space between the groupings could prevent manufacturers from placing symbols between the existing groupings in order to use 13-symbol TINs on existing molds. We do not seek to impose costs unnecessarily; if this is a cheaper approach to achieve a clearly legible 13-symbol TIN, we would want manufacturers to be able to take advantage of it.

    VII. Other Suggested Changes and Technical Amendments

    NTSB and SRS 10 commented that the agency should alter the TIN to change the format of the date code. SRS requested that NHTSA use a non-coded date of manufacture. Currently, the last four numbers represent the week and year of manufacture of a tire. The commenters did not specify, however, how NHTSA should require the date of manufacture to be presented on the tire.

    10 SRS also raised other matters in its comments. However, none of those matters are related to this rulemaking.

    Given that we did not propose any changes to the date code portion of the TIN, nor did we discuss or request comment on any potential changes to the date code, such a change may be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Even if it were in scope, however, we do not believe a change to the date code is necessary for consumers to determine when their tires were manufactured. NHTSA's tire consumer Web site, http://www.safercar.gov/tires/index.html, explains in several places how to find and interpret the date code. Furthermore, a person should easily be able to determine the location of the date of manufacture on a tire is located either by querying an internet search engine or by asking a tire dealer.

    NTSB and Tire Rack suggested that the use of partial TINs on some tires has not allowed consumers to have necessary information about their tires and requested that full TINs be required on both sides of a tire. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We did not discuss or propose any changes to the placement of the TIN on one or both sidewalls.

    NTSB also suggests that NHTSA enhance the usability of TIN coding by requiring that any coding used by manufacturers be reported to NHTSA and be made public. NTSB particularly notes that the manufacturer, brand name, model, size, and date of manufacture be made available. We are not making the suggested changes. The information referenced by NTSB is already required to be marked on the sidewall of any tire certified to FMVSS requirements. We do not believe that safety would be improved by requiring this information to be additionally included in the TIN itself.

    GASS stated that in the first sentence of proposed § 574.5(a)(3) specifying marking requirements for non-pneumatic tires, the agency should specify that, instead of saying the TIN has to be placed “onto one side of” the tire, the agency should specify that it be placed “onto at least one side of” the tire. GASS reasoned that this change would be consistent with requirements for other types of tires. We agree, and we have made this suggested change.

    GASS raised other technical issues that we have not adopted. First, GASS suggested that proposed § 574.5(b)(1) and (b)(3) be modified to make explicit references to Figures 1 and 2, as we have done in § 574.5(b)(2). We do not believe this change is necessary. Second, GASS suggested that the list of authorized symbols in § 574.5(f) has the letter “I” instead of the number “1”. This is not correct. The number “1” was used in the NPRM. Third, GASS suggested that the list be modified to make explicit notations of the symbols that are letters and those that are numerals. We do not believe this change is necessary because the context in which the information is presented (alphabetical and numerical order) makes clear which symbols are letters and which are numbers.

    RMA stated that in proposed § 574.5(a)(4) regarding the labeling of tires manufactured for mileage-contract purchasers, NHTSA incorrectly converted 0.25 inches into 13 millimeters rather than 6 millimeters. We agree that this conversion was incorrect. We have included the correct metric conversion in this final rule.

    Finally, we sought comment on whether it is necessary to make any technical amendment to any of the tire labeling regulations in light of the proposed changes. RMA suggested several other technical amendments that were necessary. First, RMA suggested that NHTSA amend S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, which includes language that allows optional codes to be excluded from partial TINs allowed on one sidewall of a tire. However, this final rule does not completely eliminate optional codes. Existing plants with two-symbol plant codes will be allowed to continue to use the old TIN format. Thus, it would be premature to remove the reference to optional codes in FMVSS No. 139.

    Second, RMA stated that the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations in 49 CFR 579.26 contain three references that should be corrected. First, the general provisions specify that manufacturers located in the United States may report “the two-character DOT alphanumeric code” identifying the production plant. In addition, paragraphs (a) and (d) contain references to “tire type codes” which, under the new TIN format, would be the manufacturer's code. We agree that 49 CFR 579.26 requires technical corrections for consistency with the changes to part 574, and have included RMA's suggested technical corrections in this final rule.11

    11 RMA also provided a list of non-regulatory changes that RMA believes are necessary to accommodate this final rule. RMA included suggested changes to the instructions for EWR reporting, the templates for EWR reporting, and potential changes to the Artemis database system. We will consider whether the changes to the EWR reporting instructions and templates are necessary. We believe that the Artemis database system is presently capable of accommodating three-symbol plant codes.

    VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has further determined that the impact of this proposal is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

    This final rule will impose costs upon some existing tire manufacturers. New tire manufacturers would be issued three-symbol plant codes immediately and would be required to use the standardized 13-symbol TIN. For these new manufacturers or existing manufacturers opening new plants, this final rule will impose at most negligible costs. Manufacturers constructing new molds for a new plant should be able to comply with the new TIN requirements at no additional cost. For existing plants, new tire manufacturers will be required to modify any molds still in service in 10 years to accommodate a three-symbol plant code and a 13-symbol TIN. As discussed in more detail in section V, above, we expect that, for existing plants, this final rule will result in a one-time cost of approximately $31.7 million to modify molds to accommodate a three-symbol plant code and a 13-symbol TIN. We estimate that this cost could be spread out over all tires produced over a 13-year period, resulting in an increase in cost per tire of less than one cent.

    We do not believe that the safety benefits of this final rule can be expressly quantified, but we anticipate that these amendments would benefit the public in two ways. First, without expanding the plant code to three characters, the agency would need either to stop issuing new plant codes or to issue identical codes to multiple manufacturers. Either of these approaches could lead to confusion in the identification of the manufacturer of a tire, particularly those tires that are manufactured for another brand name owner. Second, the standardization of the TIN length eliminates the potential for confusion regarding whether a TIN is a full TIN or a partial TIN, which may assist consumers with identifying whether their tires may be subject to recall and may prevent crash investigators from recording partial TINs rather than full TINs on their reports.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers and retreaders of tires for use on all motor vehicles. Although we believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on those manufacturers. We expect that many changes that need to be made by manufacturers as a result of this final rule be done during the normal mold replacement cycle at no additional cost to manufacturers. The new tire manufacturers that would bear the costs of this rule as discussed in section V, above, are not small businesses. Although some retreaders are likely small businesses, we believe that they can make the modifications required by this final rule without incurring significant costs. The process by which retreaders label tires with TINs is different than for new tire manufacturers. Retreaders do not label TINs on tires using tire molds; rather, they use smaller, less expensive means for labeling tires. We do not believe that this final rule would cause retreaders to modify molds, and we believe that any modifications to TIN labeling methods necessary to comply with this rule could be made at minimal cost.

    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The agency expects that general principles of preemption law would operate so as to displace any conflicting State law or regulations.

    D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is no information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”

    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.

    There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

    This final rule will not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation.

    H. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

    J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 574

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    49 CFR Part 579

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR parts 574 and 579 as follows:

    PART 574—TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING 1. Revise the authority citation for part 574 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    2. Revise §§ 574.5 and 574.6 to read as follows:
    § 574.5 Tire identification requirements.

    (a) Tire identification number (TIN) labeling requirement—(1) New tires. Each new tire manufacturer must conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except non-pneumatic tires or non-pneumatic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a TIN consisting of 13 symbols and containing the information set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. NOTE: The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards may have more specific TIN marking requirements for some tires. See 49 CFR part 571.

    (2) Retreaded tires. Each tire retreader must conspicuously label at least one sidewall of each tire it retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified by Figure 2, a TIN consisting of seven symbols and containing the information set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section.

    (3) Non-pneumatic tires and non-pneumatic tire assemblies. Each manufacturer of a non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly must permanently mold, stamp, or otherwise permanently mark into or onto at least one side of the non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly a TIN consisting of 13 symbols and containing the information set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.

    (4) Tires for mileage-contract purchasers. Manufacturers or retreaders of tires exclusively for mileage-contract purchasers may, instead of meeting any other requirements of this section, permanently mold into or onto the tire sidewall in lettering at least 6 mm (0.25 inch) high the phrase “for mileage contract use only”.

    (5) Optional phase-out of two-symbol plant code. NHTSA will assign to tire manufacturers who were previously assigned a plant code consisting of two symbols a new three-symbol plant code to replace each two-symbol plant code. A manufacturer may continue to use a previously assigned two-symbol plant code until April 13, 2025. Manufacturers who use a two-symbol plant code must comply with paragraph (g) of this section in lieu of the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. Retreaders may also optionally comply with paragraph (g) of this section in lieu of paragraph (b) of this section until April 13, 2025.

    (b) TIN content requirements—(1) Plant code. The plant code, consisting of three symbols, must be the first group of the TIN. The plant code represents the identity of the new tire manufacturer or retreader. The plant code is assigned to the manufacturer or retreader by NHTSA upon request. See § 574.6.

    (2) Manufacturer's code. The manufacturer's code, consisting of six symbols, is the second group of the TIN for all new tires, but it cannot be used for retreaded tires. The manufacturer's code must be located between the plant code and the date code as shown in Figure 1. For new tires, the manufacturer's code may be used as a descriptive code for the purpose of identifying significant characteristics of the tire or to identify the brand name owner. For a new non-pneumatic tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly, the manufacturer's code must identify the non-pneumatic tire identification code. Each manufacturer must maintain a detailed record of each manufacturer's code it uses with the corresponding tire size, tire characteristic, brand name owner, and non-pneumatic tire identification code as applicable and their respective meanings, which it must provide to NHTSA upon request.

    (3) Date code. The date code, consisting of four numerical symbols, is the final group. The date code must identify the week and year of manufacture. The first and second symbols of the date code must identify the week of the year by using “01” for the first full calendar week in each year, “02” for the second full calendar week, and so on. The calendar week runs from Sunday through the following Saturday. The final week of each year may include no more than six days of the following year. The third and fourth symbols of the date code must identify the last two digits of the year of manufacture. For example, 0109 means the tire was manufactured in the first full calendar week of 2009, or the week beginning on Sunday, January 4, 2009, and ending on Saturday, January 10, 2009. The date code must be positioned as shown in Figures 1 or 2 for new tires and retreaded tires, respectively.

    (c) Retreaded tire mark. The symbol “R” must be used to identify retreaded tires, and must be marked at the time of TIN marking in a location specified in Figure 2. The “R” is not part of the TIN.

    (d) Method of marking. (1) At the option of the manufacturer or retreader, the information contained in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figures 1 or 2, respectively, during the manufacturing process of the tire and not later than 24 hours after the tire is removed from the mold.

    (2) The labeling for a non-pneumatic tire or a non-pneumatic tire assembly must be in the manner specified in Figure 1 and positioned on the non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly such that it is not placed on the tread or the outermost edge of the tire and is not obstructed by any portion of the non-pneumatic rim or wheel center member designated for use with that non-pneumatic tire in S4.4 of Standard No. 129 (49 CFR 571.129).

    (e) The DOT symbol. (1) The DOT symbol constitutes a certification that the marked tire conforms to an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

    (2) If required, a manufacturer or retreader must place the DOT symbol as shown and positioned relative to the TIN in Figure 1 for new tires and as shown in Figure 2 for retreaded tires.

    (3) The DOT symbol must not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, except that retreaders of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars may, prior to retreading, remove the DOT symbol from the sidewall or allow it to remain on the sidewall, at the retreader's option.

    (f) Authorized symbols. The only symbols that manufacturers and retreaders are allowed to use in the tire identification number are: A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0.

    (g) Old TIN content requirement. The following requirements are applicable to tire manufacturers who were previously assigned two-symbol plant codes by NHTSA and to retreaders. A new tire manufacturer who continues to use a previously assigned two-symbol plant code in place of a new three-symbol plant code and a retreader may optionally comply with this paragraph instead of paragraph (b) of this section until April 13, 2025.

    (1) First grouping. The plant code, consisting of two symbols, must be the first group of the TIN. The plant code represents the identity of the new tire manufacturer and was previously assigned to the manufacturer by NHTSA.

    (2) Second grouping. For new tires, the second group, consisting of no more than two symbols, must be used to identify the tire size. For a non-pneumatic tire or non-pneumatic tire assembly, the second group, consisting of no more than two symbols, must be used to identify the non-pneumatic tire identification code. For retreaded tires, the second group, consisting of no more than two symbols, must identify the retread matrix in which the tire was processed or a tire size code if a matrix was not used to process the retreaded tire. Each new tire manufacturer and retreader must maintain a record of each symbol used, with the corresponding matrix or tire size, which it must provide to NHTSA upon request.

    (3) Third grouping. The third group, consisting of no more than four symbols, may be used at the option of the manufacturer or retreader as a descriptive code for the purpose of identifying significant characteristics of the tire. However, if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner, one of the functions of the third grouping must be to identify the brand name owner. Each manufacturer or retreader who uses the third grouping must maintain a detailed record of any descriptive brand name owner code used, which it must provide to NHTSA upon request.

    (4) Fourth grouping. The date code, consisting of four numerical symbols, is the final group. The date code must identify the week and year of manufacture. The first and second symbols of the date code must identify the week of the year by using “01” for the first full calendar week in each year, “02” for the second full calendar week, and so on. The calendar week runs from Sunday through the following Saturday. The final week of each year may include no more than six days of the following year. The third and fourth symbols of the date code must identify the last two digits of the year of manufacture. For example, 0109 means the tire was manufactured in the first full calendar week of 2009, or the week beginning on Sunday, January 4, 2009, and ending on Saturday, January 10, 2009. The date code must be positioned as shown in Figures 1 or 2 for new tires and retreaded tires, respectively.

    ER13AP15.004 ER13AP15.005
    § 574.6 How to obtain a plant code.

    To obtain a plant code required by § 574.5(b)(1), each manufacturer of new or retreaded pneumatic tires, non-pneumatic tires, or non-pneumatic tire assemblies must apply in writing to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20590, identify itself as a tire manufacturer or retreader, and furnish the following information:

    (a) The name, or other designation identifying the applicant, and its main office address;

    (b) The name, or other identifying designation, of each individual plant operated by the manufacturer and the address of each plant, if applicable;

    (c) The name, or other identifying designation, of the corporate owner, if applicable, of each plant;

    (d) The email addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers for each person or corporation listed, including the main office; and

    (e) The type of tires manufactured at each plant, e.g., pneumatic tires for passenger cars, buses, trucks, or motorcycles; pneumatic retreaded tires; or non-pneumatic tires or non-pneumatic tire assemblies.

    Note to § 574,6: Additional requirements for new tire manufacturers may be applicable. See 49 CFR parts 551 and 566.

    PART 579—REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL DEFECTS 3. The authority citation for part 579 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112, 30117-121, 30166-167; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    4. Amend § 579.26 by: a. Revising the fifth sentence of the introductory text; b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a); and c. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 579.26 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of tires.

    * * * For purposes of this section, the two- or three-character DOT alphanumeric code for production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in accordance with §§ 574.5 and 574.6 of this chapter may be used to identify “plant where manufactured.” * * *

    (a) Production information. Information that states the manufacturer's name, the quarterly reporting period, the tire line, the tire size, the tire type code or manufacturer's code, the SKU, the plant where manufactured, whether the tire is approved for use as original equipment on a motor vehicle, if so, the make, model, and model year of each vehicle for which it is approved, the production year, the cumulative warranty production, and the cumulative total production through the end of the reporting period. * * *

    (d) Common green tire reporting. * * * For each specific common green tire grouping, the list shall provide all relevant tire lines, tire type codes or manufacturer's code, SKU numbers, brand names, and brand name owners.

    Issued on April 3, 2015 in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08418 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 150227200-5347-02] RIN 0648-BE79 Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Management Reference Point Updates for Three Stocks of Pacific Salmon AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues a final rule to update management reference point values for Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho, as recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Council manages West Coast ocean salmon fisheries under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Over the course of two Council meetings (November 2014 and March 2015), the Council adopted management reference point values for three stocks of Pacific salmon: Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho. The management reference points, as described in the proposed rule (80 FR 14066, March 18, 2015), include: Conservation objective (a value unique to the FMP, generally an annual spawning escapement goal), the fishing mortality rate expected to result in maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), MSY spawner abundance (SMSY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and maximum fishery mortality threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY). For one stock that was added to the FMP under Amendment 16, Willapa Bay natural coho, the Council also confirmed the formula for determining the annual catch limit (ACL), as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The proposed rule was developed based on Council recommendations from the November 2014 Council meeting. At that time, the Council had not explicitly adopted all of the management reference point values; therefore, NMFS proposed adopting some of the values pursuant to NMFS' independent rulemaking authority (18 U.S.C. 1855(d)), and those values were described in the proposed rule. The Council took action at the March 2015 meeting to adopt the remaining management reference point values. The reference point values being implemented by this final rule are based on the best available science developed through the Council's 2014 methodology review. They were recommended to the Council by the Salmon Technical Team, and were reviewed and endorsed, to the extent appropriate, by the Scientific and Statistical Committee. The reference point values being implemented are presented in Table 1.

    Table 1—Updated Management Reference Points Adopted by the Council and Implemented in This Final Rule Reference point Southern Oregon coastal Chinook Willapa Bay natural coho Grays Harbor fall Chinook FMP Conservation Objective (escapement) 41,000 (measured at Huntley Park) 17,200 13,326. SMSY (escapement) 34,992 17,200 13,326. MSST (escapement) 20,500 (measured at Huntley Park) 8,600 6,663. MFMT 54 percent 74 percent 63 percent. ACL Definition Not applicable Based on FABC and annual ocean abundance, FABC is FMSY reduced by Tier 1 (5%) uncertainty Not applicable. Response to Comments

    NMFS accepted comments on the proposed rule to update management reference point values through April 2, 2015. NMFS received six public comment submissions from individuals, via the www.regulations.gov portal. The comments, and NMFS' responses, have been grouped for similarity.

    Comment 1: Two individuals expressed support for the proposed rule, referring to it as a “great idea” and praising the economic benefits of a fishery with “fair measurements.”

    Response: NMFS agrees that a sustainably managed fishery is beneficial.

    Comment 2: Three individuals supported fish and the fishing industry, but did not provide specific comments on the proposed rule.

    Response: NMFS agrees that fisheries should be managed to be beneficial to both the fish and the public. Under the MSA, NMFS is responsible for sustainable management of the nation's fisheries. This rule is consistent with that obligation and addresses requirements of the FMP and MSA National Standard 1.

    Comment 3: One individual asked “where are the proposed fisheries?”

    Response: This rule does not propose fisheries. Salmon management measures for ocean salmon fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California are set annually through the Council process (http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/).

    Updated Information From the Proposed Rule

    The Council took final action at their March 2015 meeting to adopt the three management reference points described in the proposed rule that were previously not explicitly adopted by the Council (Willapa Bay natural coho MSST, and Grays Harbor fall Chinook MSST and MFMT). The Council transmitted this action to NMFS in a letter dated April 1, 2015. Therefore, under this final rule, NMFS implements all of the management reference point values in the proposed rule as recommended by the Council. See Table 1 for the management reference points adopted by the Council and implemented in this final rule.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan, the MSA, and other applicable law.

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The West Coast Regional Administrator has determined that the actions of this rule qualify for categorical exclusion from further NEPA analysis under NAO 216-6.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published with the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of this final rule. As a result, a RFA is not required and none has been prepared.

    This rule does not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. This rule does not include a collection of information. No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    This action is not expected to have adverse effects on any species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or designated critical habitat. This action modifies reference points used in the setting of annual management measures for West Coast salmon fisheries. NMFS has current ESA biological opinions that cover fishing under annual regulations adopted under the FMP on all listed salmon species except Lower Columbia River natural coho; NMFS expects to complete a new biological opinion for Lower Columbia River natural coho prior to implementing 2015 salmon management measures on May 1, 2015. NMFS reiterates their consultation standards for all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in their annual Guidance letter to the Council. Some of NMFS past biological opinions have found no jeopardy, and others have found jeopardy, but provided reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. The annual management measures are designed to be consistent with the biological opinions that found no jeopardy, and with the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the jeopardy biological opinions. The Council's recommended management measures, which will be consistent with the reference points implemented by this rule, therefore comply with NMFS' consultation standards and guidance for all listed salmon species which may be affected by Council fisheries. In some cases, the recommended measures are more restrictive than NMFS' ESA requirements.

    In 2009, NMFS consulted on the effects of fishing under the Salmon FMP on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment (SRKW) and concluded the salmon fisheries were not likely to jeopardize SRKW. Annual salmon management measures are designed to be consistent with the terms of that biological opinion.

    This rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with the affected tribes, through the Council process. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. This rule implements changes in management reference points that will be used in setting ocean salmon fisheries, beginning in 2015. As previously discussed, the actions in this rule were developed through the Council's Methodology review. The actions were adopted by the Council over two Council meetings and the final recommendation was transmitted to NMFS in April 2015. The Council took action on some of the management reference points in November 2014 and transmitted their initial recommendations to NMFS on January 23, 2015, with further clarification transmitted to NMFS on February 9, 2015. The Council finalized adoption of the management reference points and transmitted them to NMFS on April 1, 2015. Therefore, this rulemaking could not be implemented sooner. Delaying the effectiveness of the actions in this rule by 30 days would result in managing the three affected stocks in a manner that is not consistent with the best available science, and would complicate NMFS' approval and implementation of salmon fisheries recommended by the Council, beginning May 1, 2015. Delay in implementing this rule would have the following effects on the impacted stocks: Southern Oregon coastal Chinook and Grays Harbor fall Chinook would be subject to overfishing, as the current MFMT would be higher than recommended by the STT and adopted by the Council; Willapa Bay natural coho would have no defined reference points, no way to evaluate for overfishing, and no defined annual catch limit. Therefore, if the effectiveness of this rule is delayed, it would undermine the purposes of this agency action and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08394 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 70 Monday, April 13, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1205 [AMS-CN-12-0059] Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-Up Period AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would amend the rules and regulations regarding the procedures for the conduct of a sign-up period for eligible cotton producers and importers to request a continuance referendum on the 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order) provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (Act) amendments of 1990. The amendments would update various dates, name changes, addresses, and make other administrative changes.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

    Comments, identified by AMS-CN-12-0059, may be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments. In addition, comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Cotton Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406. A copy of this notice may be found at: www.regulations.gov .

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.

    Executive Order 13175

    This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposed rule would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant tribal implications.

    Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.

    The Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of ruling.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601-612], the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $7,000,000. In 2014, an estimated 16,000 producers, and approximately 20,000 importers were subject to the order. The majority of these producers and importers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration.

    There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    Only those eligible persons who are in favor of conducting a referendum would need to participate in the sign-up period. Of the 46,220 total valid ballots received in the 1991 referendum, 27,879, or 60 percent, favored the amendments to the Order, and 18,341, or 40 percent, opposed the amendments to the Order. This proposed rule would provide those persons who are not in favor of the continuance of the Order amendments an opportunity to request a continuance referendum.

    The eligibility and participation requirements for producers and importers are substantially the same as the rules that established the eligibility and participation requirements for the 1991 referendum, and for the 1997, 2001, and 2007 sign-up periods. The sign-ups in 1997, 2001, and 2007 sign-ups did not generate the required number of signatures to hold another referendum. The amendments proposed in this action would update various dates, name changes, addresses, and make other miscellaneous changes.

    The proposed sign-up procedures would not impose a substantial burden or have a significant impact on persons subject to the Order, because participation is not mandatory, not all persons subject to the Order are expected to participate, and USDA will determine producer and importer eligibility. The information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act are minimal.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collections proposed by this rule will be carried out under the OMB Control Number 0581-0093. This rule will not add to the overall burden currently approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0093 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This OMB Control Number is referenced in section 1205.541 of the regulations.

    Background

    The 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) were implemented following the July 1991 referendum. The amendments were provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) amendments of 1990. These amendments provided for: (1) Importer representation on the Cotton Board by an appropriate number of persons, to be determined by USDA, who import cotton or cotton products into the U.S., and whom USDA selects from nominations submitted by importer organizations certified by USDA; (2) assessments levied on imported cotton and cotton products at a rate determined in the same manner as for U.S. cotton; (3) increasing the amount USDA can be reimbursed for the conduct of a referendum from $200,000 to $300,000; (4) reimbursing government agencies that assist in administering the collection of assessments on imported cotton and cotton products; and (5) terminating the right of producers to demand a refund of assessments.

    On May 29, 2013, USDA issued a determination based on its review (78 FR 32228), not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order; however, the Act provides that USDA shall nevertheless conduct a referendum at the request of 10 percent or more of the total number of eligible producers and importers that voted in the most recent referendum. The Act provides for a sign-up period during which eligible cotton producers and importers may request that USDA conduct a referendum on continuation of the 1991 amendments to the Order. Accordingly, USDA will provide all eligible Upland cotton producers and importers an opportunity to request a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order.

    Pursuant to section 8(c) of the Act, the sign-up period will be provided for all eligible producers and importers. Eligible cotton producers would be provided the opportunity to sign-up to request a continuance referendum in person at the county Farm Service Agency (FSA) office where their farm is located. If a producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall sign-up at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. Producers may alternatively may request a sign-up form in the mail from the same office or through the USDA, AMS Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton and return it to their FSA office or return their signed request forms to USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

    Eligible importers would be provided the opportunity to sign up to request a continuance referendum by downloading a form from the AMS Web site, or request a sign-up form by contacting [email protected] or (540) 361-2726 and return their signed request forms to USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

    Such request must be accompanied by a copy of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection form 7501 showing payment of a cotton assessment for calendar year 2014. Requests and supporting documentation should be mailed to USDA, AMS, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

    The sign-up period will be from May 11, 2015, until May 22, 2015. Producer and importer forms shall only be counted if received by USDA during the stated sign-up period.

    Section 8(c)2 of the Act provides that if USDA determines, based on the results of the sign-up, that 10 percent or more of the total number of eligible producers and importers that voted in the most recent 1991 referendum (i.e., 4,622) request a continuance referendum on the 1991 amendments, a referendum will be held within 12 months after the end of the sign-up period. In counting such requests, however, not more than 20 percent may be from producers from any one state or from importers of cotton. For example, when counting the requests, the AMS Cotton and Tobacco Program would determine the total number of valid requests from all cotton-producing states and from importers. Not more than 20 percent of the total requests will be counted from any one state or from importers toward reaching the 10 percent for 4,622 total signatures required to call for a referendum. If USDA determines that 10 percent or more of the number of producers and importers who voted in the most recent referendum favor a continuance referendum, a referendum will be held.

    This proposed rule would amend the procedures for the conduct of the current sign-up period. The current rules and regulations provide for sections on definitions, supervision of the sign-up period, eligibility, participation in the sign-up period, counting requests, reporting results and instructions and forms.

    In sections 1205.20, 1205.26, and 1205.27 “calendar year 2006” would change to “calendar year 2014.” Also, in section 1205.26, eligible persons are further defined to ensure that all producers that planted cotton during 2014 will be eligible to participate in the sign-up period. In sections 1205.27, 1205.28, and 1205.29 sign-up period conduct dates, FSA reporting dates, and mailing addresses have been updated. In section 1205.27(b), AMS is proposing to post information in its Web site rather than mailing a form to each known importer. Before the start of the sign-up period, AMS will post sign-up information, including sign-up forms, on its Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton.

    A 10-day comment period is determined to be appropriate because these proposed eligibility and participation requirements are substantially the same as the eligibility and participation requirements that were used in previous referenda and a sign-up period; participation is voluntary; and this rule, if adopted, should be made effective as soon as possible in order to conduct the sign-up at the earliest possible dates.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1205

    Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    7 CFR Part 1205, Sections 1205.10 Through 1205.30

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1205 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1205—COTTON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION 1. The authority citation part 1205 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2101-2118 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    2. Section 1205.20 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1205.20 Representative period.

    The term representative period means the 2014 calendar year.

    3. In § 1205.26, paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:
    § 1205.26 Eligibility.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Any person who was engaged in the production of Upland cotton during calendar year 2014; and

    (2) Any person who was an importer of Upland cotton and imported Upland cotton in excess of the value of $2.00 per line item entry during calendar year 2014.

    4. Section 1205.27 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1205.27 Participation in the sign-up period.

    The sign-up period will be from May 11, 2015, until May 22, 2015. Those persons who favor the conduct of a continuance referendum and who wish to request that USDA conduct such a referendum may do so by submitting such request in accordance with this section. All requests must be received by the appropriate USDA office by May 22, 2015.

    (a) Before the sign-up period begins, FSA shall establish a list of known, eligible, Upland cotton producers in the county that it serves during the representative period, and AMS shall also establish a list of known, eligible Upland cotton importers.

    (b) Before the start of the sign-up period, AMS will post sign-up information, including sign-up forms, on its Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton. Importers who favor the conduct of a continuance referendum can download a form from the Web site, or request a sign-up form by contacting [email protected] or (540) 361-2726 and one will be provided to them. Importers may participate in the sign-up period by submitting a signed, written request for a continuance referendum, along with a copy of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection form 7501 showing payment of a cotton assessment for calendar year 2014. The USDA, AMS, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249 shall be considered the polling place for all cotton importers. All requests and supporting documents must be received by May 22, 2015.

    (c) Each person on the county FSA office lists may participate in the sign-up period. Eligible producers must date and sign their name on the “County FSA Office Sign-up Sheet.” A person whose name does not appear on the county FSA office list may participate in the sign-up period. Such person must be identified on FSA-578 during the representative period or provide documentation that demonstrates that the person was a cotton producer during the representative period. Cotton producers not listed on the FSA-578 shall submit at least one sales receipt for cotton they planted during the representative period. Cotton producers must make requests to the county FSA office where the producer's farm is located. If the producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall make request at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. It is the responsibility of the person to provide the information needed by the county FSA office to determine eligibility. It is not the responsibility of the county FSA office to obtain this information. If any person whose name does not appear on the county FSA office list fails to provide at least one sales receipt for the cotton they produced during the representative period, the county FSA office shall determine that such person is ineligible to participate in the sign-up period, and shall note “ineligible” in the remarks section next to the person's name on the county FSA office sign-up sheet. In lieu of personally appearing at a county FSA office, eligible producers may request a sign-up form from the county FSA office where the producer's farm is located. If the producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall make the request for the sign-up form at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. Such request must be accompanied by a copy of at least one sales receipt for cotton they produced during the representative period. The appropriate FSA office must receive all completed forms and supporting documentation by May 22, 2015.

    7. In § 1205.28, the first sentence is revised to read as follows:
    § 1205.28 Counting.

    County FSA offices and FSA, Deputy Administrator for Field Operations (DAFO), shall begin counting requests no later than May 22, 2015. * * *

    8. Section 1205.29 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1205.29 Reporting results.

    (a) Each county FSA office shall prepare and transmit to the state FSA office, by June 1, 2015, a written report of the number of eligible producers who requested the conduct of a referendum, and the number of ineligible persons who made requests.

    (b) DAFO shall prepare, by June 1, 2015, a written report of the number of eligible importers who requested the conduct of a referendum, and the number of ineligible persons who made requests.

    (c) Each state FSA office shall, by June 1, 2015, forward all county reports to DAFO. By June 8, 2015, DAFO shall forward its report of the total number of eligible producers and importers that requested a continuance referendum, through the sign-up period, to the Deputy Administrator, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08163 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036] RIN 1904-AD35 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Hearth Products AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and TSD (technical support document) that analyzes the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from potential energy conservation standards for hearth products. DOE published this NOPR and analysis so stakeholders can review the relevant outputs and the underlying assumptions and calculations. After receiving a request for additional time to comment, DOE has decided to extend the comment period for the NOPR pertaining to the energy conservation standards for hearth products until May 11, 2015.

    DATES:

    The comment period on the NOPR and TSD pertaining to the energy conservation standards for hearth products published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2015 (80 FR 7082) is extended, and comments must be postmarked by no later than May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Instructions: Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Hearth Products, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD35. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form on encryption.

    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 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.

    4. 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.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation section of the February 9, 2015 NOPR.

    Docket: The docket, which will include all relevant 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 publically available, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=84. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII, “Public Participation,” of the NOPR for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Cymbalsky, 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) 287-1692. Email: [email protected].

    Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register to make available and invite public comments on its analysis regarding potential energy conservation standards for hearth products. 80 FR 7082 (Feb. 9, 2015). The document set a deadline for the submission of written comments by April 10, 2015. RH Peterson Co. requested an extension of the public comment period, stating that additional time is necessary to review the published analysis in order to prepare and submit comments. DOE has determined that extending the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments is appropriate based on the foregoing reason. DOE believes that extending the comment period by 30 days will provide the public with sufficient time to submit comments responding to DOE's analysis. Accordingly, DOE will consider any comments postmarked by May 11, 2015, and deems any comments received by that date to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08154 Filed 4-9-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0823; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-211-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. This proposed AD would require replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0823; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.

    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-2015-0823; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-211-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-36, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Design review found that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, is lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve. This could cause the flexible hose to burst before it is able to vent the excess oxygen overboard. If an ignition source is present, the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space may result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the oxygen hose assembly with a new design oxygen hose assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0823.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $97,750, or $170 per airplane.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0823; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-211-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Before the accumulation of 5,800 total flight hours or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all oxygen hose assemblies having part number (P/N) 38026-4-0280-000 with new, improved assemblies having P/N 601R44045-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen hose assembly, P/N 38026-4-0280-000, on any airplane.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-36, dated October 17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0823.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08073 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0684; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-215-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-7-1 and DHC-7-100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks that were discovered in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed visual inspection for cracking in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles; and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles, which could lead to the loss of stiffness in the forward engine mount; and possible catastrophic failure.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 28, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Viking Air Limited, 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, British Columbia V8L 8V5, Canada; telephone 250-656-7227; fax 250-656-0673; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.vikingair.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0684; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228 7329; fax 516-794 5531.

    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-2015-0684; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-215-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-34, dated October 2, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-7-1 and DHC-7-100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Longitudinal cracks were discovered in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles at station XN1 78. The cracks were partially hidden by bearing blocks, Part Number (P/N) 75420978, at the nacelle latch locations. Undetected, these cracks may lead to the loss of stiffness in the forward engine mount; which may lead to a catastrophic failure.

    Required actions include a one-time detailed visual inspection for cracking of the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles. Corrective actions include repair, if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0684.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Viking Air Limited has issued Service Bulletin V7-54-02, Revision NC, dated December 14, 2012. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for cracks in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles; and repair if necessary. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,550, or $255 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2015-0684; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-215-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-7-1 and DHC-7-100 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks that were discovered in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles, which could lead to the loss of stiffness in the forward engine mount; and possible catastrophic failure.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Repair

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time detailed visual inspection for cracking in the outboard nacelles upper longeron channels and angles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Viking Air Limited Service Bulletin V7-54-02, Revision NC, dated December 14, 2012. If any cracking is found during the inspection required by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Viking Air Limited's (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Viking Air Limited's (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (i) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-34, dated October 2, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0684.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited, 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, British Columbia V8L 8V5, Canada; telephone 250-656-7227; fax 250-656-0673; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.vikingair.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08074 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. This proposed AD would require replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.

    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-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-37, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Design review found that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, is lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve. This could cause the flexible hose to burst before it is able to vent the excess oxygen overboard. If an ignition source is present, the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space may result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the oxygen hose assembly with a new design oxygen hose assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0822.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision A, dated September 23, 2013, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $340,000, or $850 per airplane.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10336 inclusive.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15297 inclusive.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19038 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Before the accumulation of 5,800 total flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all oxygen hose assemblies having part number (P/N) S6946-01 with new, improved assemblies having P/N BA670-44025-001, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision A, dated September 23, 2013, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013. For airplanes on which Supplemental Type Certificate ST01648NY (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01648NY.pdf) is installed, only PART B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision A, dated September 23, 2013, is required.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if that action was performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, dated May 21, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen hose assembly, P/N S6946-01, on any airplane.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-37, dated October 17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0822.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08329 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1073; Notice No. 14-11B] RIN 2120-AJ89 Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport; Notice of Availability of Responses to Clarifying Questions; Request for Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; clarification.

    SUMMARY:

    This action announces the placement in the docket of a response to requests for clarification of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 8, 2015. In the NPRM, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA proposed to replace the Orders limiting scheduled operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled and unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The Orders are scheduled to expire when the rulemaking is final and in effect, but not later than October 29, 2016. The proposed rule is intended to provide a longer-term and comprehensive approach to slot management at JFK, EWR, and LGA.

    By letters posted to the public docket, Airlines for America and Sabre Corporation submitted questions regarding various provisions in the NPRM they believe need further clarification before meaningful comments can be submitted to the docket. The DOT and the FAA have reviewed these requests and a coordinated response has been placed in the docket. That document also responds to Airlines for America's renewed request for an extension of the comment period and request for a public meeting.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before May 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1073 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: 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.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action, contact Molly Smith, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3274; email [email protected]; Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-6462; email [email protected]; or Peter Irvine, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3156; email: [email protected]

    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Bonnie Dragotto, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3808; email [email protected]; or Cindy Baraban, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9159; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional Information Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites 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.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the DOT and the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will also consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015. Brandon Belford, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. Richard M. Swayze, Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs, and Environment.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08168 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No.: FAA-2015-0783; Notice No. 15-02] RIN 2120-AA65 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove certain redundant or underutilized ground-based non-directional beacon and very high frequency, omnidirectional radio range Standard Instrument Approach Procedures based on the criteria established by the FAA's Policy for Discontinuance of Certain Instrument Approach Procedures.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before May 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0783 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: 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.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action, contact Wayne Eckenrode, Aeronautical Information Services, AJV-5, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, 4500 Mercantile Plaza Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (202) 494-8898; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Section 40103, sovereignty and use of airspace, and Subpart iii, Section 44701, general requirements. Under these sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)), and to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security (49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)). This action is within the scope of that authority.

    Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are routinely incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), Subpart C—TERPS Procedures, and are promulgated by rulemaking procedures. The FAA will consider all public comments before issuing a final rule removing selected SIAPs.

    Background

    On June 27, 2014, the FAA published a policy establishing criteria for cancelling instrument approach procedures (79 FR 36576). Cancelling certain ground-based non-directional beacon (NDB), and very high frequency (VHF), omnidirectional radio range (VOR) SIAPs is one integral part of right-sizing the quantity and type of procedures in the National Airspace System (NAS). As new technology facilitates the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approach procedures, the number of procedures available in the National Airspace System has nearly doubled over the past decade. The complexity and cost to the FAA of maintaining the existing ground based navigational infrastructure while expanding the new RNAV capability is not sustainable. Therefore, the FAA is proposing the following list of SIAPs for cancellation based on the criteria established in the Policy.

    The Proposed List for Cancellation

    SIAPs and associated supporting data adopted or cancelled by the FAA are documented on FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. These forms are incorporated by reference via Transmittal Letter.

    Based on the final policy criteria, 736 procedures have been identified for cancellation at this time. The procedures considered for cancellation are listed in this section. Additionally, the list can be viewed on the AeroNav Products IFP Announcements and Reports Web page at the following link, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/reports/.

    State Airport name ID Approach procedure AK ATQASUK EDWARD BURNELL SR MEMORIAL ATK NDB RWY 24. AK BETHEL BET VOR/DME RWY 19R. AK BETTLES BTT VOR/DME RWY 01. AK COLD BAY CDB VOR/DME OR TACAN-A. AK DILLINGHAM DLG VOR/DME RWY 19. AK KENAI MUNI ENA VOR RWY 19R. AK EMMONAK ENM VOR RWY 34. AK FORT YUKON FYU VOR/DME OR TACAN-A. AK EDWARD G. PITKA SR GAL VOR/DME RWY 25. AK GULKANA GKN VOR/DME RWY 33. AK KOYUK ALFRED ADAMS KKA NDB/DME RWY 1. AK MC GRATH MCG VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16. AK MC GRATH MCG VOR-A. AK MIDDLETON ISLAND MDO VOR/DME RWY 20. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR RWY 27. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR RWY 09. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR/DME Y RWY 27. AK DEADHORSE SCC VOR RWY 05. AK DEADHORSE SCC VOR/DME RWY 23. AK DEADHORSE SCC VOR/DME RWY 05. AK SAND POINT SDP NDB/DME RWY 13. AK SHISHMAREF SHH NDB RWY 23. AK SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ SIT VOR/DME-A. AK SOLDOTNA SXQ NDB RWY 25. AK SOLDOTNA SXQ VOR/DME-A. AK TALKEETNA TKA VOR-A. AK UNALAKLEET UNK VOR/DME-D. AK YAKUTAT YAK VOR/DME RWY 11. AL ANNISTON RGNL ANB NDB RWY 5. AL TALLADEGA MUNI ASN VOR/DME RWY 04. AL AUBURN UNIVERSITY RGNL AUO VOR RWY 29. AL PRYOR FIELD RGNL DCU VOR RWY 18. AL BESSEMER EKY VOR RWY 05. AL WALKER COUNTY-BEVILL FIELD JFX VOR/DME-A. AL NORTHWEST ALABAMA RGNL MSL VOR RWY 29. AL CRAIG FIELD SEM NDB RWY 33. AR WALNUT RIDGE RGNL ARG VOR-A. AR SPRINGDALE MUNI ASG VOR RWY 18. AR WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AWM VOR/DME-A. AR BAXTER COUNTY BPK VOR-A. AR SOUTH ARKANSAS RGNL AT GOODWIN FIELD ELD VOR RWY 22. AR DRAKE FIELD FYV VOR-A. AR THOMPSON-ROBBINS HEE VOR RWY 17. AR MEMORIAL FIELD HOT VOR Y RWY 05. AR MEMORIAL FIELD HOT VOR Z RWY 05. AR BOONE COUNTY HRO VOR-A. AR JONESBORO MUNI JBR VOR RWY 23. AR LAKE VILLAGE MUNI M32 VOR/DME-B. AR MENA INTERMOUNTAIN MUNI MEZ NDB RWY 27. AR MENA INTERMOUNTAIN MUNI MEZ VOR/DME-A. AR NORTH LITTLE ROCK MUNI ORK VOR RWY 35. AR GRIDERFIELD PBF VOR RWY 18. AR ROGERS MUNI-CARTER FIELD ROG NDB RWY 20. AR ROGERS MUNI-CARTER FIELD ROG VOR/DME RWY 20. AR STUTTGART MUNI SGT VOR/DME-A. AR BENTONVILLEMUNI/LOUISEMTHADENFIELD VBT VOR/DME-B. AZ CASA GRANDE MUNI CGZ VOR RWY 05. AZ CHANDLER MUNI CHD NDB RWY 4R. AZ BISBEE DOUGLAS INTL DUG VOR RWY 17. AZ GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK GCN VOR RWY 03. AZ YUMA MCAS/YUMA INTL NYL VOR/DME RNAV RWY 21R. AZ NOGALES INTL OLS VOR OR GPS-A. AZ NOGALES INTL OLS NDB OR GPS-C. CA ARCATA ACV VOR/DME RWY 01. CA ARCATA ACV VOR/DME RWY 14. CA NAPA COUNTY APC VOR RWY 06. CA CATALINA AVX VOR OR GPS-A. CA MEADOWS FIELD BFL VOR/DME RWY 30R. CA EASTERN SIERRA RGNL BIH VOR OR GPS-A. CA EASTERN SIERRA RGNL BIH VOR/DME OR GPS-B. CA BOB HOPE BUR VOR RWY 08. CA BRAWLEY MUNI BWC VOR/DME-A. CA BUCHANAN FIELD CCR VOR RWY 19R. CA JACK MC NAMARA FIELD CEC VOR RWY 11. CA JACK MC NAMARA FIELD CEC VOR/DME RWY 11. CA CHICO MUNI CIC VOR/DME RWY 13L. CA CHINO CNO VOR RWY 26R. CA MC CLELLAN-PALOMAR CRQ VOR-A. CA EL MONTE EMT VOR/DME OR GPS-B. CA FULLERTON MUNI FUL VOR-A. CA LONG BEACH/DAUGHERTY FIELD/ LGB VOR OR TACAN RWY 30. CA LOS BANOS MUNI LSN VOR/DME RWY 14. CA MC CLELLAN AIRFIELD MCC VOR/DME RWY 16. CA MERCED RGNL//MACREADY FIELD MCE VOR RWY 30. CA CASTLE MER VOR/DME RWY 31. CA SACRAMENTO MATHER MHR VOR/DME RWY 22L. CA MODESTO CITY-CO-HARRY SHAM FLD MOD VOR/DME RWY 28R. CA METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INTL OAK VOR RWY 10R. CA METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INTL OAK VOR/DME RWY 28L. CA ONTARIO INTL ONT VOR/DME RWY 08R. CA OXNARD OXR VOR RWY 25. CA BRACKETT FIELD POC VOR OR GPS-A. CA RIVERSIDE MUNI RAL VOR RWY 09. CA REDDING MUNI RDD VOR RWY 34. CA SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE SAC VOR RWY 02. CA SAN BERNARDINO INTL SBD NDB RWY 6. CA SAN FRANCISCO INTL SFO VOR RWY 19L. CA SAN FRANCISCO INTL SFO VOR-B. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR RWY 12R. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR/DME RWY 30L. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR/DME RWY 30R. CA SANTA MARIA PUB/CAPT G ALLAN HANCOCK FLD SMX VOR RWY 12. CA CHARLES M. SCHULZ-SONOMA COUNTY STS VOR/DME RWY 32. CA LAKE TAHOE TVL VOR/DME OR GPS-A. CA VAN NUYS VNY VOR-A. CA WATSONVILLE MUNI WVI VOR/DME-A. CO DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY DRO VOR/DME RWY 03. CO MONTROSE RGNL MTJ VOR/DME RWY 13. CO TELLURIDE RGNL TEX VOR/DME-A. CT IGOR I SIKORSKYMEMORIAL BDR VOR RWY 06. CT IGOR I SIKORSKYMEMORIAL BDR VOR RWY 29. CT DANBURY MUNI DXR VOR OR GPS-A. CT HARTFORD-BRAINARD HFD VOR-A. CT TWEED-NEW HAVEN HVN VOR-A. CT TWEED-NEW HAVEN HVN VOR RWY 02. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 15. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 19. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR/DME RWY 01. FL APALACHICOLA RGNL-CLEVE RANDOLPH FIELD AAF NDB RWY 32. FL JACKSONVILLE EXECUTIVE AT CRAIG CRG VOR/DME RWY 32. FL DAYTONA BEACH INTL DAB VOR RWY 16. FL NORTH PALM BEACH COUNTY GENERAL AVIATION F45 VOR RWY 08R. FL FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD INTL FLL VOR RWY 28R. FL SAINT LUCIE COUNTY INTL FPR NDB-A. FL ORLANDO INTL MCO VOR/DME RWY 36L. FL ORLANDO INTL MCO VOR/DME RWY 36R. FL ST PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER INTL PIE VOR/DME RWY 18L. FL NORTHEAST FLORIDA RGNL SGJ VOR RWY 31. FL SARASOTA/BRADENTON INTL SRQ VOR RWY 32. GA SOUTHWEST GA. RGNL ABY NDB RWY 4. GA AUGUSTA RGNL AT BUSH FIELD AGS VOR/DME RWY 17. GA ATHENS/BEN EPPS AHN NDB RWY 27. GA WAYCROSS-WARE COUNTY AYS VOR-A. GA BRUNSWICK GOLDEN ISLES BQK VOR/DME-B. GA CRISP COUNTY-CORDELE CKF NDB RWY 10. GA DANIEL FIELD DNL NDB/DME-C. GA HEART OF GEORGIA RGNL EZM NDB RWY 2. GA HEART OF GEORGIA RGNL EZM VOR/DME-A. GA ATLANTA RGNL FALCON FIELD FFC NDB RWY 31. GA FULTON COUNTY AIRPORT-BROWN FIELD FTY NDB RWY 8. GA LEE GILMER MEMORIAL GVL NDB RWY 5. GA THOMSON-MCDUFFIE COUNTY HQU VOR/DME-A. GA THOMSON-MCDUFFIE COUNTY HQU NDB RWY 10. GA GWINNETT COUNTY-BRISCOE FIELD LZU NDB RWY 25. GA MACON DOWNTOWN MAC VOR/DME-B. GA DEKALB-PEACHTREE PDK VOR/DME RWY 21L. GA HARRIS COUNTY PIM NDB RWY 9. GA PERRY-HOUSTON COUNTY PXE VOR-A. GA EAST GEORGIA RGNL SBO NDB RWY 14. GA HENRY TIFT MYERS TMA VOR RWY 28. GA HENRY TIFT MYERS TMA VOR RWY 33. GA BARROW COUNTY WDR VOR/DME-A. IA WATERLOO RGNL ALO VOR RWY 36. IA WATERLOO RGNL ALO VOR/DME RWY 30. IA AMES MUNI AMW VOR RWY 31. IA COUNCIL BLUFFS MUNI CBF VOR-A. IA NORTHEAST IOWA RGNL CCY NDB RWY 12. IA THE EASTERN IOWA CID VOR RWY 27. IA THE EASTERN IOWA CID VOR/DME RWY 09. IA CLINTON MUNI CWI VOR RWY 03. IA DUBUQUE RGNL DBQ VOR RWY 13. IA DUBUQUE RGNL DBQ VOR RWY 31. IA DUBUQUE RGNL DBQ VOR RWY 36. IA DES MOINES INTL DSM VOR/DME RWY 23. IA KEOKUK MUNI EOK NDB RWY 14. IA KEOKUK MUNI EOK NDB RWY 26. IA FORT DODGE RGNL FOD VOR RWY 12. IA SIBLEY MUNI ISB NDB OR GPS RWY 17. IA MASON CITY MUNI MCW VOR RWY 36. IA MASON CITY MUNI MCW VOR/DME RWY 18. IA OTTUMWA RGNL OTM VOR RWY 31. IA SHENANDOAH MUNI SDA VOR/DME RWY 12. IA SPENCER MUNI SPW VOR/DME RWY 12. IA SPENCER MUNI SPW VOR/DME RWY 30. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX NDB RWY 13. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX NDB RWY 31. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX VOR OR TACAN RWY 31. IA NEWTON MUNI TNU VOR RWY 32. ID BOISE AIR TERMINAL/GOWEN FLD BOI VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 10L. ID BOISE AIR TERMINAL/GOWEN FLD BOI VOR/DME RWY 10R. ID BURLEY MUNI BYI VOR/DME-B. ID COEUR D'ALENE-PAPPY BOYINGTON FIELD COE VOR RWY 06. ID IDAHO FALLS RGNL IDA NDB RWY 20. ID LEWISTON-NEZ PERCE COUNTY LWS VOR RWY 26. ID POCATELLO RGNL PIH VOR/DME RWY 21. ID JOSLIN FIELD-MAGIC VALLEY RGNL TWF VOR RWY 26. ID JOSLIN FIELD-MAGIC VALLEY RGNL TWF NDB RWY 26. IL LAKE IN THE HILLS 3CK VOR-A. IL ST LOUIS RGNL ALN VOR-A. IL AURORA MUNI ARR VOR RWY 33. IL AURORA MUNI ARR VOR RWY 15. IL AURORA MUNI ARR VOR RWY 36. IL FRASCA FIELD C16 VOR/DME OR GPS-B. IL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-WILLARD CMI VOR RWY 18. IL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-WILLARD CMI VOR/DME RWY 14L. IL VERMILION REGIONAL DNV VOR RWY 21. IL DUPAGE DPA VOR RWY 2L. IL DUPAGE DPA VOR RWY 10. IL ALBERTUS FEP VOR RWY 24. IL GALESBURG MUNI GBG VOR RWY 03. IL LANSING MUNI IGQ VOR-A. IL GREATER KANKAKEE IKK VOR RWY 22. IL GREATER KANKAKEE IKK VOR RWY 04. IL LEWIS UNIVERSITY LOT VOR RWY 09. IL LAWRENCEVILLE-VINCENNES INTL LWV VOR RWY 18. IL MOUNT VERNON MVN VOR RWY 23. IL WILLIAMSON COUNTY RGNL MWA VOR RWY 20. IL OLNEY-NOBLE OLY VOR/DME-A. IL GENERAL DOWNING-PEORIA INTL PIA VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 31. IL CHICAGO EXECUTIVE PWK VOR RWY 16. IL ABRAHAM LINCOLN CAPITAL SPI VOR/DME RWY 22. IL ABRAHAM LINCOLN CAPITAL SPI VOR/DME RWY 31. IL ABRAHAM LINCOLN CAPITAL SPI VOR/DME RWY 04. IL QUINCY RGNL-BALDWIN FIELD UIN VOR RWY 04. IL QUINCY RGNL-BALDWIN FIELD UIN VOR/DME RWY 22. IN SKY KING 3I3 VOR-B. IN PUTNAM COUNTY 4I7 VOR/DME-A. IN KENTLAND MUNI 50I VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27. IN ANDERSON MUNI-DARLINGTON FIELD AID NDB RWY 30. IN ANDERSON MUNI-DARLINGTON FIELD AID VOR-A. IN WARSAW MUNI ASW VOR RWY 27. IN WARSAW MUNI ASW VOR RWY 9. IN MONROE COUNTY BMG VOR/DME RWY 24. IN MONROE COUNTY BMG VOR/DME RWY 35. IN NAPPANEE MUNI C03 VOR/DME OR GPS-A. IN METTEL FIELD CEV VOR-A. IN ELKHART MUNI EKM VOR RWY 27. IN ELKHART MUNI EKM VOR/DME RWY 36. IN EVANSVILLE RGNL EVV NDB RWY 22. IN EAGLE CREEK AIRPARK EYE NDB RWY 21. IN FORT WAYNE INTL FWA VOR OR TACAN RWY 14. IN FORT WAYNE INTL FWA VOR OR TACAN RWY 05. IN GOSHEN MUNI GSH VOR RWY 27. IN DE KALB COUNTY GWB VOR OR GPS-A. IN DE KALB COUNTY GWB VOR RWY 09. IN GREENWOOD MUNI HFY NDB RWY 1. IN TERRE HAUTE INTL-HULMAN FIELD HUF VOR RWY 23. IN TERRE HAUTE INTL-HULMAN FIELD HUF VOR/DME RWY 05. IN CLARK RGNL JVY NDB RWY 18. IN PURDUE UNIVERSITY LAF VOR-A. IN DELAWARE COUNTY RGNL MIE VOR RWY 32. IN MARION MUNI MZZ VOR RWY 22. IN MARION MUNI MZZ VOR RWY 4. IN KOKOMO MUNI OKK VOR RWY 23. IN LA PORTE MUNI PPO VOR-A. IN RICHMOND MUNI RID VOR RWY 24. IN RICHMOND MUNI RID VOR RWY 33. IN INDIANAPOLIS EXECUTIVE TYQ VOR/DME RWY 36. IN NEW CASTLE-HENRY COUNTY MUNI UWL NDB RWY 27. KS COLONEL JAMES JABARA AAO VOR-A. KS DODGE CITY RGNL DDC VOR RWY 14. KS NEWTON-CITY-COUNTY EWK VOR/DME-A. KS GREAT BEND MUNI GBD NDB RWY 35. KS GREAT BEND MUNI GBD NDB-A. KS GARDEN CITY RGNL GCK VOR RWY 35. KS GARDEN CITY RGNL GCK NDB RWY 35. KS RENNER FLD/GOODLAND MUNI/ GLD VOR RWY 30. KS RENNER FLD/GOODLAND MUNI/ GLD VOR/DME RWY 30. KS HAYS RGNL HYS VOR RWY 34. KS HAYS RGNL HYS VOR/DME RWY 16. KS HAYS RGNL HYS VOR/DME RWY 34. KS WICHITA MID-CONTINENT ICT NDB RWY 1R. KS INDEPENDENCE MUNI IDP NDB RWY 35. KS INDEPENDENCE MUNI IDP VOR-A. KS LIBERAL MID-AMERICA RGNL LBL VOR RWY 35. KS LAWRENCE MUNI LWC VOR/DME-A. KS PHILIP BILLARD MUNI TOP VOR RWY 22. KY TAYLOR COUNTY AAS VOR/DME-A. LA BATON ROUGE METROPOLITAN-RYAN FIELD BTR NDB RWY 31. LA BATON ROUGE METROPOLITAN-RYAN FIELD BTR VOR RWY 04L. LA BATON ROUGE METROPOLITAN-RYAN FIELD BTR VOR/DME RWY 22R. LA GEORGE R CARR MEMORIAL AIR FLD BXA VOR/DME-A. LA SHREVEPORT DOWNTOWN DTN VOR RWY 14. LA HOUMA-TERREBONNE HUM VOR RWY 12. LA FALSE RIVER RGNL HZR NDB RWY 36. LA FALSE RIVER RGNL HZR VOR/DME-A. LA ABBEVILLE CHRIS CRUSTA MEMORIAL IYA VOR/DME-A. LA LAFAYETTE RGNL LFT VOR/DME RWY 11. LA HARRY P WILLIAMS MEMORIAL PTN VOR/DME-A. LA RUSTON RGNL RSN NDB RWY 36. LA RUSTON RGNL RSN VOR/DME-A. MA MINUTE MAN AIR FIELD 6B6 NDB-A. MA NORTHAMPTON 7B2 VOR-A. MA NANTUCKET MEMORIAL ACK NDB RWY 24. MA LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD BED NDB RWY 29. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 27. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 33L. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 15R. MA BEVERLY MUNI BVY VOR RWY 16. MA FITCHBURG MUNI FIT NDB RWY 20. MA MARSHFIELD MUNI-GEORGE HARLOW FIELD GHG NDB RWY 6. MA LAWRENCE MUNI LWM NDB RWY 5. MA MARTHAS VINEYARD MVY VOR RWY 24. MA ORANGE MUNI ORE NDB RWY 32. MA ORANGE MUNI ORE NDB RWY 01. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHAL BWI VOR RWY 10. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHAL BWI VOR RWY 28. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHAL BWI VOR/DME RWY 15L. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHAL BWI VOR/DME RWY 33L. MD MONTGOMERY COUNTY AIRPARK GAI NDB RWY 14. MD HAGERSTOWN RGNL-RICHARD A HENSON FLD HGR VOR RWY 09. MD OCEAN CITY MUNI OXB VOR-A. MD SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY WICOMICO RGNL SBY VOR RWY 32. MD SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY WICOMICO RGNL SBY VOR RWY 23. ME LITTLEBROOK AIR PARK 3B4 NDB-B. ME AUGUSTA STATE AUG VOR/DME RWY 17. ME AUGUSTA STATE AUG VOR/DME RWY 08. ME AUGUSTA STATE AUG VOR/DME-A. ME BANGOR INTL BGR VOR/DME RWY 15. ME BANGOR INTL BGR VOR/DME RWY 33. ME DEWITT FLD, OLD TOWN MUNI OLD NDB RWY 22. ME NORTHERN MAINE RGNL ARPT AT PRESQUE ISLE PQI VOR/DME RWY 01. ME SANFORD SEACOAST RGNL SFM VOR RWY 07. MI ALPENA COUNTY RGNL APN NDB RWY 1. MI ALPENA COUNTY RGNL APN VOR RWY 01. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO NDB RWY 35. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 17. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 23. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 35. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 05. MI SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN RGNL BEH NDB RWY 28. MI TULIP CITY BIV VOR-A. MI W K KELLOGG BTL NDB RWY 23R. MI W K KELLOGG BTL VOR RWY 23R. MI CHIPPEWA COUNTY INTL CIU VOR-A. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 13. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 25. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 31. MI COLEMAN A. YOUNG MUNI DET VOR RWY 33. MI COLEMAN A. YOUNG MUNI DET NDB RWY 15. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 27. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 36. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 09. MI BISHOP INTL FNT VOR RWY 18. MI BISHOP INTL FNT VOR RWY 27. MI BISHOP INTL FNT VOR RWY 09. MI GAYLORD RGNL GLR NDB RWY 9. MI GAYLORD RGNL GLR VOR RWY 09. MI GERALD R. FORD INTL GRR VOR RWY 17. MI GERALD R. FORD INTL GRR VOR RWY 35. MI SAGINAW COUNTY H.W. BROWNE HYX VOR/DME-A. MI FORD IMT NDB RWY 1. MI FORD IMT VOR RWY 31. MI GOGEBIC-IRON COUNTY IWD VOR/DME RWY 27. MI JACKSON COUNTY-REYNOLDS FIELD JXN NDB RWY 24. MI JACKSON COUNTY-REYNOLDS FIELD JXN VOR/DME RWY 24. MI MANISTEE CO.-BLACKER MBL VOR RWY 28. MI MBS INTL MBS VOR RWY 23. MI MBS INTL MBS VOR RWY 32. MI MBS INTL MBS VOR RWY 05. MI MUSKEGON COUNTY MKG VOR-A. MI MENOMINEE-MARINETTE TWIN COUNTY MNM VOR-A. MI MENOMINEE-MARINETTE TWIN COUNTY MNM NDB RWY 3. MI LIVINGSTON COUNTY SPENCER J. HARDY OZW NDB RWY 13. MI ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL PHN NDB RWY 4. MI PELLSTON RGNL AIRPORT OF EMMET COUNTY PLN VOR RWY 23. MI PELLSTON RGNL AIRPORT OF EMMET COUNTY PLN VOR/DME RWY 05. MI OAKLAND COUNTY INTL PTK VOR RWY 09R. MI OAKLAND COUNTY INTL PTK VOR RWY 27L. MI SAWYER INTL SAW NDB RWY 1. MI SAWYER INTL SAW VOR RWY 01. MI CUSTER TTF VOR RWY 03. MI CHERRY CAPITAL TVC NDB RWY 28. MI WILLOW RUN YIP VOR-A. MN ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE ARPT(JANES FIELD) ANE VOR/DME RWY 27. MN AUSTIN MUNI AUM VOR RWY 35. MN AUSTIN MUNI AUM VOR/DME-A. MN CHANDLER FIELD AXN VOR RWY 22. MN BAUDETTE INTL BDE VOR RWY 30. MN WILLMAR MUNI-JOHN L RICE FIELD BDH VOR RWY 13. MN BEMIDJI RGNL BJI VOR/DME RWY 31. MN BRAINERD LAKES RGNL BRD NDB RWY 23. MN FLYING CLOUD FCM VOR RWY 10R. MN FERGUS FALLS MUNI-EINAR MICKELSON FLD FFM NDB RWY 31. MN FERGUS FALLS MUNI-EINAR MICKELSON FLD FFM VOR RWY 35. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR RWY 13. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR RWY 31. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR/DME RWY 31. MN GRAND RAPIDS/ITASCA CO-GORDON NEWSTROM FLD GPZ VOR RWY 34. MN RANGE RGNL HIB VOR RWY 13. MN RANGE RGNL HIB VOR RWY 31. MN FALLS INTL INL NDB RWY 31. MN FALLS INTL INL VOR RWY 13. MN FALLS INTL INL VOR/DME RWY 31. MN LITCHFIELD MUNI LJF VOR/DME RWY 13. MN MANKATO RGNL MKT VOR RWY 33. MN SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA RGNL MARSHALL/RYAN FLD MML VOR/DME RWY 30. MN WINONA MUNI-MAX CONRAD FLD ONA NDB RWY 30. MN WINONA MUNI-MAX CONRAD FLD ONA VOR-A. MN WORTHINGTON MUNI OTG NDB RWY 29. MN WORTHINGTON MUNI OTG VOR RWY 36. MN OWATONNA DEGNER RGNL OWA VOR/DME RWY 30. MN PARK RAPIDS MUNI-KONSHOK FIELD PKD NDB RWY 31. MN PARK RAPIDS MUNI-KONSHOK FIELD PKD VOR RWY 31. MN WARROAD INTL MEMORIAL RRT NDB RWY 31. MN SOUTH ST PAUL MUNI-RICHARD E. FLEMING FIELD SGS NDB-B. MN ST CLOUD RGNL STC VOR/DME RWY 13. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF NDB RWY 31. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR RWY 13. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR RWY 31. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR/DME RWY 31. MO CAPE GIRARDEAU RGNL CGI VOR RWY 02. MO CAPE GIRARDEAU RGNL CGI VOR RWY 10. MO FARMINGTON RGNL FAM VOR/DME-A. MO KIRKSVILLE RGNL IRK VOR/DME-B. MO KIRKSVILLE RGNL IRK VOR-A. MO MACON-FOWER MEMORIAL K89 VOR/DME RWY 20. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC NDB RWY 19. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 19. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 21. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 03. MO MEXICO MEMORIAL MYJ VOR/DME RWY 24. MO SIKESTON MEMORIAL MUNI SIK VOR/DME RWY 02. MO ROSECRANS MEMORIAL STJ VOR OR TACAN RWY 17. MO ROSECRANS MEMORIAL STJ VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 35. MO SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS SUS NDB RWY 26L. MO SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS SUS NDB RWY 8R. MS GREENVILLE MID-DELTA GLH VOR/DME RWY 18L. MS GRENADA MUNI GNF NDB RWY 13. MS HARDY-ANDERS FIELD NATCHEZ-ADAMS COUNTY HEZ VOR/DME RWY 13. MS STENNIS INTL HSA NDB RWY 18. MS JOHN BELL WILLIAMS JVW NDB RWY 12. MS MCCHAREN FIELD M83 VOR-A. MT BILLINGS LOGAN INTL BIL VOR/DME RWY 28R. MT BERT MOONEY BTM VOR/DME OR GPS-A. MT BOZEMAN YELLOWSTONE INTL BZN VOR RWY 12. MT BOZEMAN YELLOWSTONE INTL BZN VOR/DME RWY 12. MT WOKAL FIELD/GLASGOW INTL GGW NDB RWY 30. MT GREAT FALLS INTL GTF NDB RWY 34. MT HELENA RGNL HLN VOR/DME-B. MT MISSION FIELD LVM VOR-A. MT FRANK WILEY FIELD MLS VOR/DME RWY 04. MT SIDNEY-RICHLAND MUNI SDY NDB RWY 1. MT YELLOWSTONE WYS NDB RWY 1. NC CLINTON-SAMPSON COUNTY CTZ VOR/DME-A. NC ELIZABETH CITY CG AIR STATION/RGNL ECG VOR/DME RWY 10. NC TARBORO-EDGECOMBE ETC NDB RWY 27. NC COASTAL CAROLINA REGIONAL EWN VOR RWY 04. NC PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL GSO VOR RWY 05R. NC WAYNE EXECUTIVE JETPORT GWW VOR-A. NC HICKORY RGNL HKY VOR/DME RWY 24. NC HENDERSON-OXFORD HNZ NDB RWY 6. NC HARNETT RGNL JETPORT HRJ VOR/DME RWY 05. NC LINCOLNTON-LINCOLN COUNTY RGNL IPJ NDB RWY 23. NC JOHNSTON COUNTY JNX NDB RWY 3. NC TRIANGLE NORTH EXECUTIVE LHZ VOR/DME-A. NC MICHAEL J. SMITH FIELD MRH NDB RWY 21. NC ALBERT J. ELLIS OAJ NDB RWY 5. NC WARREN FIELD OCW VOR/DME RWY 05. ND DEVILS LAKE RGNL DVL VOR RWY 21. ND DEVILS LAKE RGNL DVL VOR RWY 31. ND HECTOR INTL FAR VOR OR TACAN RWY 36. ND HECTOR INTL FAR VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18. ND GRAND FORKS INTL GFK VOR RWY 35L. ND SLOULIN FLD INTL ISN NDB RWY 29. ND SLOULIN FLD INTL ISN VOR/DME RWY 29. ND JAMESTOWN RGNL JMS NDB RWY 31. ND JAMESTOWN RGNL JMS VOR RWY 31. ND MINOT INTL MOT VOR RWY 13. ND MINOT INTL MOT VOR RWY 31. NE ALLIANCE MUNI AIA VOR RWY 30. NE BEATRICE MUNI BIE VOR RWY 14. NE CAMBRIDGE MUNI CSB NDB RWY 32. NE KEARNEY RGNL EAR NDB RWY 36. NE KEARNEY RGNL EAR VOR RWY 13. NE KEARNEY RGNL EAR VOR RWY 36. NE CENTRAL NEBRASKA RGNL GRI VOR/DME RWY 35. NE BREWSTER FIELD HDE VOR/DME-A. NE HASTINGS MUNI HSI VOR RWY 32. NE HASTINGS MUNI HSI VOR RWY 04. NE WAYNE MUNI/STAN MORRIS FLD LCG NDB RWY 23. NE WAYNE MUNI/STAN MORRIS FLD LCG NDB RWY 36. NE MC COOK BEN NELSON RGNL MCK VOR RWY 12. NE MC COOK BEN NELSON RGNL MCK VOR RWY 22. NE NORFOLK RGNL/KARL STEFAN MEMORIAL FLD OFK VOR RWY 01. NE NORFOLK RGNL/KARL STEFAN MEMORIAL FLD OFK VOR RWY 19. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR RWY 26. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR RWY 08. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR/DME RWY 08. NE COLUMBUS MUNI OLU VOR/DME RWY 32. NE EPPLEY AIRFIELD OMA VOR/DME RWY 32L. NE SIDNEY MUNI/LLOYD W. CARR FIELD SNY VOR RWY 13. NE SIDNEY MUNI/LLOYD W. CARR FIELD SNY VOR RWY 31. NH BOIRE FIELD ASH NDB RWY 14. NH BOIRE FIELD ASH VOR-A. NH BERLIN RGNL BML VOR-B. NH SKYHAVEN DAW VOR/DME-A. NH DILLANT-HOPKINS EEN VOR RWY 02. NH LACONIA MUNI LCI NDB RWY 8. NH LEBANON MUNI LEB VOR RWY 25. NH MANCHESTER MHT VOR RWY 35. NH MANCHESTER MHT VOR/DME RWY 17. NH PORTSMOUTH INTL AT PEASE PSM VOR RWY 16. NH PORTSMOUTH INTL AT PEASE PSM VOR RWY 34. NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR VOR RWY 11. NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR VOR/DME RWY 22L. NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR VOR/DME RWY 22R. NJ MILLVILLE MUNI MIV NDB RWY 14. NJ SOLBERG-HUNTERDON N51 VOR-A. NJ HAMMONTON MUNI N81 VOR-A. NJ TETERBORO TEB VOR RWY 24. NJ TETERBORO TEB VOR/DME RWY 06. NJ TETERBORO TEB VOR/DME-A. NJ TETERBORO TEB VOR/DME-B. NJ CAPE MAY COUNTY WWD VOR-A. NM ALAMOGORDO-WHITE SANDS RGNL ALM VOR/DME RWY 03. NM CAVERN CITY AIR TRML CNM VOR RWY 32L. NM FOUR CORNERS RGNL FMN VOR RWY 23. NM FOUR CORNERS RGNL FMN VOR RWY 25. NM LEA COUNTY RGNL HOB VOR OR TACAN RWY 03. NM LAS VEGAS MUNI LVS VOR RWY 02. NM GRANT COUNTY SVC VOR/DME-B. NM GRANT COUNTY SVC VOR-A. NM TUCUMCARI MUNI TCC VOR RWY 21. NV BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAM VOR-A. NV ELKO RGNL EKO VOR/DME-B. NV ELKO RGNL EKO VOR-A. NV ELY ARPT/YELLAND FLD/ ELY VOR-A. NV DERBY FIELD LOL VOR OR GPS-C. NV RENO/TAHOE INTL RNO VOR-D. NY WATERTOWN INTL ART VOR RWY 07. NY GREATER BINGHAMTON/EDWIN A LINK FIELD BGM VOR RWY 10. NY GREATER BINGHAMTON/EDWIN A LINK FIELD BGM VOR/DME RWY 28. NY CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY/DUNKIRK DKK VOR RWY 06. NY REPUBLIC FRG NDB RWY 1. NY GENESEE COUNTY GVQ VOR/DME-A. NY WESTCHESTER COUNTY HPN VOR/DME-A. NY BROOKHAVEN HWV VOR RWY 06. NY ITHACA TOMPKINS RGNL ITH VOR RWY 32. NY JOHN F KENNEDY INTL JFK VOR OR GPS RWY 13L/R. NY JOHN F KENNEDY INTL JFK VOR RWY 04L. NY CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY/JAMESTOWN JHW VOR RWY 25. NY LA GUARDIA LGA VOR/DME-G. NY LA GUARDIA LGA VOR/DME-H. NY LA GUARDIA LGA VOR-F. NY SULLIVAN COUNTY INTL MSV NDB RWY 15. NY DUTCHESS COUNTY POU VOR/DME RWY 06. NY GRIFFISS INTL RME VOR/DME RWY 33. NY GREATER ROCHESTER INTL ROC VOR/DME RWY 04. NY STEWART INTL SWF VOR RWY 27. OH ASHLAND COUNTY 3G4 VOR-A. OH JAMES M. COX DAYTON INTL DAY NDB RWY 6R. OH BELLEFONTAINE RGNL EDJ VOR/DME RWY 25. OH FOSTORIA METROPOLITAN FZI VOR-A. OH CLERMONT COUNTY I69 NDB RWY 22. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN NDB RWY 22R. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN NDB RWY 4L. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR RWY 04L. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR RWY 22R. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR/DME RWY 22R. OH FAIRFIELD COUNTY LHQ VOR OR GPS-A. OH LORAIN COUNTY RGNL LPR VOR-A. OH CINCINNATI MUNI AIRPORT-LUNKEN FIELD LUK NDB RWY 21L. OH MARION MUNI MNN VOR-A. OH OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY OSU NDB RWY 9R. OH SPRINGFIELD-BECKLEY MUNI SGH VOR RWY 24. OH BOLTON FIELD TZR NDB RWY 4. OH OHIO UNIVERSITY SNYDER FIELD UNI NDB RWY 25. OH NEWARK-HEATH VTA NDB OR GPS RWY 9. OH NEWARK-HEATH VTA VOR-A. OH YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN RGNL YNG NDB RWY 32. OH YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN RGNL YNG VOR-A. OH ZANESVILLE MUNI ZZV VOR OR GPS RWY 22. OK ADA MUNI ADH VOR/DME-A. OK BARTLESVILLE MUNI BVO VOR RWY 17. OK DURANT RGNL-EAKER FIELD DUA VOR/DME RWY 17. OK CLAREMORE RGNL GCM VOR/DME-A. OK SUNDANCE AIRPARK HSD VOR RWY 17. OK UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA WESTHEIMER OUN NDB RWY 35. OK UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA WESTHEIMER OUN NDB RWY 3. OK RICHARD LLOYD JONES JR RVS VOR RWY 1L. OK RICHARD LLOYD JONES JR RVS VOR/DME-A. OK STILLWATER RGNL SWO NDB RWY 17. OR CORVALLIS MUNI CVO NDB RWY 17. OR SOUTHWEST OREGON RGNL OTH NDB RWY 4. PA SOMERSET COUNTY 2G9 NDB RWY 25. PA LANCASTER LNS VOR/DME RWY 08. PA CARLISLE N94 NDB-B. SC AIKEN MUNI AIK NDB RWY 25. SC AIKEN MUNI AIK VOR/DME-A. SC ANDERSON RGNL AND VOR RWY 05. SC DILLON COUNTY DLC NDB RWY 07. SC GREENVILLE DOWNTOWN GMU NDB RWY 1. SC GREENWOOD COUNTY GRD VOR RWY 27. SC HARTSVILLE RGNL HVS NDB RWY 3. SC MARION COUNTY MAO VOR/DME-A. SC SUMTER MUNI SMS NDB RWY 23. SD ABERDEEN RGNL ABR NDB RWY 31. SD ABERDEEN RGNL ABR VOR RWY 31. SD WATERTOWN RGNL ATY NDB RWY 35. SD WATERTOWN RGNL ATY VOR OR TACAN RWY 17. SD WATERTOWN RGNL ATY VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 35. SD HURON RGNL HON VOR RWY 12. SD MITCHELL MUNI MHE VOR RWY 30. SD CHAN GURNEY MUNI YKN VOR RWY 31. SD CHAN GURNEY MUNI YKN NDB RWY 31. TN KNOXVILLE DOWNTOWN ISLAND DKX VOR/DME-B. TN DYERSBURG RGNL DYR VOR/DME RWY 04. TN FAYETTEVILLE MUNI FYM NDB RWY 20. TN MCMINN COUNTY MMI NDB RWY 20. TN MOORE-MURRELL MOR NDB RWY 5. TN UPPER CUMBERLAND RGNL SRB NDB RWY 4. TN TULLAHOMA RGNL/WM NORTHERN FIELD THA NDB RWY 18. TX BOWIE MUNI 0F2 NDB RWY 35. TX ABILENE RGNL ABI NDB RWY 35R. TX ALICE INTL ALI VOR-A. TX WHARTON RGNL ARM VOR/DME-A. TX JACK BROOKS RGNL BPT VOR RWY 12. TX JACK BROOKS RGNL BPT VOR/DME-D. TX JACK BROOKS RGNL BPT VOR-A. TX JACK BROOKS RGNL BPT VOR-B. TX JACK BROOKS RGNL BPT VOR-C. TX BROWNSVILLE/SOUTH PADRE ISLAND INTL BRO VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 35. TX BROWNWOOD RGNL BWD VOR RWY 17. TX BAY CITY MUNI BYY VOR/DME-A. TX C DAVID CAMPBELL FIELD-CORSICANA MUNI CRS VOR/DME-A. TX C DAVID CAMPBELL FIELD-CORSICANA MUNI CRS VOR/DME-B. TX DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTL DFW VOR RWY 13R. TX DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTL DFW VOR RWY 31L. TX DALHART MUNI DHT VOR RWY 17. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT NDB RWY 13. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT VOR/DME-B. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT VOR-A. TX DENTON MUNI DTO NDB RWY 18. TX KERRVILLE MUNI/LOUIS SCHREINER FIELD ERV NDB RWY 30. TX WICHITA VALLEY F14 VOR/DME-C. TX GRANBURY RGNL GDJ VOR/DME-A. TX EAST TEXAS RGNL GGG NDB RWY 13. TX ARLINGTON MUNI GKY VOR/DME RWY 34. TX SCHOLES INTL AT GALVESTON GLS VOR RWY 14. TX MAJORS GVT VOR/DME RWY 17. TX NORTH TEXAS RGNL/PERRIN FIELD GYI NDB RWY 17L. TX NORTH TEXAS RGNL/PERRIN FIELD GYI VOR/DME-A. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 30L. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 35. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 04. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME-E. TX VALLEY INTL HRL VOR/DME RWY 17R. TX VALLEY INTL HRL VOR/DME RWY 35L. TX SAN MARCOS MUNI HYI NDB RWY 13. TX SKYLARK FIELD ILE VOR-A. TX MIDLAND AIRPARK MDD VOR/DME RWY 25. TX MC ALLEN MILLER INTL MFE VOR RWY 13. TX MC ALLEN MILLER INTL MFE VOR RWY 31. TX ODESSA-SCHLEMEYER FIELD ODO NDB RWY 20. TX PORT ISABEL-CAMERON COUNTY PIL VOR-A. TX PALESTINE MUNI PSN VOR/DME RWY 18. TX DALLAS EXECUTIVE RBD VOR RWY 31. TX RUSK COUNTY RFI VOR/DME-A. TX SUGAR LAND RGNL SGR VOR/DME-A. TX SULPHUR SPRINGS MUNI SLR VOR-A. TX SHEPPARD AFB/WICHITA FALLS MUNI SPS NDB RWY 33L. TX SHEPPARD AFB/WICHITA FALLS MUNI SPS VOR-D. TX LA PORTE MUNI T41 NDB RWY 30. TX COLLIN COUNTY RGNL AT MC KINNEY TKI VOR/DME-A. TX DRAUGHON-MILLER CENTRAL TEXAS RGNL TPL VOR RWY 15. TX TYLER POUNDS RGNL TYR VOR/DME RWY 22. TX HUNTSVILLE MUNI UTS VOR/DME-A. UT DELTA MUNI DTA VOR RWY 35. UT WENDOVER ENV VOR/DME-B. UT CARBON COUNTY RGNL/BUCK DAVIS FIELD PUC VOR/DME RWY 01. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME RWY 34R. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 17. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16L. VA VIRGINIA TECH/MONTGOMERY EXECUTIVE BCB NDB-A. VA CULPEPER RGNL CJR NDB RWY 4. VA DANVILLE RGNL DAN VOR RWY 02. VA LYNCHBURG RGNL/PRESTON GLENN FLD LYH VOR RWY 04. VA ACCOMACK COUNTY MFV VOR/DME RWY 03. VA HANOVER COUNTY MUNI OFP VOR RWY 16. VA NORFOLK INTL ORF VOR RWY 23. VA NORFOLK INTL ORF VOR/DME RWY 05. VA NEWPORT NEWS/WILLIAMSBURG INTL PHF NDB RWY 20. VA NEWPORT NEWS/WILLIAMSBURG INTL PHF NDB RWY 2. VA NEW RIVER VALLEY PSK VOR/DME RWY 06. VA NEW RIVER VALLEY PSK VOR-A. VA STAFFORD RGNL RMN VOR RWY 33. VA ROANOKE RGNL/WOODRUM FIELD ROA VOR/NDB RWY 34. VA SHENANDOAH VALLEY RGNL SHD NDB RWY 5. VI CYRIL E KING STT VOR-A. VT EDWARD F KNAPP STATE MPV VOR RWY 35. VT RUTLAND-SOUTHERN VERMONT RGNL RUT VOR/DME RWY 19. WA WALLA WALLA RGNL ALW NDB RWY 20. WA ARLINGTON MUNI AWO NDB RWY 34. WA BOWERS FIELD ELN VOR-B. WA SPOKANE INTL GEG VOR RWY 03. WA BOWERMAN HQM VOR/DME RWY 24. WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY (PAINE FLD) PAE VOR RWY 16R. WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY (PAINE FLD) PAE VOR/DME RWY 16R. WA RICHLAND RLD VOR/DME-A. WA FELTS FIELD SFF VOR RWY 04L. WI LAKELAND/NOBLE F. LEE MEM. FIELD ARV NDB RWY 28. WI OUTAGAMIE COUNTY RGNL ATW VOR/DME RWY 03. WI OUTAGAMIE COUNTY RGNL ATW VOR/DME RWY 21. WI BURLINGTON MUNI BUU VOR-A. WI MIDDLETON MUNI-MOREY FIELD C29 VOR RWY 10. WI CENTRAL WISCONSIN CWA VOR OR GPS-A. WI CENTRAL WISCONSIN CWA VOR/DME RWY 35. WI BARABOO WISCONSIN DELLS DLL VOR-A. WI CHIPPEWA VALLEY RGNL EAU VOR-A. WI CHIPPEWA VALLEY RGNL EAU NDB RWY 22. WI EAGLE RIVER UNION EGV VOR/DME RWY 04. WI KENOSHA RGNL ENW VOR RWY 15. WI AUSTIN STRAUBEL INTL GRB VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 36. WI ALEXANDER FIELD SOUTH WOOD COUNTY ISW NDB RWY 30. WI ALEXANDER FIELD SOUTH WOOD COUNTY ISW VOR/DME or GPS-A. WI TRI-COUNTY RGNL LNR VOR-A. WI LA CROSSE MUNI LSE NDB RWY 18. WI MARSHFIELD MUNI MFI NDB RWY 5. WI DANE COUNTY RGNL-TRUAX FIELD MSN VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 14. WI DANE COUNTY RGNL-TRUAX FIELD MSN VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18. WI DANE COUNTY RGNL-TRUAX FIELD MSN VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 32. WI MANITOWOC COUNTY MTW VOR RWY 17. WI LAWRENCE J TIMMERMAN MWC VOR RWY 15L. WI JOHN H BATTEN RAC VOR RWY 04. WI RHINELANDER-ONEIDA COUNTY RHI VOR RWY 09. WI RICE LAKE RGNL-CARL'S FIELD RPD VOR RWY 01. WI WATERTOWN MUNI RYV NDB RWY 23. WI SHEBOYGAN COUNTY MEMORIAL SBM VOR RWY 22. WI STEVENS POINT MUNI STE VOR/DME RWY 21. WI WAUKESHA COUNTY UES VOR-A. WI DODGE COUNTY UNU NDB RWY 2. WI DODGE COUNTY UNU NDB RWY 20. WV ONA AIRPARK 12V VOR-A. WV FAIRMONT MUNI-FRANKMAN FIELD 4G7 VOR/DME-A. WV RALEIGH COUNTY MEMORIAL BKW VOR RWY 19. WV MERCER COUNTY BLF VOR RWY 23. WV GREENBRIER VALLEY LWB VOR RWY 04. WY CASPER/NATRONA COUNTY INTL CPR VOR/DME RWY 03. WY CHEYENNE RGNL/JERRY OLSON FIELD CYS NDB RWY 27. WY EVANSTON-UINTA COUNTY BURNS FIELD EVW VOR/DME RWY 23. WY GILLETTE-CAMPBELL COUNTY GCC VOR/DME RWY 34. WY JACKSON HOLE JAC VOR/DME RWY 19. WY RIVERTON RGNL RIW VOR RWY 28. WY ROCK SPRINGS-SWEETWATER COUNTY RKS VOR/DME RWY 27. WY TORRINGTON MUNI TOR NDB RWY 10 Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Additional Information A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. 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.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103(b), and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2015. Abigail Smith, Director, Aeronautical Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08098 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1020 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0828] Performance Standards for Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products; Fluoroscopic Equipment; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend a Federal performance standard for ionizing radiation to correct a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement. We are taking this action to ensure clarity and improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    DATES:

    Submit electronic or written comments on this proposed rule or its companion direct final rule by June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

    Written Submissions

    Submit written comments in the following ways:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0828 for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Gonzalez, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4641, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5889.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is the background of this Proposed Rule?

    FDA is proposing to correct a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement (see § 1020.32 (21 CFR 1020.32)). Specifically, this proposed amendment would change the words “any linear dimension” in the current regulation to read “every linear dimension” (see 21 CFR 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A)). The alternative performance standard, § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(B), currently contains the same phrase but would remain unchanged. We are proposing to amend the language to make the performance standards mutually exclusive. This will ensure clarity and improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    FDA first proposed the performance standards in the Federal Register of December 10, 2002 (67 FR 76056), to account for technological changes in fluoroscopic equipment. That proposed rule did not specify which measurement of the visible area of an image receptor determined the applicable performance standard (67 FR 76056 at 76092). When we addressed comments to that proposed rule in the Federal Register of June 10, 2005, we agreed with one comment that adding the words “any linear dimension” would clarify the determination of the performance standard (70 FR 33998 at 34007).

    FDA ultimately incorporated the phrase in two places, potentially reducing the clarity of the rule (70 FR 33998 at 34040). Section 1020.32(b)(4)(ii) sets performance standards based on a threshold, so the language for each standard should be mutually exclusive. That is, only one standard, and not the other, should apply to the image receptor in question. However, some image receptors may have linear dimensions that are both greater than and less than 34 cm, for example, receptors with a hexagonal shape. In such cases, the performance standards may not be mutually exclusive, so both standards may appear to apply. This proposed rule would amend § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A) to read “every linear dimension” to ensure the standards are mutually exclusive. The amendment will improve the clarity and accuracy of the regulations.

    II. Why is FDA publishing this companion Proposed Rule?

    This proposed rule is a companion to a direct final rule that corrects a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement. The direct final rule is published in the final rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. The direct final rule and this companion proposed rule are substantively identical. This companion proposed rule will provide the procedural framework to finalize a new rule in the event we withdraw the direct final rule because we receive significant adverse comment. We are publishing the direct final rule because we believe it is noncontroversial, and we do not anticipate any significant adverse comments. If we do not receive any significant adverse comments in response to the direct final rule, we will not take any further action on this proposed rule. Instead, within 30 days after the comment period ends, we intend to publish a notice that confirms the effective date of the direct final rule.

    If FDA receives any significant adverse comments regarding the direct final rule, we will withdraw it within 30 days after the comment period ends. We will then proceed to respond to the comments under this companion proposed rule using our usual notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 552a, et seq.). The comment period for this companion proposed rule runs concurrently with the direct final rule's comment period. We will consider any comments that we receive in response to this companion proposed rule to be comments also regarding the direct final rule and vice versa. We will not provide additional opportunity for comment.

    A significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate (including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach), ineffective, or unacceptable without change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants withdrawing a direct final rule, we consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553 of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553). Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.

    You can find additional information about FDA's direct final rulemaking procedures in the guidance document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures,” announced in the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466).

    III. What is the legal authority for this Proposed Rule?

    This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend § 1020.32. FDA's authority to modify § 1020.32 arises from the same authority under which FDA initially issued this regulation, the device and general administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360e-360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, and 381).

    IV. What is the environmental impact of this Proposed Rule?

    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and 25.34(a) 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.

    V. What is the economic analysis of impact of this Proposed Rule?

    FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Agency believes that this proposed rule would not be a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this proposed rule does not add any additional regulatory burdens, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $141 million, using the most current (2013) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in a 1-year expenditure that meets or exceeds this amount.

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to correct a drafting error regarding fluoroscopic equipment measurement in a performance standard for ionizing radiation. The amendment will improve the clarity and accuracy of the regulations. Because this proposed rule is a technical correction and would impose no additional regulatory burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    VI. How does the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 apply to this Rule?

    This proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    VII. What are the Federalism implications of this Rule?

    FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    VIII. How do you submit comments on this Proposed Rule?

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify 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.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1020

    Electronic products, Medical devices, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television, X-rays.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1020 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1020—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR IONIZING RADIATION EMITTING PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1020 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360e-360j, 360hh-360ss, 371, 381.

    2. Revise § 1020.32(b)(4)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
    § 1020.32 Fluoroscopic equipment.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) When every linear dimension of the visible area of the image receptor measured through the center of the visible area is less than or equal to 34 cm in any direction, at least 80 percent of the area of the x-ray field overlaps the visible area of the image.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08361 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0832; FRL-9925-34-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted SIP revision contains the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submitted SIP revision also contains negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories for the NSAQMD. We are proposing to approve the submitted SIP revision under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0832, 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:

    James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 244-1810, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal addresses the revisions to the NSAQMD portion of the California SIP. In the rules and regulations section of the Federal Register, we are approving the SIP revision in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is 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 proposal. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on a specific provision of this SIP revision and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the SIP revision, we may adopt as final those provisions of the SIP revision 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 12, 2015. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08419 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0166; FRL-9926-16-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing; Flexible Package Printing; and Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and Solvents AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions pertain to control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents. These revisions also meet the requirement to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) recommendations for the following categories: Offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0166 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]a.gov.

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0166, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0166. 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:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).

    CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information that should assist them in determining RACT for VOC emissions from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.

    In 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for offset lithographic printing. 58 FR 59261 (November 8, 1993). After reviewing comments on the draft CTG and soliciting additional information to help clarify those comments, EPA published an alternative control techniques (ACT) document in June 1994 that provided supplemental information for states to use in developing rules based on RACT for offset lithographic printing. In December 1978, EPA published a CTG for graphic arts (rotogravure printing and flexographic printing) that included flexible package printing (Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-033; December 1978). In 1994, EPA developed an ACT document for industrial cleaning solvents (Publication No. EPA-453/R-94-015; February 1994). After reviewing the 1978/1993/1994 CTGs and ACTs for these industries, conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for these industries, and taking into account any information that has become available since then, EPA developed new CTGs entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-002; September 2006); Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-003; September 2006); Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning Solvents (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-001; September 2006). The CTG recommendations may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances of a specific source. Regardless of whether a state chooses to implement the recommendations contained within the CTGs through state rules, or to issue state rules that adopt different approaches for RACT for VOCs, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 27, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision to EPA in order to add regulations to the Pennsylvania SIP which essentially adopt EPA CTGs for offset lithographic and letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents. These regulations are contained in Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code (Pa Code) Chapters 129 and 130. The pertinent regulations establish: (1) The applicability of the regulations to facilities for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents; (2) certain exemptions; (3) recordkeeping and work practice requirements; and (4) emission limitations.

    EPA's review of the new and revised regulations submitted by PADEP indicates that the submitted revisions of 25 Pa Code 121.1, 129.51, 129.67, 129.67a, and 129.67b meet the requirements to adopt RACT for sources located in Pennsylvania covered by EPA's CTG recommendations for control of VOC emissions for the following categories: Offset lithographic printing, letterpress printing, and flexible package printing. In addition, the submitted revisions to 25 Pa Code 129.77 and 130.703 continue to meet the requirements to adopt RACT for adhesives and solvents as approved on September 26, 2012. See 77 FR 59090. EPA finds the Pennsylvania regulations which adopt the equivalent of the specific EPA CTG recommendations meet CAA requirements for RACT in sections 172 and 182 of the CAA. More detailed information on these provisions as well as a detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to approve this SIP revision can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0166. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the August 27, 2014 Pennsylvania SIP revision adding new regulations 25 Pa Code 129.67a and 129.67b and revising regulations 25 Pa Code 121.1, 129.51, 129.67, 129.77, and 130.703 as the SIP revision meets CAA requirements for SIPs in sections 110, 172 and 182.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule the EPA is proposing to include, in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the PADEP rules regarding control of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing, letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents as described in section II of this proposed action. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to Pennsylvania's adoption of CTG recommendations for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing, flexible package printing, and adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 31, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08462 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0593; FRL-9925-95-Region-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia—Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Amendment to the Definition of “Regulated NSR Pollutant” Concerning Condensable Particulate Matter AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a July 25, 2013 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision includes a correction to the definition of “regulated NSR [New Source Review] pollutant” as it relates to condensable particulate matter under Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. 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 May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0593 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-2013-0593, David Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0593. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, 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 25, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08414 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 15-71; FCC 15-34] Television Market Modification; Statutory Implementation AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”). The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. In this document, the Commission proposes to revise the current cable market modification rule to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service. The document also proposes to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and considers whether to make any other changes to the current market modification rules.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before May 13, 2015; reply comments are due on or before May 28, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 15-71, by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to the FCC Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 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.

    • Hand or Messenger Delivery: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the FCC Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

    • 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.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the section IV. “PROCEDURAL MATTERS” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._[email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, adopted and released on March 26, 2015. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 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).

    Document Summary I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose satellite television “market modification” rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELA Reauthorization Act” or “STELAR”).1 The STELAR amended the Communications Act (“Communications Act” or “Act”) and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.2 The Commission previously had such authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.3 With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.4 Congress' intent through this provision of STELAR, and the Commission's actions in this NPRM, seek to address satellite subscribers' inability to receive in-state programming in certain areas, sometimes called “orphan counties.” 5 In this NPRM, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, we propose to implement section 102 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.6 In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs us to consider whether we should make changes to the current cable market modification rules,7 and it also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision.8 Accordingly, as part of our implementation of the STELAR, we propose to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and consider whether we should make any other changes to the current cable market modification rules. The STELAR requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.9

    1 The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.). This proceeding implements STELAR sec. 102 (titled “Modification of television markets to further consumer access to relevant television programming”), 128 Stat. at 2060-62, and the related statutory copyright license provisions in STELAR sec. 204 (titled “Market determinations”), 128 Stat. at 2067 (codified at 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E)).

    2 STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067. STELAR sec. 102(a) amends section 338 of the Act by adding a new paragraph (l). 47 U.S.C. 338(l) (titled “Market Determinations”). STELAR sec. 102(b) also makes conforming amendments to the cable market modification provision at 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). STELAR sec. 204 amends the statutory copyright license for satellite carriage of “local” stations in 17 U.S.C. 122 to cover market modifications in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 338(l). 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E). We note that, like the cable provision, the STELAR provision pertains only to “commercial” stations, thus excluding noncommercial stations from seeking market modifications. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).

    3See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). This section was added to the Act by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), as part of the cable must-carry/retransmission consent regime for carriage of local television stations. See also 47 CFR 76.59.

    4See title of STELAR sec. 102, “Modification of Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television Programming.” See also 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (directing the Commission to consider whether a market modification would “promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence”). There was no final Report issued to accompany the final version of the STELAR bill (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.) as it was enacted. Because section 102 of the STELAR was added from the Senate predecessor bill (S. 2799, the Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA)), we therefore look to the Senate Report No. 113-322 (dated December 12, 2014) accompanying this predecessor bill for the relevant legislative history for this provision. See Report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (“Senate Commerce Committee Report”).

    5 We note that the Commission has sometimes referred to the situation in which a county in one state is assigned to a neighboring state's local television market and, therefore, satellite subscribers residing in such county cannot receive some or any broadcast stations that originate in-state as the “orphan county” problem. The inability of satellite subscribers located in “orphan counties” to access in-state programming has been the subject of some congressional interest. See, e.g., Orphan County Telecommunications Rights Act, H.R. 4635, 113th Cong. (2014); Colorado News, Emergency, Weather, and Sports Act, S. 2375, 113th Cong. (2014); Four Corners Television Access Act, H.R. 4469, 112th Cong. (2012); Letting Our Communities Access Local Television Act, S. 3894, 111th Cong. (2010); Local Television Freedom Act, H.R. 3216, 111th Cong. (2009).

    6See 47 CFR 76.59. As discussed herein, we propose to revise section 76.59 of our rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers. We note Congress' intent that the process established by the Commission under the section 102 of the STELAR be “modeled” on the current cable market modification process. See Senate Commerce Committee Report at 10. However, the STELAR recognizes the inherent difference between cable and satellite television service with provisions specific to satellite. See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A), (5).

    7 STELAR sec. 102(d) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the “procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section, and update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934.”

    8See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).

    9 STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).

    II. Background

    2. The STELAR, enacted December 4, 2014, is the latest in a series of statutes that have amended the Communications Act and Copyright Act to set the parameters for the satellite carriage of television broadcast stations. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) first established a “distant” statutory copyright license to enable satellite carriers to offer subscribers who could not receive the over-the-air signal of a broadcast station access to broadcast programming via satellite.10 The 1999 Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) established a “local” statutory copyright license and expanded satellite carriers' ability to offer broadcast television signals directly to subscribers by permitting carriers to offer “local” broadcast signals.11 The 2004 Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) reauthorized the distant signal statutory copyright license until December 31, 2009 and expanded that license to allow satellite carriers to carry “significantly viewed” stations.12 The 2010 Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) extended the distant signal statutory copyright license through December 31, 2014, moved the significantly viewed signal copyright provisions to the local statutory copyright license (which does not expire), and revised the “significantly viewed” provisions to facilitate satellite carrier use of that option.13 With the STELAR, Congress extends the distant signal statutory copyright license for another five years, through December 31, 2019 and, among other things, authorizes market modification in the satellite carriage context and revises the market modification provisions for cable to promote parity for satellite and cable subscribers and competition between satellite and cable operators.14

    10 The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), Public Law 100-667, 102 Stat. 3935, Title II (1988); 17 U.S.C. 119 (distant statutory copyright license).

    11 The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999); 17 U.S.C. 122 (local statutory copyright license).

    12 The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA), Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004).

    13 The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), Public Law 111-175, 124 Stat. 1218, 1245 (2010). See also Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), MB Docket No. 10-148, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-193, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010 (STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order).

    14 In section 102 of the STELAR, Congress intended to “create a television market modification process for satellite carriers similar to the one already used for cable operators.” Senate Commerce Committee Report at 6. The STELAR also makes a variety of reforms to the video programming distribution laws and regulations that are not relevant here to our implementation of this section.

    3. Section 338 of the Act authorizes satellite carriage of local broadcast stations into their local markets, which is called “local-into-local” service.15 Specifically, a satellite carrier provides “local-into-local” service when it retransmits a local television signal back into the local market of that television station for reception by subscribers.16 Generally, a television station's “local market” is defined by the Designated Market Area (DMA) in which it is located, as determined by the Nielsen Company (Nielsen).17 DMAs describe each television market in terms of a unique geographic area (group of counties) and are defined by Nielsen based on measured viewing patterns.18 The United States is divided into 210 DMA markets. (DMAs frequently cross state lines and thus may include counties from multiple states.) Unlike cable operators, satellite carriers are not required to carry local broadcast television stations. However, if a satellite carrier chooses to carry a local station in a particular DMA in reliance on the statutory copyright license, it generally must carry any qualified local station in the same DMA that makes a timely election for retransmission consent or mandatory carriage.19 This is commonly referred to as the “carry one, carry all” requirement. If a broadcaster elects retransmission consent, the satellite carrier and broadcaster negotiate the terms of a retransmission consent agreement. With respect to those stations electing mandatory carriage, satellite carriers are generally not required to carry a station if the station's programming “substantially duplicates” that of another station carried by the satellite carrier in the DMA, and satellite carriers are not required to carry more than one network affiliate station in a DMA (even if the affiliates do not substantially duplicate their programming), unless the stations are licensed to communities in different states.20 Satellite carriers are also not required to carry an otherwise qualified station if the station fails to provide a good quality signal to the satellite carrier's local receive facility.21

    15See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1).

    16 47 CFR 76.66(a)(6).

    17See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2); 47 CFR 76.66(e) (defining a television broadcast station's local market for purposes of satellite carriage as the DMA in which the station is located). We note that a commercial television broadcast station's local market for purposes of cable carriage is also generally defined as the DMA in which the station is located. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C); 47 CFR 76.55(e)(2).

    18 The Nielsen Company delineates television markets by assigning each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) to one market based on measured viewing patterns both off-air and by MVPD distribution.

    19See 17 U.S.C. 122; 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1).

    20See 47 U.S.C. 338(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(h). See also Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Retransmission Consent Issues, CS Docket Nos. 00-96 and 99-363, Report and Order, FCC 00-417, 66 FR 7410, at para. 80, Jan. 23, 2001 (DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order).

    21See 47 U.S.C. 338(b)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(g)(1).

    4. Section 102 of the STELAR, which adds section 338(l) of the Act, creates a satellite market modification regime very similar to that in place for cable, while adding provisions to address the unique nature of satellite television service.22 Market modification, which has been available in the cable carriage context since 1992, will allow the Commission to modify the local television market of a commercial television broadcast station to enable those broadcasters and satellite carriers to better serve the interests of local communities.23 Market modification provides a means to avoid rigid adherence to DMA designations and to promote consumer access to in-state and other relevant television programming.24 To better reflect market realities and effectuate the purposes of this provision, section 338(l), like the corresponding cable provision in section 614(h)(1)(C), permits the Commission to add communities to or delete communities from a station's local television market following a written request.25 Furthermore, as in the cable carriage context, the Commission may determine that particular communities are part of more than one television market.26 Similar to the cable carriage context, when the Commission modifies a station's market to add a community for purposes of carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license and may assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the local market.27 Likewise, if the Commission modifies a station's market to delete a community, the station is considered “distant” and loses its right to assert mandatory carriage (or retransmission consent) by the applicable satellite carrier in the local market. We note that, in the cable carriage context, market modifications pertain to specific stations in specific cable communities and apply to the specific cable system named in the petition.28

    22See 47 U.S.C. 338(l), 534(h)(1)(C).

    23 See In-State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, MB Docket No. 10-238, Report, DA 11-1454, at para. 55-59 (MB rel. Aug. 29, 2011) (“In-State Programming Report”) (stating that “market modifications could potentially address special situations in underserved areas and facilitate greater access to local information”). See also Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218, 73 FR 8255 at paras. 49-50, Feb. 13, 2008 (“Broadcast Localism Report”).

    24Broadcast Localism Report at para. 50. The Commission has observed that, in some cases, general reliance on DMAs to define a station's market may not provide viewers with the most local programming. Certain DMAs cross state borders and, in such cases, current Commission rules sometimes require carriage of the broadcast signal of an out-of-state station rather than that of an in-state station. The Commission has observed that such cases may weaken localism, since viewers are often more likely to receive information of local interest and relevance—particularly local weather and other emergency information and local news and electoral and public affairs—from a station located in the state in which they live. Id. at paras. 49-50.

    25 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1), 534(h)(1)(C).

    26Id. 338(l)(2)(A).

    27 Section 204 of the STELAR amends the local statutory copyright license in 17 U.S.C. 122 so that when the Commission modifies a station's market for purposes of satellite carriage rights, the station is considered local and is covered by the local statutory copyright license. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2)(E); 47 U.S.C. 338. See also 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(4) (defining “local service area of a primary transmitter” for cable carriage copyright purposes); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C).

    28 See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, MM Docket No. 92-259, Report and Order, FCC 93-144, 58 FR 17350, at para. 47, April 2, 1993 (Must Carry Order) (stating that “the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's market to reflect its individual situation”); 47 CFR 76.59.

    5. Section 338(l) states that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors:

    • Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area—have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community;

    • whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community;

    • whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence;

    • whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and

    • evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community.29 These statutory factors largely mirror those originally set forth for cable in section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. To the extent the factors differ from the previous factors applicable to cable, section 102 of the STELAR makes conforming changes to the cable factors.30 These include adding a fifth factor (inserted as factor number three) to section 614(h)(1)(C)(ii) to “promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.” 31 Thus, STELAR creates parallel factors for satellite and cable.32

    29 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v).

    30See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), as amended by STELAR sec. 102(b).

    31See id. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (“whether modifying the market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence”).

    32 Upon completion of this rulemaking proceeding, we will implement section 102(c) of the STELAR by creating a consumer guide that will explain the market modification rules and procedures as revised and adopted in this proceeding, and by posting such guide on the Commission's Web site. Section 102(c) requires the Commission to “make information available to consumers on its Web site that explains the market modification process.” STELAR 102(c); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note. Such information must include: “(1) who may petition to include additional communities within, or exclude communities from, a—(A) local market (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, United States Code); or (B) television market (as determined under section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C))); and (2) the factors that the Commission takes into account when responding to a petition described in paragraph (1).” See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v); 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(I) through (V).

    6. The STELAR, however, provides a unique exception applicable only in the satellite context, providing that a market modification shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.33

    33 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(A).

    Also unique to satellite, the STELAR provides that a market modification will not have “any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339 [of the Act].” 34 Like the cable provision, section 338(l) gives the Commission 120 days to act on a request for market modification and does not allow a carrier to delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any market modification proceeding.35

    34 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).

    35 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), (4).

    III. Discussion

    7. Consistent with the STELAR's goal of regulatory parity, we propose to amend section 76.59 of our rules—the current cable market modification rule—to apply to the satellite context.36 We also propose to amend section 76.59 to reflect the STELAR provisions that uniquely apply to satellite carriers. The STELAR also directs us to update our definition of a “community” for purposes of market modification and, below, we seek comment in this regard. We seek comment on the specific rule proposals and tentative conclusions contained herein. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches.

    36See 47 CFR 76.59.

    A. Requesting Market Modification

    8. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, we propose to allow either the affected commercial broadcast station or satellite carrier to file a satellite market modification request.37 Section 338(l)(1) of the Act contains very similar language to the corresponding cable statutory provision in section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.38 Like the cable provision, section 338(l)(1) permits the Commission to modify a local television market “following a written request,” but does not specify the appropriate party to make such requests.39 Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR further directs the Commission to ensure in both the cable and satellite contexts that “procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request . . . fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.” 40 The Commission found in the cable context that the involved broadcaster and cable operator are the only appropriate parties to file market modification requests.41 The Commission reasoned that “the fact that Congress made must carry an elective choice for broadcasters diminishes the argument that third parties have standing to demand carriage of a broadcast station on a cable system. A subscriber's ability to receive the benefits provided from must carry is predicated upon a station's election to exercise its rights under the statute. No statute or Commission rule requires a broadcaster to allow its signal to be carried on a local cable system because another party wishes to view it. Instead, broadcasters are given a choice whether to demand carriage under must carry, to negotiate carriage under the retransmission consent provisions, or not to be carried on a particular cable system at all.” 42 Thus, only these entities have carriage rights or obligations at stake, giving them a legitimate basis for filing such requests.

    37See 47 CFR 76.59(a) (allowing either a broadcast station or a cable system to file market modification requests).

    38 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1) (“Following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station, include additional communities within its local market or exclude communities from such station's local market to better effectuate the purposes of this section.) See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i) (“For purposes of this section, a broadcasting station's market shall be determined by the Commission by regulation or order using, where available, commercial publications which delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, following a written request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular television broadcast station, include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market to better effectuate the purposes of this section . . . .”).

    39 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).

    40 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) directs the Commission to consider as part of this rulemaking whether the “procedures for the filing and consideration of a written request under sections 338(l) and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 338(l); 534(h)(1)(C)) fully effectuate the purposes of the amendments made by this section.” See 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.

    41See John Wiegand v. Post Newsweek Pacifica Cable, Inc., CSR 4179-M, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-239 (rel. Aug. 24, 2001) (“Wiegand v. Post Newsweek”) (limiting standing in the must carry and market modification contexts to the affected broadcaster or cable operator); Must Carry Order, at para. 46.

    42 See Must Carry Order, at para. 46.

    9. Without the active participation of the affected broadcaster, modifying the market of a particular television station, in itself, would not result in consumer access to that station.43 This reasoning appears to apply to the satellite context as well. Thus, a market modification would serve little purpose without the cooperation of the involved broadcaster or MVPD having carriage rights or obligations. We seek comment on our proposal and these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. We note, for example, that some local governments have previously sought the ability to petition for market modifications on behalf of their citizens.44 We recognize that seeking and providing carriage is a business decision by the involved broadcaster and satellite carrier and, therefore, we tentatively conclude to limit the participation of local governments and individuals to filing comments in support of, or in opposition to, particular market modification requests, for the reasons discussed in this and the preceding paragraph. We, nevertheless, seek comment on this tentative conclusion and how else satellite subscribers or their representatives can meaningfully advocate for the receipt of in-state programming via satellite.

    43See Wiegand v. Post Newsweek, at para. 11(“[t]he granting of a request to expand the market of a television station merely allows a broadcaster the option to seek must carry status on cable systems added to its market. A broadcaster is not required to seek carriage of its signal on all of the cable systems in its market.”).

    44 See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58.

    10. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, we propose to require broadcasters and satellite carriers to file market modification requests for satellite carriage purposes in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.45 Consistent with section 76.7, we propose that a petitioner must serve a copy of its market modification request on any MVPD operator, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested party who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted, and we propose to amend section 76.7(a)(3), accordingly, to reference “any MVPD operator.” 46 We seek comment on our proposal. Because, as noted above, some local governments have expressed interest in orphan county issues, we also seek comment on whether franchising authorities 47 or certain local government entities (such as cities, counties or towns) that may represent subscribers and local viewers in affected communities should be considered “interested parties” and served with market modification requests. We seek specific comment on whether to require petitioners seeking only a satellite carriage market modification to serve the relevant franchising authority. We note that while the Commission has found that a franchising authority represents the interests of subscribers and other local viewers in the cable context,48 franchising authorities currently have no role in satellite regulation.

    45 47 CFR 76.59(b). A fee is generally required for the filing of Special Relief petitions; 47 CFR 1.1104, 1.1117, 76.7. We remind filers that Special Relief petitions must be submitted electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Media Bureau Announces Commencement of Mandatory Electronic Filing for Cable Special Relief Petitions and Cable Show Cause Petitions Via the Electronic Comment Filing System, Public Notice, DA 11-2095 (MB rel. Dec. 30, 2011). Petitions must be initially filed in MB Docket No. 12-1. Id.

    46See 47 CFR 76.7(a)(3). While our rules currently state that documents that are required to be served must be served in paper form unless the parties agree to another method of service, 47 CFR 1.47(d), we take notice of the Commission's broader efforts to modernize our procedures where possible. See, e.g., Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, GC Docket No. 10-44, Order, FCC 14-183, 80 FR 1586, para. 26, Jan. 13, 2015 (authorizing Commission staff to accept secs. 214 and 215 filings in electronic form); Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure Relating to the Filing of Formal Complaints Under Section 208 of the Communications Act and Pole Attachment Complaints Under Section 224 of the Communications Act, GC Docket No. 10-44, Order, FCC 14-179, 79 FR 73844, para. 2, Dec. 12, 2014 (mandating electronic filing of secs. 208 and 224 complaints). Service of market modification requests seems ripe for modernization as well. In the near term, the Commission will explore whether and how this and other types of required filings might transition to electronic form.

    47 We recognize, for example, that in several states, the state acts as the franchising authority instead of a local government.

    48See KMSO-TV, Inc., CSR-883, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 FCC2d 414, 415, para. 3 (1976).

    B. Statutory Factors and Evidentiary Requirements

    11. As discussed above, the purpose of market modifications is to permit adjustments to a particular station's local television market (which is initially defined by the DMA in which it is located) to better reflect localism and ensure that satellite subscribers receive the broadcast stations most relevant to them.49 To this end, the STELAR requires the Commission to consider five statutory factors when evaluating market modification requests. As noted, the STELAR added a fifth factor (inserted as the new third statutory factor) for both cable and satellite to “promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence.” 50 The legislative history indicates Congress' concern that “many consumers, particularly those who reside in DMAs that cross State lines or cover vast geographic distances,” may “lack access to local television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.” 51 The legislative history further indicates Congress' intent that the Commission “consider the plight of these consumers when judging the merits of a [market modification] petition . . . , even if granting such modification would pose an economic challenge to various local television broadcast stations.” 52 We tentatively conclude that this new third statutory factor is intended to favor a market modification to add a community if doing so would increase consumer access to in-state programming. We also tentatively conclude, however, that this new third statutory factor is not intended to bar a market modification simply because it would not result in increased consumer access to in-state programming. In such cases, we believe this new third statutory factor would be inapplicable.53 We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and any alternative interpretations.

    49See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the Commission to “afford particular attention to the value of localism” by taking into account the five statutory factors).

    50 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). We will refer to this new factor as the “third statutory factor.”

    51 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.

    52Id.

    53 We note that this is similar to how we apply the fourth statutory factor (“whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community”). 47 U.S.C.534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III). The Commission has found that this fourth factor (previously the third factor) is not intended to operate as a bar to a station's market modification request whenever other stations could also be shown to serve the communities at issue. See e.g. , Great Trails Broadcasting Corp., DA 95-1700, para. 23 (MB rel. Aug. 11, 1995); Paxson San Jose License, Inc., DA 97-2276, para. 13 (MB rel. Oct. 30, 1997). Rather, the fourth factor is intended to enhance a station's market modification request where it could be shown that other stations do not provide news coverage of issues of concern to the communities at issue. See id. Likewise, we believe the new third statutory factor is intended to enhance a station's market modification request where it could be shown that such modification would promote consumer access to in-state programming.

    12. We tentatively conclude that the evidentiary requirements currently required in section 76.59 continue to be appropriate to support and evaluate market modification petitions. Specifically, we propose that market modification requests for both satellite carriers and cable system operators must include the following evidence:

    • A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market;

    • Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) or Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas.

    • Available data on shopping and labor patterns in the local market.

    • Television station programming information derived from station logs or the local edition of the television guide.

    • Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings.

    • Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.54

    54See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(1) through (6).

    In 1999, the Commission adopted this standardized evidence approach for market modifications in the cable context in an effort to promote administrative efficiency, given the 120-day time period for Commission action on such petitions.55 We seek comment on whether to do the same for satellite and on whether any of these evidentiary requirements are not relevant in the satellite context. We further seek comment on whether any other evidence should be required to evaluate the statutory factors.

    55Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules, CS Docket No. 95-178, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 99-116, 64 FR 33788, para. 44, Jun. 24, 1999.

    13. In particular, we seek comment on what evidence could be used to demonstrate the new “third statutory factor,” which seeks to promote consumer access to in-state programming.56 For example, in situations in which this third statutory factor would apply, should we require the petitioner to show that the station at issue is licensed to a community within the state in which the modification is requested and that the DMA at issue lacks any (or an adequate number of) in-state stations? We note that the current rule already requires a petitioner to provide television station programming information. Would this information provide sufficient evidence of whether the station at issue offers programming (e.g., news, sports, weather, political, talk shows, etc.) specifically covering in-state issues? Should we require a petitioner to provide a list of advertisers, which would show that the station is used to attract viewers to local businesses? In addition, are there any satellite-specific evidentiary showings that we should require separate and apart from the six evidentiary showings described above?

    56 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(iii), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(III).

    14. In addition, we tentatively conclude to revise section 76.59(b)(2) of the rules to add a reference to the digital noise-limited service contour (NLSC), which is the relevant service contour for a station's digital signal.57 Section 76.59(b)(2) requires petitioners seeking a market modification to provide Grade B contour maps delineating the station's technical service area; 58 however the Grade B contour defines an analog television station's service area.59 Since the completion of the full power digital television transition on June 12, 2009, there are no longer any full power analog stations and, therefore, the Commission uses the NLSC set forth in 47 CFR 73.622(e),60 in place of the analog Grade B contour set forth in 47 CFR 73.683(a), to describe a full power station's technical service area.61 Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has required full power stations to provide NLSC maps, in place of Grade B contour maps, for purposes of cable market modifications.62 Therefore, we tentatively conclude that section 76.59(b)(2) should be updated for purposes of market modifications in both the cable and satellite contexts. However, we propose to retain the reference in the rule to the Grade B contour because that reference may still have relevance with respect to low power television (LPTV) stations.63 We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. (We are also updating section 76.59(b)(6) of the rules to reflect the change from “evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households . . .” to “evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors” in the fifth statutory factor (emphasis added).64 We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.)

    57See 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).

    58 47 CFR 76.59(b)(2).

    59See 47 CFR 73.683(a).

    60 As set forth in section 73.622(e), a full-power station's DTV service area is defined as the area within its noise-limited contour where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited service level. See 47 CFR 73.622(e).

    61See STELA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 51 (2010) (stating that the digital NLSC is “the appropriate service contour relevant for a station's digital signal”); 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 09-182, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-92, 75 FR 33227, para. 103, June 11, 2010 (stating that the Commission developed the digital NLSC to approximate the same probability of service as the Grade B contour and has stated that the two are roughly equivalent); Report To Congress: The Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Reauthorization Act of 2004; Study of Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures; ET Docket No. 05-182, FCC 05-199, para. 111 (rel. Dec. 9, 2005). Since the DTV transition, the Media Bureau has used the digital NLSC in place of the analog Grade B contour in cable contexts in addition to market modifications. See, e.g., KXAN, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-589, para. 8 n.32 (MB rel. Apr. 1, 2010) (using the NLSC in place of the Grade B contour for purposes of the cable network non-duplication and syndicated program exclusivity rules). Congress has also acted on the presumption that the two standards are roughly equivalent, by adopting parallel definitions for households that are “unserved” by analog (measured by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) broadcasters in the STELA legislation enacted after the DTV transition. See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A)(i).

    62See, e.g., Tennessee Broadcasting Partners, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 10-824, para. 6, n.14 (MB rel. May 12, 2010) (stating, in a market modification order, that the Commission has treated a digital station's NLSC as the functional equivalent of an analog station's Grade B contour); Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 04-1414, para. 7, n.27 (MB rel. May 20, 2004).

    63 We note that the Commission has tentatively concluded that it should extend the September 1, 2015 digital transition deadline for LPTV stations. See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-151, 79 FR 70824, para. 4, Nov. 28., 2014. Although LPTV stations are not entitled to mandatory satellite carriage, see 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(3), LPTV stations may be entitled to mandatory cable carriage, but only in limited circumstances. Both the Communications Act and the Commission's rules mandate that only a minimum number of qualified low power stations must be carried by cable systems, see 47 U.S.C. 534(c)(1); 47 CFR 76.56(b)(3), and, in order to qualify, such stations must meet several criteria. See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(2)(A)-(F); 47 CFR 76.55(d)(1)-(6).

    64See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(v), 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)(V).

    15. Consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that satellite market modification requests that do not include the required evidence also be dismissed without prejudice and may be supplemented and re-filed at a later date with the appropriate filing fee.65 In addition, consistent with the cable carriage rule, we propose that, during the pendency of a market modification petition before the Commission, satellite carriers will also be required to maintain the status quo with regard to signal carriage and must not delete from carriage the signal of an affected commercial television station.66

    65See 47 CFR 76.59(c).

    66See 47 CFR 76.59(d). See also 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3)(B), 534(h)(1)(C)(iii); Must Carry Order, at para. 46.

    C. Market Determinations

    16. Consistent with the cable carriage context, we interpret the statute to require that market modifications in the satellite carriage context must be limited to the specific station or stations identified in the market modification request and to the specific satellite community or communities referenced in the request.67 This reading is based on the statute's language granting authority to modify markets “with respect to a particular commercial television broadcast station.” 68 This also makes sense because market modification determinations are highly fact-specific and turn on whether a particular commercial television broadcast station serves the needs of a specific community. We also propose to consider market modification requests separately in the cable and satellite contexts. We believe this proposal makes sense given the service area differences between satellite carriers and cable systems and the potential difference between a cable and satellite community, given that the former is defined as “a separate and distinct community or municipal entity” and we consider defining the latter using one or more five-digit zip codes.69 We also propose that market modification requests will only apply to the satellite carrier or carriers named in the request.70 For example, a modification may not always appropriately apply to both carriers because their spot beams may be different, even though they are serving the same market and thus one may have an infeasibility defense while the other may not. We seek comment on these proposals. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. For example, should market determinations apply for purposes of both cable and satellite carriage and what procedures or definitional changes would be needed to implement such an approach? How would such an alternative approach account for the STELAR's exception for satellite carriage that would not be “technically and economically feasible” (discussed below)?

    67See Must Carry Order, at para. 47, n.139 (stating that “the statute is intended to permit the modification of a station's market to reflect its individual situation”); 47 CFR 76.59. We note that this is also consistent with the Commission's previous determination that stations may make a different retransmission consent/mandatory carriage election in the satellite context than that made in the cable context. See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, at para. 23.

    68 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(1).

    69See id. at 1930, para. 24.

    70 This is also consistent with the satellite carriage election process. See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, CS Docket No. 00-96, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-249, 66 FR 49124, para. 62, Sept. 26., 2001 (DBS Must Carry Reconsideration Order) (“where there is more than one satellite carrier in a local market area, a television station can elect retransmission consent for one satellite carrier and elect must carry for another satellite carrier”).

    17. Prior Determinations. Because market modification determinations are so highly fact-specific, we tentatively conclude that prior market determinations made with respect to cable carriage will not automatically apply to the satellite context. It appears that the inherent differences between cable and satellite service would make such automatic application inadvisable. We note, however, that historic carriage is one of the five factors the Commission would consider in evaluating market modification requests and could carry weight in determining a market modification in the satellite context.71 We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. For example, should prior market determinations in the cable context carry a presumption of approval in the satellite context or automatically apply to the satellite context? We note, however, that any presumption or automatic application would have to be subject to the STELAR's exception for satellite carriers if the resulting carriage would not be “technically and economically feasible.” Would such alternative approaches impose a significant burden on satellite carriers who would have to evaluate the feasibility of carriage resulting from all prior determinations?

    71See 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i)(I) (whether the station, or other stations located in the same area— “have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community”).

    18. Carriage after a market modification. We tentatively conclude that television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to section 76.66 of the rules) by virtue of a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to section 76.59 of the rules) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. We further tentatively conclude that a satellite carrier must commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station. These proposals are consistent with our cable rules, as well as with existing satellite carriage procedures, including those involving new television stations.72 In addition, we tentatively conclude that the carriage election must be made in accordance with section 76.66(d)(1).73 We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and on any other procedural requirements we should consider.

    72See 47 CFR 76.64(f)(5), 76.66(d)(1) and (d)(3).

    73See 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1). Section 76.66(d)(1) requires that an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii). The rule requires that a television station's written notification shall include the following information: (1) Station's call sign; (2) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (3) Station's address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (4) Station's community of license; (5) Station's DMA assignment; and (6) Station's election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii). The rule also requires that, within 30 days of receiving the request for carriage from the television broadcast station, a satellite carrier must notify the station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the station. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv).

    D. Technical or Economic Infeasibility Exception for Satellite Carriers

    19. We propose to include the statutory language of section 338(l)(3) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek comment on this implementation. section 338(l)(3) provides that “[a] market determination . . . shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.” 74 The legislative history indicates that Congress recognized “that there are technical and operational differences that may make a particular television market modification difficult for a satellite carrier to effectuate.” 75 The legislative history also indicates “that claims of the existence of such difficulties should be well substantiated and carefully examined by the [Commission] as part of the petition consideration process.” 76 Based on the language of the provision and the legislative history, we tentatively conclude that the satellite carrier has the burden to demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility. We further interpret the statutory text as requiring a satellite carrier to raise any technical or economic impediments in the market modification proceeding and we propose to address this issue in the market modification proceeding. This reading is consistent with the language of the statute (that we consider whether the carrier can accomplish carriage “at the time of the determination”). Moreover, this will be most efficient for all parties. We seek comment on this proposal and whether the satellite carrier should be deemed to have waived technical or economic infeasibility arguments if not raised in response to the market modification request (and, thus, be prohibited from raising such a claim after a market determination, such as in response to a station's request for carriage). We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. In addition, we propose to grant a meritorious market modification request, even if such grant would not create a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to a finding of technical or economic infeasibility.77 This would ensure that, if there is a change in circumstances such that it later becomes technically and economically feasible for the satellite carrier to carry the station, then the station could assert its carriage rights pursuant to the earlier market modification.78 We seek comment on this proposal or if, alternatively, we should deny a market modification request that would not create a new carriage obligation at the time of the determination.

    74 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(3).

    75 Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.

    76 See id.

    77 We note that this is consistent with the cable carriage context, in which the Commission might grant a market modification, even if such grant would not result in a new carriage obligation at that time, for example, due to the station being a duplicating signal. See 47 CFR 76.56(b)(5).

    78 This concept is similar to the duplicating signals situation, in which a satellite carrier must add a television station to its channel line-up if such station no longer duplicates the programming of another local television station. See 47 CFR 76.66(h)(4).

    20. We also invite comment on the types of technical or economic impediments contemplated by this provision and the type of evidence needed to prove such infeasibility claims. Are there any objective criteria by which the Commission could determine technical or economic infeasibility? For example, the Commission has recognized that spot beam coverage limitations, in the provision of local-into-local service context, may be a legitimate technical impediment.79 Under what circumstances would the limitations or coverage of a spot beam be a sufficient basis for a satellite carrier to prove that carriage of a station in the community at issue is not technically and economically feasible? Should we require satellite carriers claiming infeasibility due to insufficient spot beam coverage to provide spot beam contour diagrams to show whether a particular spot beam can be used to cover a particular community? We also seek specific comment from satellite carriers on the complexities and expense that may be associated with reconfiguring a spot beam to cover additional communities added to the market served by the spot beam by operation of the market modification process. In addition, in the event of a Commission finding of technical or economic infeasibility, we seek comment on whether we should impose a reporting requirement on satellite carriers to notify the affected broadcaster if circumstances change at a later time making it technically and economically feasible for the carrier to carry the station. Would such changes in circumstances be sufficiently public so as to not necessitate the burden of such a reporting requirement? If not notified by the carrier, how else could a broadcaster find out about such a change in the feasibility of carriage? To the extent that a satellite carrier can provide the station at issue to some, but not all, subscribers in the community, should we allow or require the carrier to deliver the station to subscribers in the community who are capable of receiving the signal?

    79See DBS Broadcast Carriage Report and Order, at para. 42 (allowing satellite carriers to use spot beam technology to provide local-into-local service, even if the spot beam did not cover the entire market).

    21. We note that compiling the standardized evidence necessary to demonstrate that a market modification should be granted may not be, in some instances, a simple or inexpensive process. In this regard, should the Commission, in the case of satellite market modifications, require or encourage stations seeking market modifications to contact a satellite carrier before filing a market modification request in order to get an initial determination on whether the carrier considers the request technically and economically feasible? Such an initial inquiry might save some broadcasters the time and expense of compiling the standardized evidence for a modification that is not technically and economically feasible by alerting them to the technical or economic issue, which they could then take into account in deciding whether to file the request. We seek comment on this issue.

    E. No Effect on Eligibility To Receive Distant Signals via Satellite

    22. We propose to include the statutory language of section 338(l)(5) within section 76.59 to implement this provision, and we seek comment on any further guidance we can give for its implementation.80 Section 338(l)(5) provides that “[n]o modification of a commercial television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this subsection shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339, notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) of this section.” 81 There are two key restrictions on a satellite subscriber's eligibility to receive “distant” (out-of-market) signals.82 First, subscribers are generally eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier only if the subscriber is “unserved” over the air by a local station of the same network.83 Second, even if “unserved,” a subscriber is not eligible to receive a distant station from a satellite carrier if the carrier is making “available” to such subscriber a local station of the same network.84 We believe section 338(l)(5) is largely intended as an exception to these two subscriber eligibility requirements. In other words, under this reading, the addition of a new local station to a local television market by operation of a market modification (which might otherwise restrict a subscriber's eligibility to receive a distant station) would not disqualify an otherwise eligible satellite subscriber from receiving a distant station of the same network. For example, a subscriber may be receiving a distant station because the subscriber resides in a “short market,” 85 has obtained a waiver from the relevant network station,86 or is otherwise eligible to receive distant signals pursuant to section 339. That subscriber will continue to be eligible to receive the distant station after a market modification that adds a new local station of the same network. We seek comment on our proposed reading of this provision. We also seek comment on any alternative interpretations. We invite comment on the specific situations intended to be covered by section 338(l)(5). We seek comment on whether section 338(l)(5) also means that the deletion of a local station from a local television market by operation of a market modification would not make otherwise ineligible subscribers now eligible to receive a distant station of the same network. We also seek comment on any other rule changes necessary to implement this statutory provision.

    80 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(5).

    81Id.

    82See 17 U.S.C. 119; 47 U.S.C. 339. Generally, a station is considered “distant” with respect to a subscriber if such station originates from outside of the subscriber's local television market (or DMA). See id.

    83 The Copyright Act defines an “unserved household,” with respect to a particular television network, as “a household that cannot receive, through the use of an antenna, an over-the-air signal containing the primary stream, or, on or after the qualifying date, the multicast stream, originating in that household's local market and affiliated with that network—(i) if the signal originates as an analog signal, Grade B intensity as defined by the Federal Communications Commission in section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999; or (ii) if the signal originates as a digital signal, intensity defined in the values for the digital television noise-limited service contour, as defined in regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (section 73.622(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations), as such regulations may be amended from time to time. 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A). An unserved household can also be one that is subject to one of four statutory waivers or exemptions. See id. 119(d)(10)(B) through (E).

    84See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3). This second restriction on eligibility is commonly referred to as the “no distant where local” rule. A satellite carrier makes “available” a local signal to a subscriber or person if the satellite carrier offers that local signal to other subscribers who reside in the same zip code as that subscriber or person. 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(H). See also 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)(F).

    85See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(C); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10). By a “short market,” we refer to a market in which one of the four major television networks is not offered on the primary stream of a local broadcast station, thus permitting satellite carriers to deliver a distant station affiliated with that missing network to subscribers in that market.

    86See 47 U.S.C. 339(a)(2)(E).

    F. Definition of Community

    23. As directed by the STELAR, we consider how to define a “community” for purposes of market modification in both the cable and satellite contexts.87 With respect to a “satellite community,” we generally invite comment on how to define a “satellite community,” and seek specific comment on two alternate proposals for this definition below. With respect to a “cable community,” we tentatively conclude that our existing definition of a “cable community” (in section 76.5(dd) of the rules) has worked well in cable market modifications for more than 20 years and should not be changed. While we continue to believe the cable definition best effectuates the cable market modification provision, we nevertheless invite comment on whether we need to update this definition, such as whether to allow cable modifications on a county basis. Section 102(d)(2) of the STELAR requires the Commission to “update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market” in both the satellite and cable contexts.88 The legislative history indicates Congress' intent for the Commission “to consider alternative definitions for community that could make the market modification process more effective and useful.” 89

    87 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.

    88 STELAR sec. 102(d)(2) (“MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION.—As part of the rulemaking required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall . . . update what it considers to be a community for purposes of a modification of a market under section 338(l) or 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934”); 47 U.S.C.A. 338 Note.

    89Senate Commerce Committee Report at 12.

    24. The concept of a “community” is important in the market modification context, because the term describes the geographic area that will be added to or deleted from a station's local television market, which in turn determines the stations that must be carried by a cable operator (or, in the future, a satellite carrier) to subscribers in that community.90 Because of the localized nature of cable systems, cable communities are easily defined by the geographic boundaries of a given cable system, which are often, but not always, coincident with a municipal boundary and may vary as determined on a case-by-case basis.91 In the cable carriage context, the Commission considers market modification requests on a community-by-community basis 92 and defines a community unit in terms of a “distinct community or municipal entity” where a cable system operates or will operate.93 A “satellite community,” however, is not as easily defined as a cable community. Unlike cable service, which reaches subscribers in a defined local area via local franchises, satellite carriers offer service on a national basis, with no connection to a particular local community or municipality. Moreover, satellite service is sometimes offered in areas of the country that do not have cable service, and thus cannot be defined by cable communities. The Commission previously faced the question of how to define a satellite community in 2005, after the SHVERA added significantly viewed provisions for the satellite carriage context.94 In the significantly viewed context, the Commission, seeking regulatory parity, defined a satellite community in the same way as a cable community in most situations.95 However, the Commission allowed a satellite carrier to define a satellite community “by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas” in the limited situation in which there was no previously defined cable community and the area was unincorporated.96

    90See 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1); 47 CFR 76.66(b)(1).

    91See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with Respect to the Definition of a Cable Television System and the Creation of Classes of Cable Systems, Docket No. 20561, First Report and Order, FCC 77-205, para. 20, n. 5 (rel. Apr. 6, 1977) (1977 Cable Order).

    92See 1977 Cable Order, para. 22 (explaining that the cable carriage rules apply “on a community-by-community basis”). See also 47 CFR 76.5(dd), 76.59.

    93 47 CFR 76.5(dd) defines “community unit” as: “A cable television system, or portion of a cable television system, that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas).” A cable system community is assigned a community unit identifier number (“CUID”) when registered with the Commission, pursuant to section 76.1801 of the rules. 47 CFR 76.1801.

    94See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, Report and Order, FCC 05-187, 70 FR 76504, para. 51, December 27, 2005 (SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order). The SHVERA defined the term “community” for purposes of the significantly viewed rules, as either “(A) a county or a cable community, as determined under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Commission applicable to determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are significantly viewed; or (B) a satellite community, as determined under such rules, regulations, and authorizations (or revisions thereof) as the Commission may prescribe in implementing the requirements of this section.” 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(3).

    95See 47 CFR 76.5(gg) (defining a “satellite community” as “[a] separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas). The boundaries of any such unincorporated community may be defined by one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas. Satellite communities apply only in areas in which there is no pre-existing cable community, as defined in 76.5(dd).”). See also SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 50. We note, however, that the SHVERA required satellite carriers to use the existing defined cable communities on the significantly viewed list. See 47 U.S.C. 340(a)(1); 340(i)(3)(A). This provision, in part, caused the Commission to favor the use of cable communities to define future communities, except for unincorporated areas, to promote consistent rules and significantly viewed listings for both satellite and cable. See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 51 (stating that the “definition will also make it more likely that a cable system subsequently built in such an area would serve a `community' similar to the satellite community, thus making the [Significantly Viewed] List more easily used by both cable and satellite providers”). This reasoning does not necessarily apply to the market modification context if we adopt our proposal to separately consider and apply market modifications in the cable and satellite contexts.

    96 47 CFR 76.5(gg). The Commission required satellite carriers to use zip codes that were adjacent to each other “to prevent carriers from cherry-picking their service to these areas.” SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52.

    25. We seek comment on whether we should use the definition of “satellite community” in section 76.5(gg) for satellite market modifications.97 Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should use one or more adjacent five-digit zip codes to form the basis of a “satellite community” for satellite market modifications.98 Would allowing satellite carriers to use one or more adjacent five-digit zip code areas (notwithstanding the presence of a cable community) in the market modification context better effectuate the STELAR's goal to promote consumer access to relevant television programming? What other possible definitions of satellite community should we consider? Would another definition be more technically and economically feasible for satellite carriers to apply and, thus, facilitate successful market modifications? 99 For example, it might not be technically and economically feasible for a satellite carrier to retransmit a station to an entire cable community (as defined in 76.5(dd)), but it might be feasible for the carrier to retransmit the station to particular portions of that community, such as to certain zip codes within such community. What definition of community will most effectively promote consumer access to in-state programming? 100 For example, is it appropriate to consider county-based modifications in the satellite context, particularly in situations in which the county is assigned to an out-of-state DMA? 101 If we allow modifications on a county basis in the satellite context, should we also allow such modifications in the cable context?

    97See 47 CFR 76.5(gg).

    98 We note that the Commission used zip codes in lieu of community units to define the various zones of protection afforded under the satellite exclusivity rules applicable to nationally distributed superstations. See 47 CFR 76.122, 76.123; Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Application of Network Non-Duplication, Syndicated Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout Rules to Satellite Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals, CS Docket No. 00-2, Report and Order, FCC 00-388, 65 FR 68082, para. 28, Nov. 14, 2000, recon. granted in part, denied in part, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 02-287, 67 FR 68944, Nov. 14, 2002.

    99 We note that the two satellite carriers previously favored the use of zip codes in the significantly viewed context to offer “greater certainty to consumers.” See SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at para. 52.

    100 We take particular note here of Congress' concern that consumers in an out-of-state DMA may “lack access to local television programming that is relevant to their everyday lives.” Senate Commerce Committee Report at 11.

    101See In-State Programming Report, at para. 58.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    26. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),102 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). 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 provided on the first page of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).103 In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.104

    102See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

    103See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    104See id.

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes

    27. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission proposes satellite television “market modification” rules to implement section 102 of the STELAR.105 The STELAR amended the Communications Act and the Copyright Act to give the Commission authority to modify a commercial television broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights.106 The Commission currently has the authority to modify markets only in the cable carriage context.107 With section 102 of the STELAR, Congress provides regulatory parity in this regard in order “to further consumer access to relevant television programming.” 108 In this NPRM, consistent with Congress' intent that the Commission model the satellite market modification process on the current cable market modification process, the Commission proposes to implement section 102 of the STELAR by revising the current cable market modification rule, section 76.59, to apply also to satellite carriage, while adding provisions to the rules to address the unique nature of satellite television service.109 In addition to establishing rules for satellite market modifications, section 102 of the STELAR directs the Commission to consider whether it should make changes to the current cable market modification rules,110 and it also makes certain conforming amendments to the cable market modification statutory provision.111 Accordingly, as part of the implementation of the STELAR, the Commission proposes to make conforming changes to the cable market modification rules and considers whether it should make any other changes to the current cable market modification rules. The STELAR requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or before September 4, 2015.112

    105 The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), sec. 102, Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059, 2060-62 (2014) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 338(l)). The STELAR was enacted on December 4, 2014 (H. R. 5728, 113th Cong.).

    106 STELAR secs. 102, 204, 128 Stat. at 2060-62, 2067.

    107See 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C). See also 47 CFR 76.59.

    108See title of STELAR sec. 102, “Modification of Television Markets to Further Consumer Access to Relevant Television Programming.” See also Report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation accompanying S. 2799, 113th Cong., S. Rep. No. 113-322 (2014) (“Senate Commerce Committee Report”).

    109See 47 CFR 76.59. The Commission proposes to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply to both cable systems and satellite carriers.

    110 STELAR sec. 102(d).

    111See STELAR sec. 102(b) (amending 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(ii)).

    112 STELAR sec. 102(d)(1).

    2. Legal Basis

    28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Pub. L. 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534.

    3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.113 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 114 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.115 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 SBA.116 The rule changes proposed herein will directly affect small television broadcast stations and small MVPD systems, which include cable system operators and satellite carriers. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

    113 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    114 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    115 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 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.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

    116 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive.

    30. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) defines “Wired Telecommunications Carriers” 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. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” 117 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category of “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” Under this category, a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.118 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.119 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.120 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. Examples of this category are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (“CCTV”) services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (“DTH”) services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (“MMDS”).

    118 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    119 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    120Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    31. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above.121 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.122 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.123 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.124 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    121See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    122 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    123 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    124Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    32. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.125 According to SNL Kagan, there are 1,258 cable operators.126 Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard.127 In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.128 Current Commission records show 4,584 cable systems nationwide.129 Of this total, 4,012 cable systems have fewer than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.

    125 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. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, MM Docket No. 93-215, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, FCC 95-196, 60 FR 35854, July 12, 1995.

    126 Data provided by SNL Kagan to Commission Staff upon request on March 25, 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. See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, Fifteenth Report, FCC 13-99, at para. 24 (rel. July 22, 2013) (15th Annual Competition Report).

    127 SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014). We note that when this size standard (i.e., 400,000 or fewer subscribers) is applied to all MVPD operators, all but 14 MVPD operators would be considered small. 15th Annual Competition Report, at paras. 27-28 (subscriber data for DBS and Telephone MVPDs). The Commission applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its implementation of the CALM Act. See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, MB Docket No. 11-93, Report and Order, FCC 11-182, 77 FR 40276, July 9, 2012 (CALM Act Report and Order) (defining a smaller MVPD operator as one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide, as of December 31, 2011).

    128 47 CFR 76.901(c).

    129 The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database on July 1, 2014. A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend.

    33. 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.” 130 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 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.131 Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard.132 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.133 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 to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under this definition.

    130 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

    131 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001) (establishing the threshold for determining whether a cable operator meets the definition of small cable operator at 677,000 subscribers and stating that this threshold will remain in effect for purposes of section 76.901(f) until the Commission issues a superseding public notice). We note that current industry data indicates that there are approximately 54 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today and that this updated number may be considered in developing size standards in a context different than section 76.901(f). NCTA, Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base (June 2014), https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited June 25, 2014).

    132See SNL Kagan, U.S. Multichannel Top Cable MSOs, http://www.snl.com/interactivex/TopCableMSOs.aspx (visited June 26, 2014).

    133 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 § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f).

    34. Satellite Carriers. The term “satellite carrier” means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service or Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) frequencies.134 As a general practice (not mandated by any regulation), DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities package their own programming and may or may not be Commission licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station license.135 The Commission has concluded that the definition of “satellite carrier” includes all three of these types of entities.136

    134 The Communications Act defines the term “satellite carrier” by reference to the definition in the copyright laws in title 17. See 47 U.S.C. 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C.119(d)(6). Part 100 of the Commission's rules was eliminated in 2002 and now both FSS and DBS satellite facilities are licensed under Part 25 of the rules. Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 02-110, 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002; 47 CFR 25.148.

    135 See, e.g., Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request For Special Temporary Authority for the DIRECTV 5 Satellite; Application Of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, Request for Blanket Authorization for 1,000,000 Receive Only Earth Stations to Provide Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the U.S. using the Canadian Authorized DIRECTV 5 Satellite at the 72.5° W.L. Broadcast Satellite Service Location, Order and Authorization, DA 04-2526 (Sat. Div. rel. Aug. 13, 2004).

    136SHVERA Significantly Viewed Report and Order, at paras. 59-60.

    35. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,137 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.138 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.139 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.140 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.141 Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.142 Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each reports annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

    137 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (“By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.”). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    138 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    139 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    140Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    141 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517510 (2002).

    142 See 15th Annual Competition Report, at para. 27. As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD in the United States, serving approximately 19.9 million subscribers. DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving approximately 14.1 million subscribers. Id. at paras. 27, 110-11.

    36. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,143 which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.144 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.145 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.146 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

    143 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (“By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.”). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    144 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    145 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    146Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    37. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications Carriers.147 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.148 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.149 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.150 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    147 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above (“By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.”). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    148 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    149 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    150Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    38. Open Video Services. 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.151 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,152 OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.153 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.154 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.155 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.156 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.157 Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.158 The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

    151 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 06-189, Thirteenth Annual Report, FCC 07-206, 74 FR 11102, para. 135, March 16, 2009 (Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report).

    152See 47 U.S.C. 573.

    153 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    154 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    155 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    156Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    157 A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.

    158See Thirteenth Annual Cable Competition Report, at para. 135. BSPs are newer businesses that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network.

    39. Wireless cable systems—Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 159 and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 160 to transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.161 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.162 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.163 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.164 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.165 Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

    159 BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS). See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, FCC 95-230, 60 FR 36524, para. 7, Jul. 17, 1995.

    160 EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). See id.

    161 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).

    162 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees.

    163Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, AU Docket No. 09-56, Public Notice, DA 09-1376 (WTB rel. Jun. 26, 2009).

    164Id. at 8296.

    165Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, DA 09-2378 (WTB rel. Nov. 6, 2009.

    40. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers,166 which was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.167 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.168 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.169 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses.170 The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.171

    166 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    167 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    168 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    169Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    170http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp.

    171 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 601(4) through (6).

    41. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.172 Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.173 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.174 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.175 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

    172 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    173 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    174 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    175Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    42. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 176 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope.177 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    176 15 U.S.C. 632.

    177 Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small-business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13 CFR 121.102(b).

    43. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.178 Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.179 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year.180 Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees.181 Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

    178 This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined above. See also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    179 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517110.

    180 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/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

    181Id. With respect to the latter 44 firms, there is no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 employees.

    44. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” 182 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.183 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 $25,000,000.184 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.

    182 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, “These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”

    183 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.

    184 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.

    45. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390 stations.185 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 395.186 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.187 Therefore, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities.

    185See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. Jan. 7, 2015) (Broadcast Station Totals) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331381A1.pdf.

    186See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    187See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    46. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 188 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the 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 station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

    188 “[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 to power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    47. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.189 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed Class A television stations to be 431.190 The Commission has also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,003.191 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

    189 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120.

    190 See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    191See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    48. The NPRM proposes to revise section 76.59 of the rules to apply it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under section 76.59 of the rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable carriage rights. Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, the proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file market modification requests and/or responsive pleadings in accordance with the procedures for filing Special Relief petitions in section 76.7 of the rules.192 Consistent with the current cable requirement in section 76.59, the proposed rules would require commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to provide specific forms of evidence to support market modification petitions, should they chose to file such petitions. The proposed rules would also require a satellite carrier to provide specific evidence to demonstrate its claim that satellite carriage resulting from a market modification would be technically or economically infeasible. The NPRM does not otherwise propose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.

    192 Broadcasters and satellite carriers that want to oppose market modification requests would need to file responsive pleadings in accordance with 47 CFR 76.7.

    5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    49. 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.193

    193 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).

    50. Consistent with the statute's goal of promoting regulatory parity between cable and satellite service, the NPRM proposes to apply the existing cable market modification rule to the satellite context. The proposed rules would not change the market modification process currently applicable to small television stations and small cable systems, although the proposed rules would for the first time allow stations to request market modifications for purposes of satellite carriage. Small TV stations that choose to file satellite market modification petitions must comply with the associated filing and evidentiary requirements; however, the filing of such petitions is voluntary. In addition, small TV stations may want to respond to a petition to modify its market (or the market of a competitor station) filed by a satellite carrier or a competitor station; however, there are no standardized evidentiary requirements associated with such responsive pleadings. Through a market modification process, a small TV station may gain or lose carriage rights with respect to a particular community, based on the five statutory factors, to better reflect localism.194 We do not have data to measure whether small TV stations on the whole are more or less likely to benefit from market modifications, so we invite small TV stations to comment on this issue. In addition, we invite comment on whether there are any alternatives we should consider to the Commission's proposed implementation of section 102 of the STELAR that would minimize any adverse impact on small TV stations, but which are consistent with the statute and its goals, such as promoting localism and regulatory parity.

    194 Section 338(l) of the Act provides that, in deciding requests for market modifications, the Commission must afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following five factors: (1) Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area—(a) have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community; and (b) have been historically carried on the satellite carrier or carriers serving such community; (2) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; (3) whether modifying the local market of the television station would promote consumers' access to television broadcast station signals that originate in their State of residence; (4) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and (5) evidence of viewing patterns in households that subscribe and do not subscribe to the services offered by multichannel video programming distributors within the areas served by such multichannel video programming distributors in such community. 47 U.S.C. 338(l)(2)(B)(i) through (v).

    51. The proposed rules, for the first time, would allow satellite carriers to request market modifications. As previously discussed, only two entities—DIRECTV and DISH Network—provide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. As noted in section C of this IRFA, neither one of these two entities qualify as a small entity and small businesses do not generally have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with satellite services.195

    195See IRFA para. 10.

    6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    52. None.

    B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    53. This document contains proposed information collection requirements.196 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 (PRA).197

    196See OMB Control Number 3060-0546.

    197 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).

    54. Public and agency comments are due June 12, 2015. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.198 In addition, we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.199

    198See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).

    199 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    55. To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0546.

    Title: Section 76.59, Market Modification of Broadcast Television Stations for Purposes of the Cable and Satellite Mandatory Television Broadcast Signal Carriage Rules.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents and 100 responses.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 4 to 40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534.

    Total Annual Burden: 976 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $1,277,300.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On March 26, 2015, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 15-34, in MB Docket No. 15-71, proposing satellite television market modification rules to implement section 102 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). To implement section 102 of the STELAR, the NPRM proposes to revise 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules to apply it to the satellite television context, thus permitting commercial TV broadcast stations and satellite carriers to file petitions seeking to modify a commercial TV broadcast station's local television market for purposes of satellite carriage rights. Under 47 CFR 76.59 of the rules, commercial TV broadcast stations and cable system operators may already file such requests for market modification for purposes of cable carriage rights.

    C. Ex Parte Rules

    56. The proceeding this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.200 Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. 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. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 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 section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules 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.

    200See 47 CFR 1.1206 (Permit-but-disclose proceedings); see also id. §§ 1.1200 et seq.

    D. Filing Requirements

    57. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,201 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).202

    201See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419.

    202See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

    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.

    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 St. 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.

    58. 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).

    59. Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be publically available online via ECFS.203 These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    203 Documents will generally be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    60. For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    61. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 102 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR), Public Law 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), and sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 338 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(r), 338 and 534, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted and notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    62. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Cable television, Satellite television, Broadcast television.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

    PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.

    2. Section 76.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 76.7 General special relief, waiver, enforcement, complaint, show cause, forfeiture, and declaratory ruling procedures.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Certificate of service. Petitions and Complaints shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on any cable television system operator, multichannel video programming distributor, franchising authority, station licensee, permittee, or applicant, or other interested person who is likely to be directly affected if the relief requested is granted.

    3. Section 76.59 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (d) and by adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    § 76.59 Modification of television markets.

    (a) The Commission, following a written request from a broadcast station, cable system or satellite carrier, may deem that the television market, as defined either by § 76.55(e) or § 76.66(e), of a particular commercial television broadcast station should include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from such station's television market. In this respect, communities may be considered part of more than one television market.

    (b) * * *

    (1) A map or maps illustrating the relevant community locations and geographic features, station transmitter sites, cable system headend or satellite carrier local receive facility locations, terrain features that would affect station reception, mileage between the community and the television station transmitter site, transportation routes and any other evidence contributing to the scope of the market.

    (2) Noise-limited service contour maps (for digital stations) or Grade B contour maps (for analog stations) delineating the station's technical service area and showing the location of the cable system headends or satellite carrier local receive facilities and communities in relation to the service areas.

    (5) Cable system or satellite carrier channel line-up cards or other exhibits establishing historic carriage, such as television guide listings.

    (6) Published audience data for the relevant station showing its average all day audience (i.e., the reported audience averaged over Sunday-Saturday, 7 a.m.-1 a.m., or an equivalent time period) for both multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) and non-MVPD households or other specific audience indicia, such as station advertising and sales data or viewer contribution records.

    (d) A cable operator or satellite carrier shall not delete from carriage the signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this section.

    (e) A market determination under this section shall not create additional carriage obligations for a satellite carrier if it is not technically and economically feasible for such carrier to accomplish such carriage by means of its satellites in operation at the time of the determination.

    (f) No modification of a commercial television broadcast station's local market pursuant to this section shall have any effect on the eligibility of households in the community affected by such modification to receive distant signals from a satellite carrier pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 339.

    4. Section 76.66 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(6) and revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage.

    (d) * * *

    (6) Carriage after a market modification. Television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to § 76.66) due to a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to § 76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

    (e) Market definitions. (1) A local market, in the case of both commercial and noncommercial television broadcast stations, is the designated market area in which a station is located, unless such market is amended pursuant to § 76.59, and

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08435 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300, 600, 660, and 665 [Docket No. 070516126-5292-03] RIN 0648-AV12 International Affairs; High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulatory changes to improve the administration of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act program and the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas. The proposed rule includes, for all U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, adjustments to permitting and reporting procedures. It also includes requirements for the installation and operation of enhanced mobile transceiver units for vessel monitoring, carrying observers on vessels, reporting of transshipments taking place on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. This proposed rule has been prepared to minimize duplication and to be consistent with other established requirements.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0052, may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0052, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Mail: Mark Wildman, Trade and Marine Stewardship Division, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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 for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (such as name or address) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Mark Wildman, NMFS, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection (see address above) and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wildman, Trade and Marine Stewardship Division, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NMFS (phone 301-427-8386 or email [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The purposes of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA; 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) are (1) to implement the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement) and (2) to establish a system of permitting, reporting and regulation for vessels of the United States fishing on the high seas. 16 U.S.C. 5501. “High seas” is defined in the HSFCA and its implementing regulations as waters beyond the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) of any nation, to the extent that such territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) is recognized by the United States. 16 U.S.C. 5502 (3); 50 CFR 300.11.

    The HSFCA authorizes a system of permitting U.S. fishing vessels that operate on the high seas to satisfy the obligation of Parties to the Compliance Agreement (Parties) to require that fishing vessels flying their flags obtain specific authorization to operate on the high seas. The HSFCA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to establish conditions and restrictions on each permit issued under HSFCA as necessary and appropriate to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Compliance Agreement. 16 U.S.C. 5503 (d). At a minimum, such conditions and restrictions must include the marking of the permitted vessel in accordance with the FAO Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels, and reporting of fishing activities. Parties are also responsible for ensuring that their authorized vessels do not undermine conservation and management measures, including those adopted by international fisheries management organizations, or by treaties or other international agreements. Accordingly, the HSFCA prohibits the use of fishing vessels on the high seas in contravention of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. 16 U.S.C. 5505 (1). A list of the international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States is published by NMFS in the Federal Register from time to time in consultation with the Secretary of State, as required by section 5504(e) of the HSFCA. The last such notice was published on May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28954). NMFS reinforces this prohibition by requiring a high seas fishing permit for any vessel operating on the high seas and, in that permit, authorizing only those activities that would not undermine international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. The HSFCA also gives NMFS discretion to impose permit terms and requirements pursuant to other applicable law, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, in addition to international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. See Turtle Island Restoration Network v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 340 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003).

    Finally, the HSFCA authorizes NMFS to promulgate regulations “as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Agreement and [the Act],” including its permitting authorities. In promulgating such regulations, NMFS shall ensure that “[t]o the extent practicable, such regulations shall also be consistent with regulations implementing fishery management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., which provides broad authority to establish measures for the conservation and management of fisheries, id. 1853(b)(14).

    Regulations implementing the HSFCA were first promulgated in 1996 (61 FR 11751, March 22, 1996). The initial regulations included application and issuance procedures for high seas fishing permits. Subsequent regulations promulgated in 1999 (64 FR 13, January 4, 1999) specified how high seas fishing vessels must be marked for identification purposes and required reporting by vessel owners and operators of catch and fishing effort when fishing on the high seas.

    An objective of this rulemaking is to codify NMFS' procedures for review of its high seas fishing authorizations under environmental laws, particularly the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Another objective of this proposed rule is to improve the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas. Improving such monitoring would enhance the U.S. government's ability to ensure compliance with international conservation and management measures with respect to U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas. Furthermore, this proposed rule adds a section describing how NMFS will, through high seas permit conditions, address impacts to vulnerable marine ecosystems from bottom fishing consistent with international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    NMFS is proposing substantive changes to the HSFCA regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart B, and also redesignation of the regulations as Subpart Q. Table 1 shows how the sections currently in Subpart B would be redesignated in Subpart Q. The substance of the following sections would not be changed: § 300.10 (redesignated to 300.330) and § 300.13(a) (redesignated to 300.333(a)). Other sections are new or would be modified per this rulemaking, as explained below.

    Table 1—Redesignation of Sections in 50 CFR Part 300, Subpart B to Subpart Q Proposed subpart Q sections Current subpart B sections 300.330 Purpose 300.10. 300.331 Definitions 300.11. 300.332 Issuing offices 300.12. 300.333 Vessel permits 300.13. 300.334 Fisheries authorized on the high seas New section. 300.335 Bottom fishing New section. 300.336 Vessel identification 300.14. 300.337 Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units New section. 300.338 Observers New section. 300.339 Transshipment on the high seas New section. 300.340 Prohibitions 300.15. 300.341 Reporting 300.17. Coordination With Other Laws

    U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas are subject to the requirements of multiple U.S. regulations and laws, depending on the geographic area of the fishing activity, gear used, target fish species, and other factors. Such vessels can be subject to regulations that implement fishery management plans (FMPs) adopted pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and laws and regulations implementing international fisheries agreements. Section 105 of the HSFCA specifies that regulations should minimize duplication of license application and reporting requirements contained in other regulations applicable to U.S. vessels used for fishing on the high seas and, to the extent practicable, such regulations must be consistent with regulations implementing FMPs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 16 U.S.C. 5504 (d). Recognizing that the HSFCA requirements can overlap with other requirements, this proposed rule has been prepared to minimize duplication and to be consistent with other applicable requirements.

    In addition to the HSFCA, the following FMPs and laws, and their associated regulations, have provisions that may apply to U.S. vessels' fishing activities on the high seas:

    • Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region and its amendments, 50 CFR part 665, subpart F,

    • FMP for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species and its amendments, 50 CFR part 660, subpart K,

    • 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP and its amendments, 50 CFR part 635,

    • Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.,

    • Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.,

    • Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.,

    • South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 973 et seq.,

    • Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.,

    • Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.,

    • Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and

    • Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States must abide by the take prohibitions of, and all applicable regulations implemented under, the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) on U.S. territory, in U.S. waters, and on the high seas, which includes, for the purposes of the MMPA and ESA, waters within foreign nations' Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) up to the seaward boundaries of the territorial seas of such nations. For all authorized high seas fisheries, NMFS issues permits only after a determination, in accordance with section 7 of the ESA and in consultation within NMFS or with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as appropriate, that the authorization of the fishery on the high seas is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species. 16 U.S.C. 1536. Such consultations can result in permit conditions to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered species.

    Since 2009, fisheries on the high seas have been included in the List of Fisheries published each year pursuant to the MMPA. 16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1). The List of Fisheries classifies U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on an estimated level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammal stocks incidental to commercial fishing operations. See 50 CFR 229.2. Category I and II fisheries are those in which incidental injury or death of marine mammals is frequent or occasional, respectively. Category II fisheries may also include fisheries for which reliable information about the frequency of incidental injury or mortality is lacking. Eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified in the list of fisheries are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next list of fisheries is published. Category III fisheries are determined to have a remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals.

    The majority of high seas fisheries are classified as Category II because of the lack of information on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the fisheries. Other high seas fisheries are classified as Category I, II or III because they are considered extensions of fisheries taking place within U.S. waters and therefore are classified in the same category as those fisheries. Owners of vessels with gear that fall within a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA regulations, as described in 50 CFR 229.4 to 229.7, to (1) register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate to lawfully take a marine mammal incidental to commercial fishing and (2) carry an observer if requested by NMFS. MMPA regulations do not require owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery to register with NMFS, obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate, or, except in limited circumstances, carry an observer pursuant to MMPA regulations.

    The owner or operator of a vessel participating in a commercial fishery listed on the List of Fisheries, regardless of classification, is required to report any injury or death of a marine mammal incidental to commercial fishing operations to NMFS within 48 hours of returning from a fishing trip. 50 CFR 229.6.

    Proposed Requirements for High Seas Fishing Vessels

    The following sections provide further detail regarding proposed requirements for the permit application process, enhanced mobile transceiver units for vessel monitoring, observer coverage, transshipment on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas. A reference to the HSFCA would also be added to 50 CFR parts 600 and 660, specifically § 600.705 and § 660.2, which list laws related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to alert fishers who may be interested in fishing on the high seas to the requirements in 50 CFR part 300. Also, a proposed revision of § 600.745(a) would encourage any person who intends to conduct scientific research on the high seas to obtain a Letter of Acknowledgement from NMFS, as is currently done for such activities in U.S. waters. Adjustments would also be made to other parts of CFR Title 50 because of the redesignation of Subpart B to Subpart Q.

    Definitions

    Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 5502(4), NMFS proposes to revise the definition of “high seas fishing vessel” in 50 CFR 300.331 by adding the word “and” as underlined below to clarify that this term means any vessel of the United States used or intended for use: (1) On the high seas, (2) for the purpose of the commercial exploitation of living marine resources, and (3) as a harvesting vessel, mother ship, or any other support vessel directly engaged in a fishing operation. To clarify the meaning of support vessels directly engaged in a fishing operation, examples are included in the definition (vessels that transship fish on the high seas, provide supplies or fuel on the high seas to other fishing vessels, or conduct other activities in support of, or in preparation for, fishing).

    This rule proposes to revise the regulatory definition of “international conservation and management measures” by adding the following sentence from the HSFCA definition: “Such measures may be adopted by global, regional, or sub-regional fisheries organizations, subject to the rights and obligations of their members, or by treaties or other international agreements.” The change clarifies that commitments made by the United States at international fisheries management fora can be included in the term “international conservation and management measures” to the extent necessary and appropriate to carry out U.S. obligations under the Compliance Agreement or for purposes of the HSFCA.

    Definitions of bottom fishing, enhanced mobile transceiver unit, transship, and vessel monitoring system would be added to the HSFCA regulations and are discussed in the relevant sections below.

    Issuing Offices

    Section 300.12, redesignated as § 300.332, would be revised to specify that the Director of the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, as well as Regional Administrators, may issue high seas fishing permits for any authorized high seas fishery.

    Vessel Permits

    The permitting requirement under the HSFCA for vessels operating on the high seas, currently set forth at § 300.13 (redesignated as § 300.333), has been in effect since 1996. In general, any U.S. vessel is eligible for a high seas fishing permit unless that vessel had a permit from a foreign nation that was suspended and the suspension has not expired or, during the 3 years prior to the application date, the permit was withdrawn due to the vessel undermining the effectiveness of an international conservation and management measure.

    High seas fishing permits are issued at any time of the year and are valid for 5 years from the date of issuance, as provided in the HSFCA. 16 U.S.C. 5503(f). For a permit to remain valid until its expiration date, the vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must be kept current. A permit becomes immediately void when the name of the owner or vessel changes or, in the event the vessel is no longer eligible for U.S. documentation, such documentation lapses or is revoked or denied, or the vessel is removed from such documentation. § 300.333(d)(4).

    In developing this proposed rule, NMFS evaluated an option to rely on fishery-specific permits for U.S. vessels operating on the high seas, other than the HSFCA permit program, to authorize high seas fishing activities. However, by continuing to require a separate high seas fishing permit, in addition to any permit required for the authorized high seas fishery in which the HSFCA permit applicant intends to fish, NMFS is able to maintain a separate and more precise record of vessels permitted to fish on the high seas and submit information from this record to the FAO as required in the Compliance Agreement. FAO compiles records of vessels authorized to fish on the high seas from the Parties to the Compliance Agreement. The separate high seas fishing permit, required under the existing regulations to be carried on board the vessel, is also useful in demonstrating to any domestic inspectors, any foreign inspectors operating under the authority of a high seas boarding and inspection scheme adopted by an RFMO to which the United States is party, or any foreign port inspectors, that a vessel is authorized to fish on the high seas.

    The proposed rule (§ 300.333(b)) provides that any high seas fishing vessel engaging in fishing, as defined under § 300.2, on the high seas must have on board a valid permit issued under this subpart. Under this new paragraph and the revised definition of high seas fishing vessel, harvesting vessels, as well as vessels that are involved in processing or transshipment of fish on the high seas in fisheries where such activity is allowed, or providing supplies or fuel on the high seas to a fishing vessel, must obtain a high seas fishing permit prior to undertaking those activities.

    Under proposed § 300.333(c)(3), applicants would also need to submit a color, bow-to-stern, side-view photograph of the vessel in its current form and appearance legibly showing vessel name and identification markings with each application. Vessel photographs would be made available for use by NMFS, other agencies, RFMOs, and other entities as an aid in identifying vessels authorized to fish on the high seas.

    In proposed § 300.333(d), the existing timeframe for issuance of permits would be amended in light of changes in the technology now used to issue permits, which allow faster turnaround in permit processing. Specifically, NMFS will issue HSFCA permits within 15 days of receipt of a complete application and associated fees, rather than 30 days as provided in the existing HSFCA regulations. See § 300.13(e).

    Proposed § 300.333(g) would clarify the need for high seas permit renewal applicants to comply with all applicable reporting requirements before a new permit would be issued.

    The rule would also add, at § 300.333(h), a reference to MMPA requirements noting that high seas permits do not authorize vessels or persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take marine mammals.

    Section 300.333(i) of the proposed rule would allow NMFS to modify, suspend, or revoke high seas permits if permitted activities impact living marine resources in ways that were not foreseen or anticipated at the time of permit issuance or are in contravention of an international conservation and management measure or are in violation of any provision of domestic law. Such flexibility is needed because high seas fishing permits are valid by law for 5 years. In the event that NMFS determines that a permit must be modified, suspended or revoked, NMFS would provide written notification to the permit holder at its address of record. A permit modification, suspension or revocation under this section is not an enforcement-related permit modification, suspension or revocation subject to the process and procedures in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.

    Fisheries Authorized on the High Seas

    NMFS issues high seas fishing permits only for fisheries where high seas fishing activities have been analyzed in accordance with the ESA, NEPA and other applicable law. Such analyses have been completed for the following fisheries:

    • 50 CFR part 300, subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries

    • 50 CFR part 300, subpart D—South Pacific Tuna Fisheries

    • 50 CFR part 300, subpart G—Antarctic Marine Living Resources

    • 50 CFR part 635—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

    • 50 CFR part 660, subpart K—U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species

    • 50 CFR part 665, subpart F—Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries

    • South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishing

    • Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

    Under existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.212, vessels that fish on the high seas in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean must have a valid Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Area Endorsement. Vessels must obtain or hold a valid high seas fishing permit to be eligible to receive the WCPFC Area Endorsement.

    At the time of publication of this proposed rule, approximately 600 U.S. fishing vessels are permitted under the HSFCA to operate on the high seas. These vessels are authorized to operate in one or more of the above-authorized fisheries as specified on their high seas fishing permits.

    NMFS proposes a new section 300.334 that lists the fisheries authorized on the high seas, provides for issuance of and changes to high seas fishing permits for fisheries on the list, and provides for changes to the list. Through these provisions, NMFS seeks to reinforce U.S. vessels' compliance with all domestic requirements when they are operating on the high seas.

    Under proposed § 300.334(a), applicants for high seas fishing permits must identify in their application which of the authorized fisheries from the list they plan to fish in. In addition, prior to applying for a high seas permit, applicants would need to obtain any permits or other types of authorizations required to participate in an authorized fishery. As a condition of the HSFCA permit (once issued), the holder must abide by all applicable requirements associated with the underlying authorized fishery, as well as the terms and conditions of the high seas fishing permit, the HSFCA regulations, and any other applicable laws and regulations.

    As noted earlier, high seas fishing permits are valid for five years from date of issuance (§ 300.333(d)), and this proposed rule would not alter the duration of validity. If, after receiving a permit, the owner or operator of the vessel seeks to change the authorized fisheries in which he or she operates on the high seas, he or she would need to request in writing such a change from NMFS and obtain any permits associated with the authorized fisheries. After confirming that the applicant has been issued any other necessary permits, and meets all other applicable criteria, NMFS would issue a new high seas fishing permit per the process in § 300.333(d) with the change in the authorized fisheries. The revised permit would be valid for the remainder of the original 5-year period.

    Section 300.334(d) would provide that NMFS may add other fisheries to the list of authorized fisheries after completing any needed analyses under the ESA, NEPA, and other applicable law or policy. NMFS would add fisheries to the list through rulemaking. While NMFS may decide on its own to propose to add a fishery to the list, this proposed rule would include procedures at § 300.334(e) for a person to request that NMFS consider adding a fishery. The request would need to be in writing with a description of the species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested, the anticipated amounts of harvest and incidental catch, the approximate times when and places where fishing would take place, approximate number and types of vessels participating, or expected to participate, in the fishing activity, and the type, size, and amount of gear to be used. The request would also need to describe the specific area(s) that may be affected by the fishing activities and any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fish stocks, marine mammals, and species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their critical habitat. If requested by NMFS, the applicant would be required to submit additional supporting information for NMFS to make determinations under the ESA, NEPA, or other applicable law or policy. Given the transboundary nature of many high seas fisheries and the potential impact of newly authorized high seas fisheries on domestic fishery management programs, NMFS would work with relevant NMFS regional office(s) and consult with Regional Fishery Management Council(s) to evaluate requests to authorize new high seas fisheries and, as part of that process, would publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to gather public comment on such requests. Information received during the comment period may be considered by NMFS, working in conjunction with the relevant NMFS regional office(s) and in consultation with Regional Fishery Management Council(s), in its analysis to determine whether to authorize the fishery. Based on the analysis and other relevant considerations, NMFS would publish its determination in the Federal Register whether to add the fishery to the list of authorized high seas fisheries.

    Section 300.334 (d), describes several factors that would be taken into account when considering the deletion of a fishery from the list of authorized fisheries including whether continuation of the fishery would contravene international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States or U.S. laws or regulations. For example, NMFS would remove a fishery from the list if vessels of the United States are no longer authorized to catch fish in the area of competence of the relevant RFMO. Proposals to remove a fishery from the list of authorized fisheries (i.e., de-authorize the fishery), as well as any necessary changes to other regulations in this chapter and 50 CFR part 600, would be published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule with an opportunity for public comment. NMFS would then publish its final determination on deleting the fishery from the list of fisheries in the Federal Register. In addition, NMFS would provide notice of a deletion of an authorized fishery to those permit holders that have the authorized fishery specified on their high seas fishing permit and to the public via the NMFS Web site. Permit holders would no longer be able to fish in high seas fisheries that are no longer authorized, but may request authorization to fish in other, still authorized, high seas fisheries. If requested, and as appropriate, NMFS would void the original permit and issue the permit holder a revised permit, valid for the remainder of the original 5 year period, for operations in another authorized fishery.

    Protecting Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems From Significant Adverse Impacts of Bottom Fishing

    Many RFMOs recognize the need to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) located on the high seas from certain bottom fishing practices and are taking steps for their protection. Through this proposed rule, the United States would be similarly taking steps to protect VMEs. The characteristics of VMEs are described in the FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. These FAO Guidelines give examples of species groups, communities and habitat forming species that may contribute to the formation of VMEs, such as certain coldwater corals and hydroids, some types of sponge dominated communities, and seep and vent communities comprised of invertebrate and microbial species found nowhere else. Examples of topographic, hydrophysical or geological features that potentially support these and other species include seamounts, guyots, banks, knolls, hills and hydrothermal vents.

    The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), through annual sustainable fisheries resolutions, calls upon States, both individually and cooperatively through RFMOs, to ensure that bottom fishing activities do not have significant adverse impacts on VMEs. The United States has strongly promoted the adoption of measures to protect VMEs by relevant RFMOs.

    The UNGA resolutions call on RFMOs with competence over bottom fishing activities or flag States in areas where RFMOs have not taken action or areas where there are no relevant RFMOs to:

    (1) Assess, on the basis of the best available scientific information, whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on VMEs, and to ensure that if significant adverse impact is likely to occur, such activities are managed to prevent such impacts or not authorized to proceed;

    (2) Identify areas where VMEs occur or are likely to occur and assess bottom fishing impacts on such ecosystems;

    (3) Close such areas to bottom fishing unless conservation and management measures have been established that prevent significant adverse impacts to VMEs; and

    (4) Cease bottom fishing activities in areas where, in the course of fishing activities, VMEs are encountered and report these encounters to a relevant authority.

    In its International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, the FAO identifies impacts as significantly adverse if they compromise ecosystem integrity, such as ecosystem structure or function, by impairing the ability of affected populations to replace themselves, degrading the long-term natural productivity of habitats, or causing, on a more than temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types.

    Several RFMOs have competence over bottom fishing activities. Four of these RFMOs existed prior to the most recent publication in the Federal Register of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States: Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), and Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO). Each of these four bodies adopted conservation and management measures in accordance with UNGA resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 related to protection of VMEs. The United States is a member of CCAMLR and NAFO, and thus, is obligated to abide by their conservation and management measures. The United States recognizes the conservation and management measures adopted by NEAFC and SEAFO under the HSFCA, and thus prohibits U.S. fishing vessels from acting in contravention of them (76 FR 28954, May 19, 2011).

    The UNGA resolutions call upon States to develop new RFMOs in areas where no organization or arrangement with the competence to manage bottom fisheries exists and to develop and agree to implement interim measures until binding conservation measures can be implemented. The United States participated in negotiations in the North and South Pacific for the establishment of two new RFMOs with such competency. In the North Pacific, a treaty, the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean, has been negotiated but has not yet entered into force. The United States has signed the treaty and is undertaking the domestic process to ratify the treaty. The participants have developed two sets of interim measures for the protection of VMEs, one for the eastern and the other for the western portion of the area where the treaty would apply.

    In the South Pacific, the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean entered into force on August 24, 2012, creating the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO). While the United States is not currently a party to the Convention, the United States participates in the SPRFMO as a Cooperating non-Contracting Party, has signed the treaty, and is undertaking the domestic process to ratify it. SPRFMO adopted a conservation and management measure in January 2014 in accordance with UNGA resolutions 61/105 and 64/72.

    Under § 300.335 of this proposed rule, bottom fishing would only be permitted on the high seas in accordance with international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. Currently, CCAMLR, NAFO, NEAFC and SEAFO have such measures, as discussed above. A person seeking to engage in bottom fishing not subject to international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States must request authorization of a new high seas fishery as described in § 300.334(e) and then, if the fishery is authorized, obtain a high seas permit authorizing participation in the fishery. See “Fisheries Authorized on the High Seas” section above. NMFS may specify conditions in the permit to mitigate adverse impacts on VMEs, which may include the types of conditions that have been adopted in relevant RFMO measures recognized by the United States. Procedures for permits under § 300.333 and changes to existing permits under § 300.334 would be used for bottom fishing permitting. Consistent with the FAO's International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, NMFS is proposing to define bottom fishing as fishing using gear that is likely to contact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing operations.

    Vessel Identification

    To clarify the type of vessel length used in determining the required sizing of vessel markings, the word “overall” would be added after “length,” in § 300.336(b)(2)(v) in the proposed rule (§ 300.14(b)(2)(v) in the existing regulations). This revision to the regulatory text is consistent with the FAO Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels. No other changes to this section are proposed.

    Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units (EMTUs)

    NMFS published a final rule for VMS type-approval on December 24, 2014. See 79 FR 77399. Those regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 600, subpart Q (national VMS regulations). As defined in the VMS type-approval regulations, vessel monitoring system, or VMS, refers to a satellite based surveillance system designed to monitor the location and movement of vessels using onboard transceiver units that send global positioning system location reports to a monitoring entity. An enhanced mobile transceiver unit (EMTU) is a transceiver or communications device, including antennae, dedicated message terminal and display, and an input device such as a keyboard which is installed on a fishing vessel, and is capable of supporting two-way communication, messaging, and electronic forms transmission, and is an example of the device that provides the vessel location reports as part of a VMS.

    Under § 300.337 of this proposed rule, NMFS would require all vessels permitted to operate on the high seas, or subject to those permitting requirements, to have an installed and activated NMFS-type-approved EMTU on board. NMFS will not issue or renew a high seas fishing permit unless the vessel has an installed and activated NMFS-type-approved EMTU that reports automatically to NMFS (§ 300.333(d)(2) and (g)).

    NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) currently type-approves EMTUs and mobile communication services (MCS) associated with the EMTUs based on requirements outlined in the national VMS regulations. OLE periodically publishes a list of type-approved EMTUs and MCS in the Federal Register. Vessel owners also would need to comply with any other applicable VMS requirements set forth under applicable fishery-and region-specific regulations and the national VMS regulations. The owner or operator of the vessel would need to work with a divisional office of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, preferably the office in, or nearest, the NMFS Region that is issuing the high seas fishing permit, to ensure that their EMTU properly reports positions to NMFS.

    This proposed rule would require the continuous operation of the EMTU, with hourly transmission of position reports whenever a U.S. vessel with a high seas permit is on the high seas. In addition, the vessel must comply with any other position reporting requirements applicable to the specific fisheries in which it is authorized to participate. The proposed requirement will strengthen NMFS' ability to ensure that U.S. high seas vessels do not undermine international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    A vessel would be exempt from these requirements and could power down the EMTU when the vessel remains at a dock or permanent mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours (referred to as the in-port exemption in the proposed rule) or when it participates in a domestic fishery within the U.S. EEZ, for 30 or more consecutive days, and there are no other applicable requirements for any EMTU or VMS unit operation for those activities or fishery (referred to as the long-term exemption in the proposed rule). Prior to powering down, the high seas permit holder would be required to notify the OLE divisional office, via email or other means as directed by the OLE divisional office, the following information: The vessel's name; the vessel's official number; the intent to power down the EMTU; the applicable exemption that allows for power-down; and full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator. If the in-port exemption is being invoked, the high seas permit holder must also include in the above notification the name of the port where the vessel will be docked or at permanent mooring and the amount of time the vessel is expected to remain there. If the long-term exemption is being invoked, the high seas permit holder must include information in the above notification that describes the activities or fishery the vessel will be engaged in and estimated duration.

    When powering up the EMTU after an in-port exemption, the vessel owner or operator would need to report to the OLE divisional office the following information: That the EMTU has been powered up; the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; port name; fishery where the vessel intends to operate; and full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator. The vessel owner or operator needs to make this report to the OLE divisional office, during office hours, at least 2 hours before leaving port or mooring. When powering up after a long-term exemption, the vessel owner or operator would need to notify the OLE divisional office with the previously described information, during office hours.

    When powering up after either exemption, the vessel owner or operator would need to receive email confirmation from the OLE divisional office that EMTU transmissions are being properly received. This confirmation would need to be received before leaving port, after an in-port exemption, or before entering the high seas or a fishery that requires EMTU operation, after a long-term exemption.

    Many HSFCA-permitted vessels are already required to operate EMTUs when at sea because they participate in fisheries with domestic EMTU requirements. Satisfying those requirements would satisfy the proposed HSFCA requirement, if the EMTU is operating at all times, providing hourly position reports while on the high seas, and the EMTU activation and power-down/power-up procedures are the same or are more restrictive than these proposed HSFCA requirements. VMS requirements that currently apply on the high seas include the following regulations:

    • § 660.712(d) for longliners in the U.S. West Coast fisheries for highly migratory species (HMS) (these units are owned and installed by NMFS),

    • § 665.19 for Western Pacific pelagic fisheries (these units are owned and installed by NMFS),

    • § 300.219 for Western and Central Pacific fisheries for HMS,

    • § 300.45 for South Pacific tuna fisheries,

    • § 635.69 for Atlantic HMS fisheries, and

    • § 300.116 for harvest of Antarctic marine living resources.

    High seas fishing vessels that would need to purchase, install, activate, and operate EMTUs as a result of this proposed rule include vessels other than longliners participating in the U.S. West Coast fisheries for HMS, longline vessels less than 40 feet in length overall in the Western Pacific pelagic fisheries, vessels in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that do not use pelagic longline gear, and certain vessels in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that use shark bottom longline and gillnet gear.

    In the case of failure of the EMTU while at sea, the vessel operator, owner, or designee would be required to notify the OLE divisional office and follow instructions provided, which could include actions described under proposed § 300.337(e)(2). The EMTU would then need to be repaired or replaced and operating within 30 days or before starting the next trip, whichever is sooner.

    For communicating with enforcement authorities about the functioning of the EMTU and other purposes, operators of vessels would be required to carry on board and continuously monitor a two-way communication device capable of real-time communication with the OLE divisional office. The device must be capable of transmitting position reports, or the vessel must have a separate device for transmitting position reports, in the event the EMTU fails.

    The vessel owner or operator would be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase, installation and maintenance of the EMTU, and for all charges levied by the vendors as necessary to ensure the transmission of automatic position reports to NMFS. However, if the EMTU is being carried and operated in compliance with the requirements in 50 CFR part 300, 50 CFR part 660, or 50 CFR part 665 relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of VMS units, the vessel owner and operator would not be responsible for costs that are the responsibility of NMFS under those regulations.

    Vessel owners or operators who purchase an EMTU for the purpose of complying with Federal VMS regulations such as those in this rule, if finalized, may be eligible for a one-time reimbursement per vessel. See 73 FR 24955, May 6, 2008, for details.

    Requirement for Observers

    Observers provide NMFS with information on fishing effort and catch of target species and non-target species, including protected species (such as marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds) pursuant to various legal authorities, including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ESA, MMPA, the implementing legislation of international or regional treaties to which the United States is party, or regulations promulgated under those statutes. An observer under this proposed rule is defined as any person serving in the capacity of an observer employed by NMFS, either directly or under contract with a third party, or certified as an observer by NMFS (§ 600.10). Under § 300.338 of this proposed rule, NMFS would require a vessel permitted pursuant to the HSFCA, if directed by NMFS, to carry an observer during a fishing trip with operations on the high seas. This requirement would not be invoked by NMFS if the vessel will already be carrying an observer pursuant to other legal authorities. While the vessel may be required to cover the costs of an observer under other applicable laws, NMFS would fund the cost of the observer's salary and benefits when placed on board pursuant to this rule. If and when a mechanism is established whereby the fishing vessel could pay these costs without any conflict of interest, the vessel could be responsible for all or a portion of these costs.

    Currently, there are different fishery-specific observer requirements. In some fisheries authorized on the high seas, an observer must be on board every fishing trip, such as on the Class 6 purse seine vessels (vessels with well volume carrying capacity in excess of 425 cubic meters) operating in the Pacific tuna fisheries. In others, such as the pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic HMS fisheries, only a portion of vessel trips are selected for observer coverage. Certain fisheries on the high seas currently do not require carrying an at-sea observer, such as the South Pacific albacore troll fisheries, some Class 5 (vessels with well volume carrying capacity between 319 and 425 cubic meters) and all Class 1 to 4 purse seine vessels fishing in the U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Pacific HMS, some longliners in the Western Pacific pelagic fishery, and vessels less than 40 feet in length overall in the American Samoa longline fishery. However, these and any other commercial HMS vessels are subject to WCPFC observer deployment under WCPFC regulations for fishing trips during which the vessel at any time enters or is within the WCPF Convention Area.

    This proposed rule would allow NMFS to place an observer on board a high seas fishing vessel where observer coverage is not otherwise required by other regulations or relevant RFMO conservation and management measures. Such additional coverage would enhance NMFS' ability to collect fishery dependent data needed for fishery management. A vessel would be selected for observer deployment using a sampling scheme to be developed by NMFS, based on the need to obtain information on high seas activities.

    The owner or operator of a vessel that is selected for observer deployment under this rule would be required to notify NMFS before commencing any fishing trip that takes place on the high seas. In the letter to the vessel owner or operator informing him/her of the selection for observer deployment, NMFS would specify notification procedures and information requirements such as expected gear deployment, trip duration, and fishing area. Requirements pertaining to observer deployment, including the requirement to provide the observer access to, for example, vessel communications and navigation equipment and cooperate with observers are included in the proposed rule. Observer safety requirements set forth at § 600.746 would also apply, as well as the associated prohibitions in § 600.725(q) through (u). These sections require vessels carrying observers to have a valid U.S. Coast Guard Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety decal and take other steps to ensure safe conditions aboard the vessel.

    Transshipment on the High Seas

    At-sea transshipment, defined in this proposed rule at § 300.331 as offloading or receiving or otherwise transferring fish or fish products from one fishing vessel to another, allows harvesting vessels to continue operations for longer periods when they are in waters far from ports. At-sea transshipment can also be used to obscure the origin of illegally-caught fish so that the product can be placed into commerce in contravention of regulations designed to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices. Unreported and unregulated transshipments at sea can contribute to inaccurate reporting of catches and can support IUU fishing activities. Improved oversight of transshipment taking place on the high seas would promote compliance with international conservation and management measures and help deter IUU fishing.

    The proposed definition of transship or transshipment would exclude “net sharing,” that is, the transfer of fish that have not yet been loaded on board any fishing vessel from the purse seine net of one fishing vessel to another fishing vessel. Fish would be considered to be on board a fishing vessel once they are on a deck or in a hold, or once they are first lifted out of the water by the vessel.

    In those instances where transshipment on the high seas is not prohibited under other legal authorities, this proposed rule requires that U.S. high seas fishing vessels involved in transshipment on the high seas have on board a high seas fishing permit (§ 300.333(b)). The permitting requirement applies to both the vessel offloading the fish or fish product and the vessel receiving the fish or fish product. In addition to any other applicable requirements, under § 300.339(b), the owner or operator of a U.S. vessel receiving or offloading fish or fish product on the high seas must notify NMFS at least 36 hours prior to each transshipment event, and submit a report on the transshipment event within 15 days after the vessel first enters into port, using the form obtained from the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the high seas fishing permit.

    The owner or operator of U.S. vessels receiving or offloading fish on the high seas would need to include the following information in the prior notification: The vessels participating in the transshipment (names, official numbers, and vessel types); the location (latitude and longitude to the nearest tenth of a degree) of transshipment, date and time that transshipment is expected to occur, and species, processed state, and quantities (in metric tons) expected to be transshipped. Each transshipment would require a separate notice and report. As some of the information might be known by only the receiving vessel operator and some of the information might be known only by the offloading vessel operator, the operators of both vessels may need to exchange information regarding transshipment activities. In authorized fisheries where equivalent or more restrictive domestic transshipment notification and reporting regulations apply, fulfillment of such regulations would satisfy the requirements under this proposed rule.

    The following are examples of existing at-sea transshipment restrictions and reporting requirements that already apply to high seas fishing vessels (all citations are to 50 CFR):

    • § 300.24(d) of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries regulations prohibits the transshipment of purse seine caught tuna in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Convention Area.

    • § 300.112(k) requires U.S. flagged vessels that receive or attempt to receive Dissostichus species from a harvesting vessel at sea, regardless of whether such transshipment occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of CCAMLR, to obtain from NMFS a harvesting permit authorizing transshipment. CCAMLR conservation measures also require advance notification for transshipment of Antarctic marine living resources and other materials (e.g., bait, fuel) in the CAMLR Convention area. All transshipments of Dissostichus species must be reflected in the Dissostichus Catch Document regardless of where the transshipment occurs.

    • § 635.29(a) prohibits at-sea and in port transshipment of any tuna or tuna-like species, or other highly migratory species, regardless of where the fish were harvested. However, an owner or operator of a vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued under § 635.4 may transfer large, medium, and giant bluefin tuna at sea from the net of the catching vessel to another vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued, provided the amount transferred does not cause the receiving vessel to exceed its currently authorized vessel allocation, including incidental catch limits.

    • For U.S. West Coast fisheries for HMS, the operators of any commercial fishing vessel and any recreational charter vessel fishing for HMS in the management area must fill out information on the date, transshipper, and amount transshipped on report forms provided by the Western Regional Administrator or a state agency (§ 660.708(a)). Thus, the albacore trollers, pole and line vessels, and other vessels that fish for HMS on the high seas are subject to this reporting requirement.

    • For Western Pacific pelagic fisheries, regulations set forth at § 665.14(c) require operators of vessels receiving transshipments to keep records and submit information on transshipments that occur in the EEZ. Specifically, any person subject to the requirements set forth in § 665.801(e)—which pertains to longline and other pelagic fishing within the EEZ or landing or transshipping pelagic species within the EEZ—must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete NMFS transshipment logbook containing report forms provided by the Pacific Islands Regional Administrator. All information specified on the forms must be recorded on the forms within 24 hours after the day of transshipment. Each form must be signed and dated by the receiving vessel operator. The original logbook for each day of transshipment activity must be submitted to the Pacific Islands Regional Administrator within 72 hours of each landing of western Pacific pelagic species.

    • For the WCPF Convention Area, NMFS regulations prohibit transshipments at sea involving purse seine vessels in the WCPF Convention Area as well as transshipments to and from purse seine vessels of fish caught in the WCPF Convention Area and transshipped outside the WCPF Convention Area. 50 CFR 300.216(b). However, net sharing between purse seine vessels is allowed in the WCPF Convention Area in limited circumstances. 50 CFR 300.216(c). For transshipments that are not prohibited, owners and operators of each vessel involved in a transshipment in the WCPF Convention Area or a transshipment of fish caught in the Convention Area and transshipped anywhere are required to complete a specific report form and to submit that form to NMFS. 50 CFR 300.218(b). Vessels are required to notify the WCPFC when such transshipment occurs on the high seas or when an emergency transshipment that would otherwise be prohibited occurs. Notices for high seas transshipments need to be submitted to the WCPFC at least 36 hours before the transshipment and notices for emergency transshipments must be submitted within 12 hours after completion of the emergency transshipment.

    Prohibitions

    The proposed rule would redesignate the existing prohibitions in §§ 300.15 to 300.340, and would add prohibitions to clarify that a high seas vessel: Must have on board a valid permit; may not fish on the high seas unless any and all permits related to the authorized fisheries noted on the high seas permit are valid; must follow new requirements related to the use of an EMTU; must follow new requirements with respect to observers, must follow new reporting requirements with respect to transshipments; and must follow reporting requirements of the authorized fishery(ies) noted on the high seas permit.

    Penalties

    NMFS proposes to remove the penalties section in the existing regulations, as these penalties are adequately addressed in the HSFCA itself and do not need to be repeated in these regulations.

    Catch and Effort Reporting Requirements

    The proposed rule would modify the catch and effort reporting requirements to clarify the information that must be maintained on board a vessel and reported to NMFS.

    Under the proposed rule, the references to the regulations in the existing version of § 300.17 would be removed. The references to the regulations of each authorized fishery would be provided in § 300.334 instead. The vessel owner and operator would be responsible for obtaining from their Regional Administrator the appropriate forms for their authorized fishing activities and submitting the reports within the deadlines of the authorized fisheries or within 15 days following the end of a fishing trip, whichever is sooner. The reference in current regulations to MSA confidentiality provisions in § 300.17(c) would be deleted.

    Scientific Research Activities

    Existing regulations set forth at §§ 600.512(a) and 600.745(a) encourage persons planning scientific research activities in the U.S. EEZ using foreign vessels or U.S.-flagged vessels to submit their research plan to the appropriate Regional Administrator or Science Center Director and obtain a letter of acknowledgement. Under the proposed rule, the phrase “or on the high seas” would be added in § 600.745(a) so that any person who would use a U.S. vessel for research activities on the high seas would also be encouraged to submit their research plan and obtain a letter of acknowledgement. The scientific research plan should be submitted 60 days, or as soon as practicable, prior to the start of the research activities. This is not intended to inhibit or prevent any scientific research activity conducted on the high seas, and is in addition to any requirements that may apply to such research under RFMO conservation and management measures or other applicable law.

    Publication of International Conservation and Management Measures

    HSFCA section 105(e) (16 U.S.C. 5504(e))requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to periodically publish in the Federal Register a notice listing “international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.” The latest listing was published on May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28954).

    Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on any of the requirements or analyses described in the proposed rule. Furthermore, NMFS requests comments on the following topics:

    1. The time it takes to procure an EMTU and have it installed. Currently, NMFS is considering requiring that vessel owners have an EMTU installed and operational within 90 days of publication of the final rule;

    2. The number of hours and costs associated with having the EMTU installed by a qualified marine electrician;

    3. Current levels of transshipment on the high seas involving U.S. vessels and the areas where the transshipments occur; and

    4. The fisheries in state waters, territorial seas, or within the EEZ in which high seas fishing vessels participate and details on how vessels transit from the high seas to those fisheries.

    Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with this and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained above in the first few paragraphs of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The analysis follows. A copy of the analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

    The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, including harvesting vessels, refrigerated cargo vessels, and other vessels used to support fishing. There are approximately 600 U.S. vessels permitted under the HSFCA to fish on the high seas. The majority of these permitted vessels are longliners, purse seiners, trollers, or pole and line vessels that fish for highly migratory species. There are also small numbers of gillnetting, squid jigging, hand or other lining, multipurpose, and trawl vessels.

    In this RFA analysis, an individual vessel is the proxy for each business entity. Although a single business entity may own multiple vessels, NMFS does not have a reliable means at this time to track ownership of multiple vessels to a single business entity. Based on limited financial information about the affected fishing vessels, NMFS believes that all the affected fish harvesting businesses, except for the Pacific tuna purse seine vessels, are small entities as defined by the RFA; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $20.5 million.

    Projecting Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    For each element of the proposed rule, the analysis of impacts to small entities is described below.

    Permit Application Process. NMFS currently authorizes fisheries on the high seas only after appropriate reviews are completed pursuant to the ESA, MMPA, NEPA, and other applicable law. Applicants select from a list of such authorized fisheries when applying for a high seas fishing permit. The proposed rule would codify this procedure. Vessel owners and operators apply for a high seas fishing permit every 5 years, paying an application fee currently set at $129 and completing the application form, which is estimated to take 30 minutes. The rule would not change these burdens.

    The proposed rule would be explicit about the requirement that vessels harvesting or participating in operations on the high seas in support of harvesting, such as transshipment and provision of supplies or fuel, have on board a valid high seas fishing permit. NMFS expects this aspect of the proposed rule to result in few additional applications for high seas permits, if any, because transshipment of fish on the high seas is prohibited in some fisheries and where it is not prohibited, records show few instances of transshipment. NMFS is not aware of any U.S. vessels that provide supplies or fuel to harvesting vessels on the high seas.

    The rule would require a photograph of the high seas fishing vessel to be submitted with the permit application. The time necessary to photograph the vessel, print or scan the photograph, and attach it to the application is estimated to take 30 minutes per application.

    The proposed rule would allow a person, which could include an organization or a group of persons, to request NMFS add a fishery authorized on the high seas. A request would need to include the following information:

    (a) The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested and the anticipated amounts of harvest and bycatch.

    (b) The approximate times and places fishing will take place, approximate number of vessels participating, and the type, size, and amount of gear to be used.

    (c) A description of the specific area that may be affected by the fishing activities.

    (d) A description of any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fish stocks, marine mammals, species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their critical habitat.

    (e) If requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses under ESA, MMPA and NEPA.

    Making the request to add an authorized fishery is expected to take approximately 110 hours. This time would be spent gathering and compiling the required information. NMFS does not expect such requests on a regular basis. For the purposes of this IRFA, NMFS estimates that one request might be submitted every 5 years. The impact from this aspect of the proposed rule is not expected to be significant because this is not a requirement, but an option for the public, and such requests are expected to be made infrequently.

    Installation and Operation of EMTUs. The proposed rule would require the installation of EMTUs on all high seas fishing vessels. The EMTU would need to be operated at all times, except when the vessel will be at a dock or permanent mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours, or when the vessel will not operate on the high seas or in any fishery that requires EMTU operation for more than 30 consecutive days. Notices prior to EMTU power-down and power-up would need to be provided to NMFS.

    Under the proposed rule, approximately 200 of the currently permitted high seas fishing vessels would need to install an EMTU. The remaining 400 or so vessels currently holding high seas fishing permits are already subject to EMTU requirements and would not bear any additional compliance costs as a result of this proposed rule.

    The majority of the approximately 200 affected vessels would likely be albacore trollers operating in the Pacific Ocean. These vessels have generally not been subject to VMS requirements contained in other regulations. The cost of compliance with this requirement includes the cost of purchase, installation, maintenance, and operation of the EMTU. The costs of purchase and installation are treated as one-time costs because this analysis shows costs just in the near-term future. Table 2 summarizes the costs associated with the EMTU requirement in the proposed rule. A description of the estimates and calculations used in Table 2 is provided below the table.

    Table 2—Estimated Costs of Compliance With EMTU Requirements Description Cost EMTU purchase Up to $3,100. Installation cost (one-time) $50-400 ($400 used for estimation). Daily position report costs (Hourly, 24/day; $0.06/report *24 reports/day) $1.44. Annual position report cost per vessel
  • ($1.44/day * 365 days/year)
  • $525/vessel.
    Annual EMTU maintenance cost $50-100 ($100 used for estimation). Total cost per vessel (Year 1; unit + installation + position reports) $4025. Total cost per vessel after reimbursement of EMTU cost (for eligible vessels only) $925. Cost per vessel (Year 2 and beyond; position reports and EMTU maintenance) $625/vessel. Number of affected vessels 200. Total cost (Year 1; total cost per vessel before reimbursement * number of affected vessels) $805,000. Total cost (Year 2 and beyond; total cost per vessel * number of affected vessels) $125,000.

    Units would need to be installed by a qualified marine electrician. Based on experience in other fisheries with EMTU requirements, NMFS suggests that installation cost can range from $50 to $400, depending on the vessel, proximity to the installer, and the difficulty of the installation. For estimation purposes, $400 was used to calculate the costs of compliance with this proposed rule. NMFS is interested in receiving public comment on these values to refine estimates of the economic impacts on the affected vessels.

    The cost of transmitting data through the EMTU depends on the type of EMTU installed and the communication service provider selected. For the purposes of this rulemaking, NMFS is assuming the cost of EMTU position data transmissions is approximately $0.06 per transmission. This equates to $1.44 per day for the location reports, at a rate of one transmission per hour. Providing position reports throughout the year could cost a high seas fishing vessel $525 (365 days per year * 24 position reports per day * $0.06 = $525).

    The EMTU may be powered down if the vessel would be at the dock or mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours or if the vessel, for 30 or more consecutive days, would not be operating on the high seas or participating in a fishery that requires EMTU operation. A message notifying NMFS of the power-down must be sent to NMFS prior to powering down the unit and again when the EMTU will be powered back up. If an EMTU is powered down for portions of the year, the actual annual cost of transmitting position data would be less. Thus the annual costs of EMTU operation could vary among individual vessels depending on the number of days an EMTU may be powered down.

    The cost of compliance for vessel owners is estimated to be $4,025 per vessel in the first year (Table 2). This is the cost of compliance prior to receiving reimbursement for the cost of the EMTU. Reimbursement funds of up to $3,100 per VMS unit would reduce the cost to $925 per vessel, on average, for reimbursement-eligible vessels. The cost of operating the EMTU in year two and beyond would include the cost of sending position reports and maintenance and is estimated to be $625.

    Aside from the costs of purchase, installation, and operation of EMTUs, vessel owners or operators would need to spend time purchasing a unit, having it installed, and submitting an installation and activation report form. These steps are estimated to take an average of 4 hours. The notices prior to power-down and powering back up the EMTU are estimated to take 10 minutes each.

    The compliance cost of obtaining, carrying on board, and monitoring the required communication devices is expected to be zero, as NMFS believes all affected small entities already carry and monitor such devices.

    Requirement to Carry an Observer. Under the proposed rule, a high seas fishing vessel would be required to carry an observer for the duration of a fishing trip, if so selected by NMFS. When an observer is deployed pursuant to the proposed rule, NMFS would pay the cost of the observer's salary and benefits. If and when a mechanism is established, through a future rulemaking, whereby the fishing vessel could pay these costs without any conflict of interest, the vessel could be responsible for all or a portion of these costs. Most high seas fishing vessels are already subject to requirements for carrying an observer. For example, in the shallow-set and deep-set longline sectors of the Hawaii longline fleet, 100 percent and approximately 20 percent of fishing trips, respectively, are covered by observers. In authorized fisheries where observers are placed on all participating vessels pursuant to other regulations, the compliance cost of the proposed rule would be nil.

    In high seas fisheries where only a portion of the high seas fishing vessels are selected for observer coverage, the possibility of being selected to carry an observer would increase under this proposed rule. Vessels that are not already subject to any other observer requirements could be selected to carry observers under the proposed rule. This includes, but is not limited to, South Pacific albacore trollers, purse seine vessels of Class 5 or smaller participating in the Eastern Pacific tuna fisheries, and some longline vessels in Western Pacific pelagic fisheries.

    If a vessel is selected for observer coverage under this rule, the vessel owner or operator would be required to provide NMFS a notice of their next fishing trip. This notification is estimated to take 5 minutes and cost $1 in communication costs.

    For trips on which an observer is deployed under this new requirement, the affected entity would be at least responsible for the costs associated with providing the observer with food, accommodations, and medical facilities. These costs are expected to be $20 to $50 per day. If the affected entity is also responsible for the cost of the observer's salary and benefits because a mechanism is established whereby the fishing vessel pays these costs, the range would be $250 to $500 per day. Assuming a high seas fishing trip averages 20 days in duration, the estimated cost of compliance for accommodating an observer on a vessel would be between $400 and $1,000 if the entity is responsible for only food, accommodations, and medical facilities, or between $5,000 and $10,000 if the entity will also bear the cost of the observer's salary and benefits.

    Transshipment Notices and Reports. For owners and operators of vessels involved in offloading or receiving a transshipment of fish or fish product on the high seas, the proposed rule would require vessel owners or operators to provide to NMFS notice of transshipments at least 36 hours prior to any transshipment on the high seas and to submit to NMFS reports of transshipment following the transshipment events.

    Transshipment is also regulated under other applicable law. For example, in the Atlantic Ocean, transshipments are generally prohibited, with some exceptions. In the Pacific Ocean, purse seine vessels are prohibited from transshipping in some instances. NMFS is aware that during 2006 to 2009, four to eight vessels offloaded longline-caught fish each year and four to eight vessels received longline-caught fish each year. It is likely that most of these transshipments took place at sea by the Hawaii-based longline fleet, but it is unknown how many of these transshipments took place on the high seas. NMFS also has data on past transshipments on the high seas involving a few U.S. albacore troll vessels.

    Each transshipment notice is estimated to take about 15 minutes and no more than $1 in communication costs to prepare and submit to NMFS.

    Each transshipment report is estimated to take about 60 minutes and $1 in communication costs for submitting each report to NMFS. Thus, for each transshipment event on the high seas, the time burden is estimated to be 1 hour and 15 minutes and cost $2 for each U.S. flagged vessel involved in the transshipment.

    Reporting Requirements. Existing regulations require submission of high seas fishing logbooks. This proposed rule deletes that requirement under the HSFCA, and instead, provides that owners and operators of high seas fishing vessels would use the reporting forms developed for their authorized fisheries to report high seas catch and effort information. Given that the former reporting requirements would not be changed in a substantive way, the associated compliance cost would be unchanged.

    The reporting requirements described above would amend an existing collection of information, (OMB Control No. 0648-0304) and these amendments are subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Summary. The proposed rule would increase the cost of operating on the high seas for all affected entities. Fulfillment of these requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess.

    Significant Alternatives Considered

    NMFS attempted to identify alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the rulemaking and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

    The alternative of taking no action was rejected because it would fail to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking.

    NMFS evaluated an option to rely on existing permit programs, other than the HSFCA permit program, to authorize high seas fishing activities. However, by continuing to require the separate HSFCA permit, NMFS is able to maintain a separate record of vessels permitted to fish on the high seas, facilitating NMFS' ability to submit information regarding U.S. high seas vessels to the FAO as required in the Compliance Agreement. FAO compiles from the Parties to the Compliance Agreement records of vessels authorized to fish on the high seas. The separate HSFCA permit, required under the existing regulations to be carried on board the vessel, is also useful in demonstrating to any domestic inspectors, foreign inspectors operating under the authority of a high seas boarding and inspection scheme adopted by an RFMO to which the United States is party, or foreign port inspectors, that a vessel is permitted to fish on the high seas.

    With respect to the EMTU requirement, one alternative would be to require EMTU operation at all times, which would provide NMFS the ability to monitor a vessel's location at any time. However, NMFS is aware that some vessels holding high seas fishing permits may remain in the EEZ for extended periods and are not currently subject to EMTU operation requirements while in the EEZ. Some of these vessels may also dock their vessels and not engage in fishing for portions of the year. This alternative is not preferred because the regulatory burden could be minimized by providing some exemptions to the EMTU operation requirement, such as exemptions to address the two circumstances described above. The preferred alternative would maintain the ability to monitor high seas fishing vessels yet minimize the regulatory burden.

    Another alternative would be to require EMTU operation only on the high seas. However, allowing units to be powered down while a vessel is in the EEZ of the U.S. or of another country would weaken the effectiveness of using EMTU position information to monitor the locations of high seas fishing vessels. For vessels that are highly mobile and could operate at any time of the year, such as many high seas fishing vessels, EMTUs are more effective if they remain in operation at all times. Allowing power-downs whenever in the EEZ, aside from the in-port and long-term exemptions provided in the proposed rule, could also encourage non-compliance and result in large gaps in NMFS' ability to monitor high seas fishing vessels. Thus, this alternative is not preferred.

    With respect to the requirement for prior notice of high seas transshipments, one alternative would be to allow affected entities to provide the notice of high seas transshipment to NMFS at least one business day in advance of the transshipment, rather than 36 hours as proposed. However, a shorter advance notice would reduce opportunities for NMFS or the U.S. Coast Guard to observe transshipments in the event they are able to meet the transshipping vessels at sea. For this reason, this alternative is not preferred.

    With respect to the transshipment reporting requirements, one alternative would be to impose a different timeframe for submission of the report. The report could be submitted more than 15 days after completion of the transshipment. However, NMFS believes 15 days is a reasonable timeframe, and that extending it further could lead to NMFS not receiving transshipment reports in a timely manner and would not support collection of complete information regarding authorized fisheries.

    Duplicative, Overlapping, and Conflicting Rules

    The proposed rule has been prepared to be consistent with a number of regulations. These include the following:

    • 50 CFR part 300, subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries • 50 CFR part 300, subpart D—South Pacific Tuna Fisheries • 50 CFR part 300, subpart G—Antarctic Marine Living Resources • 50 CFR part 300, subpart O—Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species • 50 CFR part 635—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries • 50 CFR part 660, subpart K—Pacific Highly Migratory Species Fisheries • 50 CFR part 665, subpart F—Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries

    Below are some NMFS regulations that have the same or similar regulatory goals and regulate the same classes of industry as the proposed rule. Although the regulations and the proposed rule contain the same or similar elements, the proposed rule has been drafted so that an entity would need to follow the more restrictive set of requirements with respect to EMTUs, observers, and transshipment where applicable.

    VMS EMTU requirements:

    • § 300.45 (South Pacific Tuna Fisheries) • § 300.116 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources) • § 300.219 (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for HMS) • § 635.69 (Atlantic HMS) • § 660.359 (Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries) • § 660.712(d) (U.S. West Coast Fisheries for HMS) • § 665.19 (Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries) • § 679.28 (Fisheries of the EEZ off Alaska)

    Observer requirements:

    • § 300.22 (Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries) • § 300.43 (South Pacific Tuna Fisheries) • § 300.113 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources) • § 300.215 (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for HMS) • § 635.7 (Atlantic HMS) • § 660.719 (U.S. West Coast Fisheries for HMS) • § 665.808 (Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries)

    Transshipment notices and reporting requirements:

    • § 300.46 (South Pacific Tuna Fisheries) • § 300.112(k) (Antarctic Marine Living Resources) • § 300.218 (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for HMS) • § 665.801 (Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries) • Final rule (77 FR 71501, January 2, 2013) for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species National Environmental Policy Act

    As stated in NOAA's Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 5.05b, an action should be evaluated to determine whether it falls into a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and thus, is exempt from further environmental review under NEPA. That analysis should determine if (1) a prior NEPA analysis for the “same” action demonstrated that the action will not have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment (considerations in determining whether the action is the “same” as a prior action may include, among other things, the nature of the action, the geographic area of the action, the species affected, the season, the size of the area, etc.) or (2) the action is likely to result in significant impacts, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and NAO 216-6 Section 6.01b. NMFS analyzed the proposed rule using these criteria and has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule can be categorically excluded under 6.03c.3(i) of NAO 216-6. The provisions of the rule are administrative in nature and facilitate monitoring of all high seas fishing vessels. The requirements for the installation of VMS EMTUs on vessels, the carrying of observers, and the prior notice and reporting of transshipments on the high seas would facilitate monitoring of vessels and would not have any impacts on the human environment. Moreover, the proposed rule also includes procedures that incorporate reviews under ESA and NEPA prior to any authorization of activities on the high seas.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The current collection of information, under OMB Control No. 0648-0304, includes a permit application, vessel marking requirements, and high seas fishing effort and catch reporting. In addition to this collection of information, the proposed rule includes new requirements listed below.

    The public reporting burden for each proposed requirement has been estimated, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information per response. The estimates are as follows:

    • Inclusion of a vessel photograph in the permit application: 30 minutes.

    • Request for a fishery to be authorized on the high seas: 110 hours.

    • EMTU purchase and installation: 4 hour for purchase, installation, and activation of the EMTU and submittal of the installation and activation report.

    • Position reports: Automatically sent by the EMTU.

    • Notices of EMTU power-down and power-up: 10 minutes each.

    • Prior notice for high seas transshipments: 15 minutes.

    • Transshipment reporting: 1 hour.

    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Mark Wildman, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at the ADDRESSES above, and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    50 CFR Part 665

    Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Western and central Pacific.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, 660 and 665 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.

    Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved] 2. Remove and reserve subpart B, consisting of § 300.10 through 300.17. 3. Add subpart Q to read as follows: Subpart Q—High Seas Fisheries Sec. 300.330 Purpose. 300.331 Definitions. 300.332 Issuing offices. 300.333 Vessel permits. 300.334 Fisheries authorized on the high seas. 300.335 Bottom fishing. 300.336 Vessel identification. 300.337 Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units (EMTUs). 300.338 Observers. 300.339 Transshipment on the high seas. 300.340 Prohibitions. 300.341 Reporting. Subpart Q—High Seas Fisheries Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.

    § 300.330 Purpose.

    This subpart implements the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 (Act), which requires the Secretary to license U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas and to ensure that such vessels do not operate in contravention of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    § 300.331 Definitions.

    In addition to the terms defined in section 300.2 and those in the Act and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on November 24, 1993 (Agreement), the terms used in this subpart have the following meanings. If a term is defined differently in section 300.2, the Act, or the Agreement, the definition in this section shall apply.

    Bottom fishing means fishing using gear that is likely to contact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing operations.

    Enhanced mobile transceiver unit (EMTU) is defined in § 600.1500 of this chapter.

    High seas means the waters beyond the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) of any Nation, to the extent that such territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) is recognized by the United States.

    High seas fishing permit means a permit issued under this subpart.

    High seas fishing vessel means any vessel of the United States used or intended for use on the high seas for the purpose of the commercial exploitation of living marine resources and as a harvesting vessel, mothership, or any other support vessel directly engaged in a fishing operation. Support vessels include vessels that process or transship fish on the high seas; provide supplies, personnel or fuel on the high seas to other fishing vessels; or conduct other activities in support of, or in preparation for fishing.

    International conservation and management measures means measures to conserve or manage one or more species of living marine resources that are adopted and applied in accordance with the relevant rules of international law, as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and that are recognized by the United States. Such measures may be adopted by global, regional, or sub-regional fisheries organizations, subject to the rights and obligations of their members, or by treaties or other international agreements.

    Observer means any person serving in the capacity of an observer employed by NMFS, either directly or under contract with a third party, or certified as an observer by NMFS.

    Office Director means the director of the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection.

    Regional Administrator means any one of the Directors of a NMFS regional office, defined under § 300.2.

    Transship or transshipment means offloading or receiving or otherwise transferring fish or fish products from one fishing vessel to another. Excluded from this definition is net sharing, which means the transfer of fish that have not yet been loaded on board any fishing vessel from the purse seine net of one vessel to another fishing vessel. Fish shall be considered to be on board a fishing vessel once they are on a deck or in a hold, or once they are first lifted out of the water by the vessel.

    Vessel monitoring system (VMS) is defined in § 600.1500 of this title.

    § 300.332 Issuing offices.

    Any Regional Administrator or the Office Director may issue permits required under this subpart. While applicants for permits may submit an application to any Regional Administrator or the Office Director, applicants are encouraged to submit their applications (with envelopes marked “Attn: HSFCA Permits”) to the Regional Administrator or the Office Director with whom they normally interact on fisheries matters.

    § 300.333 Vessel permits.

    (a) Eligibility. (1) Any vessel owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel is eligible to receive a permit for a fishery authorized on the high seas under this subpart, unless the vessel was previously authorized to be used for fishing on the high seas by a foreign nation, and—

    (i) The foreign nation suspended such authorization, because the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, and the suspension has not expired; or

    (ii) The foreign nation, within the 3 years preceding application for a permit under this section, withdrew such authorization, because the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures.

    (2) The restrictions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section do not apply if ownership of the vessel has changed since the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, and the new owner has provided sufficient evidence to the Regional Administrator or Office Director demonstrating that the owner and operator at the time the vessel undermined the effectiveness of such measures have no further legal, beneficial, or financial interest in, or control of, the vessel.

    (3) The restrictions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section do not apply if it is determined by the Regional Administrator or Office Director that issuing a permit would not subvert the purposes of the Agreement.

    (b) Applicability. Any high seas fishing vessel used for fishing, as defined under § 300.2, on the high seas must have on board a valid permit issued under this subpart.

    (c) Application. Permit application forms are available from the NMFS Web site or from any Regional Administrator or the Office Director. Failure to submit a complete and accurate application, along with all other required documentation and the specified fee will preclude issuance of a permit. To apply for a permit under this subpart, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must submit the following to a Regional Administrator or Office Director:

    (1) A complete, accurate application form signed by the vessel owner or operator.

    (2) Information required under this section and § 300.334(a).

    (3) A color photograph showing an entire bow-to-stern side-view of the vessel in its current form and appearance. The photograph must clearly and legibly display the vessel name and identification markings. If the vessel's form or appearance materially changes (such as the vessel is painted another color, the vessel's identification markings change, or the vessel undergoes a structural modification) the vessel owner and operator must submit a new photograph of the vessel within 15 days of the change.

    (4) For vessels with state registration instead of U.S. Coast Guard documentation, the applicant must supply additional vessel information that NMFS may request.

    (5) The fee specified in the application form. Payment by a commercial instrument later determined to be insufficiently funded will invalidate any permit. NMFS charges this fee to recover the administrative expenses of permit issuance, and the amount of the fee is determined in accordance with the procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook.

    (d) Permit issuance and validity. (1) Except as provided for in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, and subject to paragraphs (a), (c), and (d)(2) and (3), the Regional Administrator or Office Director will issue a permit, which will include applicable conditions or restrictions, within 15 days of receipt of a completed application and payment of the appropriate fee.

    (2) The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a permit unless an EMTU has been installed and activated on the vessel in accordance with § 300.337(c)(2).

    (3) The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a permit unless the applicant holds a valid permit for the subject vessel for U.S. domestic fisheries related to the authorized high seas fishery.

    (4) Except as otherwise provided, permits issued under this subpart are valid for 5 years from the date of issuance. For a permit to remain valid to its expiration date, the vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must be kept current. A permit issued under this subpart is void when the vessel owner or the name of the vessel changes, or in the event the vessel is no longer eligible for U.S. documentation, such documentation is revoked or denied, or the vessel is removed from such documentation.

    (5) A permit issued under this subpart is not transferable or assignable to another vessel or owner; it is valid only for the vessel and owner to which it is issued.

    (e) Display. A valid permit, or a copy thereof, issued under this subpart must be on board any high seas fishing vessel while operating on the high seas and available for inspection by an authorized officer.

    (f) Change in application information. Any changes in vessel documentation status or other permit application information must be reported in writing to the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit within 15 days of such changes.

    (g) Renewal. Application for renewal of a permit prior to its expiration is the responsibility of the permit holder and may be completed per § 300.333(c). The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not consider a permit renewal application to be complete until the permit holder satisfies all required fishing activity report requirements under the permit and § 300.342. The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a renewed permit unless an EMTU has been activated on the vessel in accordance with § 300.337(c)(2) and the applicant holds a valid permit for the subject vessel for U.S. domestic fisheries related to the authorized high seas fishery.

    (h) Marine mammals and ESA-listed species. Permits issued under this section do not authorize vessels or persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take marine mammals or ESA-listed species. No marine mammals or ESA-listed species may be taken in the course of fishing operations unless the taking is allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), pursuant to regulations, an authorization, or permit granted by NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    (i) Permit status changes. NMFS may modify, suspend, or revoke a permit issued under this subpart if permitted activities may impact living marine resources in ways that were not foreseen or anticipated at the time of permit issuance; are in contravention of an international conservation and management measure; or violate any applicable law. NMFS will notify an affected permit holder of any change in permit status by contacting the permit holder at the address of record provided on the permit application or as updated pursuant to paragraph (f) of this subsection.

    § 300.334 Fisheries authorized on the high seas.

    (a) When applying for a permit under § 300.333, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must identify in the application the authorized fisheries in which he or she intends to fish. More than one authorized fishery may be selected. The following fisheries are authorized on the high seas:

    (1) 50 CFR part 300, Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries (2) 50 CFR part 300, Subpart D—South Pacific Tuna Fisheries (3) 50 CFR part 300, Subpart G—Antarctic Marine Living Resources (4) 50 CFR part 635—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries (5) 50 CFR part 660, Subpart K—U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (6) 50 CFR part 665, Subpart F—Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries (7) South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishery (8) Northwest Atlantic Fishery

    (b) For each of the authorized fisheries specified on the high seas fishing permit, the owner or operator of the high seas fishing vessel must:

    (1) Abide by the regulations, set forth in other parts of this chapter and Chapter VI, governing those authorized fisheries while operating on the high seas;

    (2) Obtain and renew any appropriate permits or authorizations; and

    (3) Notify the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit immediately in the event that a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is taken incidental to the fishing activities without authorization under a relevant incidental take statement.

    (c) Change in authorized fisheries. If a high seas fishing permit holder elects to change the authorized fisheries specified on the permit, he or she shall notify the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit of the change(s) and shall obtain the underlying permits for the authorized fisheries prior to engaging in the fishery on the high seas. Per the process under § 300.333(d), the Regional Administrator or Office Director will then issue a revised high seas fishing permit which will expire 5 years from the original effective date.

    (d) Revision of authorized fisheries list. Through rulemaking, NMFS will add a fishery to, or delete a fishery from, the list in paragraph (a) of this section. NMFS may add or delete fisheries from the list after completing any analyses required under the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other applicable laws. In taking such action, NMFS, in consultation with the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council(s) where appropriate, will consider, among other things, whether:

    (1) The proposed fishing activities would detrimentally affect the well-being of the stock of any regulated species of fish, marine mammal, or species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act;

    (2) The proposed fishing activities would be inconsistent with relevant fishery management plans and their implementing regulations or other applicable law;

    (3) Insufficient mechanisms exist to effectively monitor the activities of vessels engaged in the proposed fishing activities; or

    (4) The proposed fishing activities would contravene international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    (e) Request for revision of authorized fisheries list. A person may submit a written request to the Office Director to add a fishery to or delete a fishery from the list. A request to delete a fishery from the list of authorized fisheries must include the name of the fishery; information that addresses considerations under paragraph (d) of this section; and, if requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses required under applicable laws. A request to add a fishery to the list of authorized fisheries must include the following information:

    (1) The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested and the anticipated amounts of such harvest and bycatch;

    (2) The approximate times and places when fishing is expected to take place, the number and type of vessels expected to participate, and the type, size, and amount of gear expected to be used;

    (3) A description of the specific area that may be affected by the fishing activities;

    (4) A description of any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, and species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their critical habitat;

    (5) Other information that addresses considerations under paragraph (d); and

    (6) If requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses required under applicable laws.

    (7) Once all required information is received to proceed with consideration of a request, NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule, noting receipt of the request to add an authorized fishery, and inviting information and comments. Relevant information received during the comment period may be considered by NMFS and, where appropriate, the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council(s) to analyze potential environmental impacts of the fisheries and develop any conditions or restrictions. Based on its analysis, considerations under paragraph (d) of this section, and other relevant considerations, NMFS would publish its decision on the request in the Federal Register.

    (f) Deletion of a fishery from the authorized fisheries list. NMFS will delete (i.e., deauthorize) a fishery under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section through publication of a final rule. NMFS will also provide notice to affected permit holders by email at the address provided to NMFS in the high seas permit application and by Registered Mail. When a fishery is deleted from the list, any activities on the high seas related to that fishery are prohibited as of the effective date of the final rule. In addition, the high seas permit will be voided unless the permit holder notifies NMFS that he or she elects to change to another authorized high seas fishery or continue in any other authorized fisheries noted on the permit. Once the applicant so notifies NMFS and, if necessary, secures any underlying permits necessary for participation in another authorized high seas fishery, the Regional Administrator or Office Director will then issue a revised high seas fishing permit per the process under § 300.333(d). The revised permit will expire 5 years from the original effective date.

    § 300.335 Bottom fishing.

    (a) Bottom fishing may be permitted on the high seas when authorized by international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. For bottom fishing activity not subject to international conservation measures recognized by the United States, a person who seeks to engage in such fishing must request authorization of a new high seas fishery as described in § 300.334(e), then if the fishery is authorized, must obtain all applicable permits including a high seas fishing permit issued under § 300.333. NMFS may specify conditions in the permit to mitigate adverse impacts on VMEs, which may include the types of conditions that have been adopted in relevant RFMO measures recognized by the United States.

    (b) Permit. To be permitted under this section, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must follow the procedures under § 300.334(e), or if he or she seeks to change an existing permit, must follow the procedures under § 300.334(c).

    § 300.336 Vessel identification.

    (a) General. A vessel permitted under this subpart must be marked for identification purposes in accordance with this section.

    (b) Marking. Vessels must be marked either:

    (1) In accordance with vessel identification requirements specified in Federal fishery regulations issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or under other Federal fishery management statutes; or

    (2) In accordance with the following identification requirements:

    (i) A vessel must be marked with its international radio call sign (IRCS), or, if not assigned an IRCS, must be marked (in order of priority) with its Federal, state, or other documentation number appearing on its high seas fishing permit and, if a WCPFC Area Endorsement has been issued for the vessel under § 300.212, that documentation number must be preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (that is, “USA-”);

    (ii) The markings must be displayed at all times on the vessel's side or superstructure, port and starboard, as well as on a deck;

    (iii) The markings must be placed so that they do not extend below the waterline, are not obscured by fishing gear, whether stowed or in use, and are clear of flow from scuppers or overboard discharges that might damage or discolor the markings;

    (iv) Block lettering and numbering must be used;

    (v) The height of the letters and numbers must be in proportion to the size of the vessel as follows: For vessels 25 meters (m) and over in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 1.0 m; for vessels 20 m but less than 25 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.8 m; for vessels 15 m but less than 20 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.6 m; for vessels 12 m but less than 15 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.4 m; for vessels 5 m but less than 12 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.3 m; and for vessels under 5 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.1 m;

    (vi) The height of the letters and numbers to be placed on decks must be no less than 0.3 m;

    (vii) The length of the hyphen(s), if any, must be half the height (h) of the letters and numbers;

    (viii) The width of the stroke for all letters, numbers, and hyphens must be h/6;

    (ix) The space between letters and/or numbers must not exceed h/4 nor be less than h/6;

    (x) The space between adjacent letters having sloping sides must not exceed h/8 nor be less than h/10;

    (xi) The marks must be white on a black background, or black on a white background;

    (xii) The background must extend to provide a border around the mark of no less than h/6; and

    (xiii) The marks and the background must be maintained in good condition at all times.

    § 300.337 Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units (EMTUs).

    (a) Vessel position information. The owner or operator of a vessel issued a permit under this subpart, or for which such permit is required, must have installed on board the vessel a NMFS type-approved enhanced mobile transceiver unit (EMTU). The operator or owner of the vessel must ensure that the EMTU is operational and properly reporting positions to NMFS as required by this section, except when exempt under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section. If the vessel is also subject to EMTU requirements in other parts of this title, the more restrictive requirements apply.

    (b) Contact information and business hours. With respect to the requirements in this section, vessel owners and operators should consult with the divisional office of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart. The OLE VMS Helpdesk in OLE headquarters office may also be contacted.

    (c) EMTU installation and activation—(1) EMTU installation. The vessel owner or operator shall obtain and have installed on the fishing vessel, by a qualified marine electrician and in accordance with any instructions provided by the VMS Helpdesk or OLE divisional office, a NMFS type-approved EMTU. The vessel owner and operator shall authorize NMFS to receive and relay transmissions from the EMTU. The vessel owner and operator shall arrange for a type-approved mobile communications service to receive and transmit position reports and email communications from the EMTU to NMFS. NMFS makes available lists of type-approved EMTUs and mobile communications service providers. Vessel owners must ensure that the EMTU and communications service hardware purchased is type-approved for all fisheries and regions in which their vessel will be operating.

    (2) EMTU activation. When an EMTU is installed or reinstalled or the mobile communications service provider changes, or if directed by NMFS, the vessel owner and operator shall prior to leaving port:

    (i) Turn on the EMTU to make it operational;

    (ii) Submit a VMS Installation and Activation Certification form, or an activation report as directed by OLE, to the OLE divisional office within or nearest to the region issuing the permit under this subpart; and

    (iii) Receive verbal or written confirmation from NMFS that transmissions are being received properly from the EMTU.

    (d) EMTU operation. Unless otherwise provided below, and subject to more restrictive requirements where applicable, the vessel owner or operator shall continuously operate the EMTU so that it provides to NMFS position information automatically transmitted, every hour or as directed by OLE.

    (1) In-port exemption: The EMTU may be powered down when the vessel will remain at a dock or permanent mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours and after the notice required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is submitted. When powering up the EMTU after the in-port exemption, the vessel owner or operator must submit the report required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section at least 2 hours before leaving port or mooring.

    (2) Long-term exemption: The EMTU may be powered down if the vessel will not operate on the high seas or in any fishery that requires EMTU operation for more than 30 consecutive days and after the notice required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is submitted. When powering up the EMTU from the long-term exemption, the vessel owner or operator must submit the report required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

    (3) Prior to each power-down of the EMTU, under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, the vessel owner or operator must report to the OLE divisional office during business hours, via email or other means as directed by OLE: The vessel's name; the vessel's official number; the intent to power down the EMTU; the reason for power-down; the port where the vessel is docked or area where it will be operating; and the full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator.

    (4) When powering up the EMTU, the vessel owner or operator must report to the OLE divisional office during business hours, via email or other means as directed by OLE: The fact that the EMTU has been powered up; the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; port name; intended fishery; and full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator.

    (5) If the EMTU is powered up after a long-term or in-port exemption, the vessel owner must receive email confirmation from the OLE divisional office that EMTU transmissions are being received properly before leaving port, entering the high seas, or entering a fishery that requires EMTU operation.

    (e) Failure of EMTU. If the vessel owner or operator becomes aware that the EMTU has become inoperable or that transmission of automatic position reports from the EMTU has been interrupted, or if notified by NMFS or the U.S. Coast Guard that automatic position reports are not being received from the EMTU or that an inspection of the EMTU has revealed a problem with the performance of the EMTU, the vessel owner or operator shall comply with the following requirements:

    (1) If the vessel is at port, the vessel owner or operator shall repair or replace the EMTU and comply with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section before the vessel leaves port.

    (2) If the vessel is at sea, the vessel owner, operator, or designee shall contact the OLE divisional office by telephone or email at the earliest opportunity during business hours and identify the caller, vessel name, vessel location, and the type of fishing permit(s). The vessel operator shall follow the instructions provided by the OLE divisional office, which could include: Ceasing fishing, stowing fishing gear, returning to port, or submitting periodic position reports at specified intervals by other means. The vessel owner or operator must repair or replace the EMTU and comply with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section within 30 days or before the vessel leaves port, whichever is sooner.

    (f) Related VMS requirements. Unless specified otherwise in the high seas fishing permit, a vessel owner's and operator's compliance with requirements in part 300, 635, 660, or 665 of this title relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of EMTUs will satisfy the requirements of this section, if the requirements are the same or more restrictive than those in this section and provided that:

    (1) On the high seas, the EMTU is operated continuously and position information is automatically transmitted every hour;

    (2) The EMTU is type-approved by NMFS;

    (3) The vessel owner or operator has authorized NMFS to receive and relay transmissions from the EMTU; and

    (4) The requirements of paragraph (d) of this section are complied with. If the EMTU is owned by NMFS, the requirement under paragraph (e) of this section to repair or replace the EMTU will be the responsibility of NMFS, but the vessel owner and operator shall be responsible for ensuring that the EMTU complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section before the vessel leaves port.

    (g) Costs. The vessel owner and operator shall be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance of the EMTU and for all charges levied by vendors as necessary to ensure the transmission of automatic position reports to NMFS as required in paragraph (c) of this section. However, if the EMTU is being carried and operated in compliance with the requirements in part 300, 635, 660, or 665 of this title relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of EMTUs, the vessel owner and operator shall not be responsible for any costs that are the responsibility of NMFS under those regulations.

    (h) Tampering. The vessel owner and operator shall ensure that the EMTU is not tampered with, disabled, destroyed, damaged or operated improperly, and that its operation is not impeded or interfered with.

    (i) Inspection. The vessel owner and operator shall make the EMTU, including its antenna, connectors and antenna cable, available for inspection by authorized officers or by officers conducting boarding and inspection under a scheme adopted by an RFMO of which the United States is a member.

    (j) Access to data. As required under fishery-specific regulations in other parts of this title, the vessel owner and operator shall make the vessel's position data, obtained from the EMTU or other means, available to authorized officers and to any inspector conducting a high seas boarding and inspection pursuant to a scheme adopted by an RFMO of which the United States is a member.

    (k) Communication devices. (1) In cases of EMTU failure as specified under paragraph (e) of this section, and to facilitate communication with management and enforcement authorities regarding the functioning of the EMTU and other purposes, the vessel operator shall, while the vessel is at sea, carry on board and continuously monitor a two-way communication device, in addition to the EMTU, that is capable of real-time communication with the OLE divisional office.

    § 300.338 Observers.

    (a) Where observer coverage is not otherwise required by other regulations or relevant RFMO conservation and management measures, NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any vessel that has been issued a high seas fishing permit. A vessel so selected by NMFS must carry an observer when directed to do so.

    (b) NMFS will contact a vessel owner, in writing, when his or her vessel is selected for observer coverage under this section.

    (c) A vessel shall not fish on the high seas without taking an observer if NMFS contacted the vessel owner under paragraph (b) of this section, or if so required as a condition of a permit issued under this subpart or pursuant to other legal authorities, unless the requirement to carry an observer has been waived under paragraph (d) of this section.

    (d) The vessel owner that NMFS contacts under paragraph (b) of this section must notify NMFS of his or her next fishing trip that may take place on the high seas before commencing the fishing trip. NMFS will specify the notification procedures and information requirements, such as expected gear deployment, trip duration and fishing area, in its selection letter. Once notified of a trip by the vessel owner, NMFS will assign an observer for that trip or notify the vessel owner that coverage pursuant to this subpart is not required, given the existing requirement for observer coverage under other legal authorities.

    (e) The owner, operator, and crew of a vessel on which a NMFS-approved observer is assigned must comply with safety regulations at §§ 600.725 and 600.746 of this title and—

    (1) Facilitate the safe embarkation and debarkation of the observer.

    (2) Provide the observer with accommodations, food, and amenities that are equivalent of those provided to vessel officers.

    (3) Allow the observer access to all areas of the vessel necessary to conduct observer duties.

    (4) Allow the observer free and unobstructed access to the vessel's bridge, working decks, holding bins, weight scales, holds, and any other space used to hold, process, weigh, or store fish.

    (5) Allow the observer access to EMTUs, communications equipment, and navigation equipment to verify operation, obtain data, and use the communication capabilities of the units for official purposes.

    (6) Allow the observer to inspect and copy the vessel's log, communications logs, and any records associated with the catch and disposition of fish for that trip.

    (7) Provide accurate vessel locations by latitude and longitude upon request by the observer.

    (8) Provide access to sea turtle, marine mammal, sea bird, or other specimens as requested by the observer.

    (9) Notify the observer in a timely fashion when commercial fishing activity is to begin and end.

    (f) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must cooperate with the observer in the performance of the observer's duties.

    (g) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must comply with other terms and conditions to ensure the effective deployment and use of observers that the Regional Administrator or Office Director imposes by written notice.

    § 300.339 Transshipment on the high seas.

    (a) In addition to any other applicable restrictions on transshipment, including those under parts 300 and 635 of this title, the following requirements apply to transshipments taking place on the high seas:

    (1) The owner or operator of a U.S. vessel receiving or offloading fish on the high seas shall provide a notice by fax or email to the Regional Administrator or the Office Director at least 36 hours prior to any intended transshipment on the high seas with the following information: The vessels offloading and receiving the transshipment (names, official numbers, and vessel types); the location (latitude and longitude to the nearest tenth of a degree) of transshipment; date and time that transshipment is expected to occur; and species, processed state, and quantities (in metric tons) expected to be transshipped. If another requirement for prior notice applies, the more restrictive requirement (i.e. a requirement for greater advance notice and/or more specific information regarding vessels, location etc.) must be followed.

    (2) U.S. high seas fishing vessels shall report transshipments on the high seas to the Regional Administrator or Office Director within 15 calendar days after the vessel first enters into port, using the form obtained from the Regional Administrator or Office Director. If there are applicable transshipment reporting requirements in other parts of this title, the more restrictive requirement (e.g., a reporting requirement of fewer than 15 calendar days) must be followed.

    (b) [Reserved]

    § 300.340 Prohibitions.

    In addition to the prohibitions in § 300.4, it is unlawful for any person to:

    (a) Use a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas in contravention of international conservation and management measures.

    (b) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, a valid permit issued under § 300.333(d).

    (c) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, valid permits related to the authorized fisheries noted on the high seas fishing permit, as required under § 300.334(b).

    (d) Operate a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas that is not marked in accordance with § 300.336.

    (e) With respect to the EMTU,

    (1) Fail to install, activate, or continuously operate a properly functioning and type-approved EMTU as required in § 300.337;

    (2) Power-down or power-up the EMTU without following the procedures required in § 300.337;

    (3) In the event of EMTU failure or interruption, fail to repair or replace an EMTU, fail to notify the appropriate OLE divisional office and follow the instructions provided, or otherwise fail to act as required in § 300.337;

    (4) Disable, destroy, damage or operate improperly an EMTU installed under § 300.337, attempt to do any of the same, or fail to ensure that its operation is not impeded or interfered with, as provided in § 300.337;

    (5) Fail to make an EMTU installed under § 300.337 or the position data obtained from it available for inspection, as provided in § 300.337; or

    (6) Fail to carry on board and monitor communication devices as required in § 300.337(l);

    (f) With respect to observers,

    (1) Fail to provide to an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider, information that has been requested pursuant to § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title, or fail to allow an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider to inspect any item described at § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title;

    (2) Fish without an observer when the vessel is required to carry an observer pursuant to § 300.338(c);

    (3) Assault, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an observer;

    (4) Prohibit or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, interference, or refusal of reasonable assistance, an observer from conducting his or her duties as an observer; or

    (5) Tamper with or destroy samples or equipment.

    (g) Fail to submit a prior notice or a report of a transshipment as provided in § 300.339(b) of this title.

    (h) Fail to comply with reporting requirements as provided in § 300.341.

    § 300.341 Reporting.

    (a) General. The operator of any vessel permitted under this subpart must accurately maintain on board the vessel a complete record of fishing activities, such as catch, effort, and other data and report high seas catch and effort information to NMFS in a manner consistent with the reporting requirements of the authorized fishery(ies) noted on the high seas permit. Reports must include: Identification information for vessel and operator; operator signature; crew size; whether an observer is aboard; target species; gear used; dates, times, locations, and conditions under which fishing was conducted; species and amounts of fish retained and discarded; and details of any interactions with sea turtles, marine mammals, or birds.

    (1) The vessel owner and operator are responsible for obtaining and completing the reporting forms from the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit holder's high seas fishing permit. The completed forms must be submitted to the same Regional Administrator or Office Director or, if directed by NMFS, to a Science Center.

    (2) Reports must be submitted within the deadline provided for in the authorized fishery or within 15 days following the end of a fishing trip, whichever is sooner. Contact information for the Regional Administrators and Science Center Directors can be found on the NMFS Web site.

    (b) [Reserved].

    PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 4. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    5. In § 600.705, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 600.705 Relation to other laws.

    (g) High seas fishing activities. Regulations governing permits and requirements for fishing activities on the high seas are set forth in 50 CFR part 300, subparts A and Q. Any vessel operating on the high seas must obtain a permit issued pursuant to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act.

    5. In § 600.745, revise the first two sentences in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 600.745 Scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activity.

    (a) Scientific research activity. Nothing in this part is intended to inhibit or prevent any scientific research activity conducted by a scientific research vessel. Persons planning to conduct scientific research activities on board a scientific research vessel in the EEZ or on the high seas are encouraged to submit to the appropriate Regional Administrator or Director, 60 days or as soon as practicable prior to its start, a scientific research plan for each scientific activity. * * *

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 6. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    7. In § 660.2, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 660.2 Relation to other laws.

    (c) Fishing activities on the high seas are governed by regulations of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act set forth in 50 CFR part 300, subparts A and Q.

    § 660.708 [Amended]
    8. In § 660.708, remove paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as paragraph (a)(1)(iii). PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 9. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    10. In § 665.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 665.1 Purpose and scope.

    (b) General regulations governing fishing by all vessels of the United States and by fishing vessels other than vessels of the United States are contained in 50 CFR parts 300 and 600.

    [FR Doc. 2015-08425 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 70 Monday, April 13, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Intent To Accept Applications To Be an Intermediary Under the Loan Application Packaging Pilot Program Within the Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing Program AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Agency undertook a pilot program to evaluate how the loan application packaging process could be improved for the Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing program, which is authorized in Title V, Section 1480 (k) of the Housing Act. This pilot program introduced the use of intermediaries in the packaging process. Intermediaries reach out to other nonprofits to serve as loan application packagers, ensure those packagers are qualified and trained, perform quality assurance reviews to prevent the submission of incomplete or ineligible loan application packages to the Agency, and serve as a liaison between the Agency and the packager.

    Through this notice, the Agency will accept applications to be an intermediary under the pilot program. Approval will be subject to fully meeting the conditions outlined within this notice, sanctioning by the Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division following an application review (which will include input from the applicable Rural Development State Office), and signoff by the Rural Housing Service Administrator.

    DATES:

    Eligible parties interested in serving as a new intermediary under this pilot must submit the requested items to the Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division by May 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submissions may be sent electronically to [email protected] or by mail to Brooke Baumann, Branch Chief, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2211, Washington, DC 20250-0783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As noted in the summary, intermediaries reach out to other nonprofits to serve as loan application packagers, ensure those packagers are qualified and trained, perform quality assurance reviews to prevent the submission of incomplete or ineligible loan application packages to the Agency, and serve as a liaison between the Agency and the packager.

    Each pilot intermediary signs a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Agency, which details the roles and responsibilities of all parties.

    • Under the pilot program, the intermediary and/or nonprofit packager may charge the borrower a loan application packaging fee not to exceed $1,500 to be paid at closing; the Agency does not dictate how or whether the intermediary and packager split the fee. Pursuant to Agency regulations at 7 CFR 3550.52(d)(6), program funds may be used to pay the packaging fee, provided that this does not cause the loan to exceed the maximum allowable loan amount and the borrower has repayment ability for the fee. The maximum allowable loan amount is normally limited to 100 percent of market value (7 CFR 3550.63(b)) as determined by an appraisal.

    • Under the pilot program, if the maximum packaging fee cannot be included in the Section 502 Direct Loan, the intermediary and/or packager shall seek a seller concession to cover the fee; assist the applicant in seeking funds from outside sources to cover the fee; provided that those sources take the form of a soft, silent or forgivable subordinate affordable housing product; and/or reduce the fee to an amount that can be included in the Section 502 Direct Loan or paid using a seller concession or outside sources of funds. In no event will the borrower or the Agency be responsible for paying the packaging fee to the extent that the maximum fee cannot be paid at closing using one of these options. It is understood by all parties that a packaging fee may be charged only for closed loans.

    On December 16, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Act), Public Law 113-235, which provides fiscal year (FY) 2015 full-year appropriations through September 30, 2015, for all agencies except the Department of Homeland Security. Sec. 729 of the Act provides that the Agency will continue agreements with the current intermediaries in the pilot program 1 and enter into additional agreements that increase the number of pilot intermediaries to at least 10.

    1 The existing five intermediaries in the pilot program are Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises, NeighborWorks Dakota Home Resources, Northeast South Dakota Community Action Program, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, and Texas Community Capital.

    Sec. 729 applies only to the pilot program in FY 2015; it does not concern any rulemaking process. This notice solicits applications for intermediaries in the pilot program only, and does not guarantee an intermediary's role or status when their pilot program MOU expires 2 or when the final rule for the certified loan application packaging process proposed in the Federal Register on August 23, 2013 (78 FR 52460) becomes effective, whichever is earlier. Through this notice, five new intermediaries are sought.

    2 The current MOUs expire upon December 31, 2015, or the effective date of the final rule for the certified loan application packaging process, whichever is earlier. The current pilot intermediaries are not guaranteed an intermediary role beyond their participation in the pilot program.

    To qualify and apply to be a new intermediary under the pilot, an interested party must submit documentation demonstrating that it meets all of the following conditions:

    • Be a nonprofit organization or other public agency.

    • Be tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code and be engaged in affordable housing in accordance with their regulations, articles of incorporation, or bylaws.

    • Have at least five years of verifiable experience with the Agency's direct single family housing loan programs.

    • Develop quality control procedures designed to prevent submission of incomplete or ineligible application packages to the Agency. This condition will require a detailed outline of the interested party's intended procedures.

    • Have the capacity to serve as an intermediary in one or more of the following states not currently served under the existing pilot program: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wisconsin. (Applications that propose covering any of the following states will be automatically removed from consideration since the existing intermediaries are tasked with serving all or part of these states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.) This condition will require a detailed outline of the interested party's action plan and experience. The outline should include, but is not limited to: What state or states the party wishes to cover, how they are well-equipped to handle the proposed coverage area, how they intend on creating affiliations with eligible nonprofit packagers, confirmation that they will not serve dual roles (i.e., the intermediary and the packager's employer must have different tax identification numbers and cannot have the same board of directors) unless they intend on operating under the program's general provisions for some packages which means the packaging fee cannot exceed $750, their ability to target very-low income persons in rural areas interested in homeownership, and their ability to target underserved areas.

    • Ensure that their quality assurance staff completes an Agency-approved loan application packaging course and successfully pass the corresponding test.

    • Not be the developer, builder, seller of, or have any other such financial interest in, the property for which the application package is submitted.

    • Acknowledge qualifying as an intermediary for the pilot does not imply any guaranteed qualification under the certified loan application packaging process final rule once effective.

    The above conditions generally mimic those outlined in the proposed rule to create a certified loan application packaging process.

    If selected as a new intermediary, a MOU between the intermediary and the Agency must be signed. The MOU will detail the roles and responsibilities of all parties; and will be in effect through September 30, 2015, or up until the effective date of the final rule on the certified loan application packaging process, whichever should occur first. This notice should not be construed as containing all those roles and responsibilities.

    Non-Discrimination Statement

    USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or at any USDA Office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; by fax at (202) 690-7442; or, by email at: [email protected] Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and who wish to file a program complaint should please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The full “Non-Discrimination Statement” is found at: http://www.usda.gov.wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navtype=Non_Discrimination.

    Dated: April 1, 2015. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08351 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-45, Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies With Foreign Persons AGENCY:

    Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 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 email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch BE-50 (SSB), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone: (202) 606-9850; fax: (202) 606-5318; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies with Foreign Persons (BE-45) is a survey that collects data on U.S. trade in insurance services. The information collected on this survey will be used to formulate U.S. international economic policy and analyze the impact of that policy, and the policies of foreign countries, on international trade in services. The data are used in estimating the insurance component of the U.S. international transactions accounts (ITAs) and national income and product accounts (NIPAs).

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing no additions, modifications, or deletions to the current BE-45 survey. The effort to keep current reporting requirements unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.

    II. Method of Collection

    Form BE-45 is a quarterly report that must be filed within 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter, or within 90 days after the close of the calendar year, and is mandatory for each U.S. insurance company whose covered transactions with foreign persons for any of the data items on the survey exceeded $8 million (positive or negative) in the prior calendar year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current calendar year.

    BEA offers its electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-45. For more information about eFile, go to www.bea.gov/efile.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0608-0066.

    Form Number: BE-45.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 2,000 annually (500 filed each quarter; 475 reporting mandatory or voluntary data, and 25 that would not report data).

    Estimated Time Per Response: 8 hours is the average for those reporting data and 1 hour is the average for those not reporting data, but hours may vary considerably among respondents because of differences in company size and complexity.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,300.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $612,000.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94-472, 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108, as amended).

    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 will 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: April 7, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08314 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-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 [3/28/2015 through 4/7/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Clear Automation, LLC 85 Robert Porter Road, Southington, CT 06489 4/7/2015 The firm manufactures system integrated automation robotic equipment.

    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: April 7, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08370 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1969] Expansion of Subzone 116B; Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., Port Arthur and Jefferson County, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses;

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 116, has made application to the Board to expand Subzone 116B on behalf of Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., to include as Site 5 a pipeline that extends from the subzone's Site 4 in Nederland to Site 1 in Port Arthur, Texas (FTZ Docket B-85-2014, docketed 11-25-2014);

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (79 FR 71831, 12-02-2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the expansion of Subzone 116B on behalf of Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    ATTEST:

    Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08456 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1975] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 106 Under Alternative Site Framework Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Port Authority of Greater Oklahoma City, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 106, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-57-2014, docketed 08-12-2014) for authority to expand the zone under the ASF to include a new magnet site (proposed Site 18) in Shawnee, Oklahoma, adjacent to the Oklahoma City Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 48117, 08-15-2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to expand FTZ 106 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 18 if not activated within the initial seven years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. ATTEST: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08457 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1968] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 174 Under Alternative Site Framework, Tucson, Arizona

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 174, has applied to the Board (FTZ Docket B-35-2011, docketed 05/23/2011, amended 05/21/2014) for authority to expand FTZ 174 under the ASF to include additional magnet sites, adjacent to the Tucson, Arizona U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (76 FR 30907, 05/27/2011 and 79 FR 31297, 06/02/2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, in part;

    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 174 under the ASF is approved as it pertains to the Red Rock Industrial Park (designated as Site 8) and the Sunshine Industrial Park (designated as Site 9), subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 8 and Site 9 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-08444 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-805] Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 9, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico.1 The Department issued post-preliminary results of this administrative review on January 30, 2015 (Post-Preliminary Results).2 Also, as a result of our partial rescission of this review, as discussed in the Preliminary Results, Productos Laminados, S.A. de C.V. (Productos Laminados) is the sole remaining respondent.34 The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.

    1See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 73034 (December 9, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    2See “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Post-Preliminary Results Decision Memorandum,” dated January 30, 2015.

    3See Preliminary Results.

    4 The Department initiated an administrative review of both Productos Laminados and Prolamsa, Inc. separately. However, record information indicates that Prolamsa, Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Productos Laminados, and is an importer, not a producer, of subject merchandise. Also, during the course of this review, Productos Laminados submitted consolidated responses on behalf of itself and Prolamsa, Inc. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, references to Prolamsa pertain to Productos Laminados and Prolamsa, Inc. collectively. Otherwise, the two entities are referenced separately, where appropriate.

    Only one party submitted a case brief. No interested party submitted rebuttal briefs. Based on our analysis of the comment received, we made no changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results of review do not differ from the Post-Preliminary Results. The final dumping margin is listed in the section below entitled, “Final Results of Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Davina Friedmann or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0698 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 9, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.5

    5See Preliminary Results.

    During this administrative review, the Department also conducted a concurrent scope review. As indicated in the final scope ruling, the Department found that certain black, circular tubing produced to ASTM A-513 by Productos Laminados meets the exclusion language for mechanical tubing in the scope of this antidumping duty order. Pursuant to the final scope ruling, the Department instructed Productos Laminados to submit a revised U.S. sales database incorporating the factors set forth in the scope ruling. Productos Laminados submitted its revised U.S. sales database on January 5, 2014. Consequently, on January 30, 2015, the Department issued the Post-Preliminary Results. The Department also placed on the record of this review the following memorandum: “Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa, Inc.—Analysis Memorandum for the Post-Preliminary Results of the 2012/2013 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico”, dated January 30, 2015 (Post-Preliminary Analysis Memo). Together, these memoranda explain the changes made to the Preliminary Results, yielding the revised margin for the post-preliminary results of review.

    In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary and post-preliminary results of this review, one party, Prolamsa, filed a case brief on February 9, 2015. No rebuttal briefs were submitted to the Department.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes. The merchandise covered by the order and subject to this review is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico; 2012-2013” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice and incorporated herein by reference. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).6 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA Access”) changed to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location also changed from http://iaaccess.rade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised by interested parties in this administrative review are listed as an attachment to this notice. We have analyzed all interested party comments. Based on our analysis of the comments received, the margin in the final results is unchanged from that presented in the Post-Preliminary Results.

    Final Results of Review

    We determine the following weighted-average margin exists for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:

    Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average margin
  • (percent)
  • Productos Laminados 7.33
    Assessment

    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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash deposit rate for Productos Laminados will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, which is listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established from a completed segment of this proceeding for the most recent review period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 32.62 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.7 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico, 57 FR 42953 (September 17, 1992).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issue Comment: The Department Should Grant a CEP Offset Adjustment to Normal Value Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08430 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-844] Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (NWR) from Taiwan.1 The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: King Young Enterprise Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, Ethel Enterprise Co., Ltd. and Glory Young Enterprise Co., Ltd., (collectively, King Young); and Hen Hao Trading Co. Ltd. a.k.a. Taiwan Tulip Ribbons and Braids Co. Ltd. (Hen Hao). The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results and, based upon our analysis of the comments, we continue to find that sales of subject merchandise to the United States have been made at prices below normal value (NV). The final dumping margins for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    1See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 60449 (October 7, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Crespo or Alice Maldonado, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693 and (202) 482-4682, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 7, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results in the Federal Register. The Department conducted a sales verification of King Young at its offices in Taiwan from September 29 through October 3, 2014, and a cost verification from November 12 through 16, 2014. In January 2015, we received case briefs from Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc. (the petitioner), King Young, and Morex Ribbon Corp. and Papillon Ribbon & Bow Inc., importers of subject merchandise. Also in January 2015, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and King Young. On January 15, 2015, the Department postponed the final results by 60 days.2 The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    2See the January 15, 2015, memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations through Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office II from David Crespo, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled “Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.”

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order 3 covers narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under the harmonized tariff schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical categories 5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject merchandise also may enter under subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 and under statistical categories 5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The HTSUS statistical categories and subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.4

    3See Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan and the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 56982 (Sept. 17, 2010) (Order).

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum from James P. Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).5 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references in the Department's regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for King Young. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We made no changes to the rate assigned as adverse facts available (AFA) to Hen Hao in these final results.

    Period of Review

    The POR is September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013.

    Final Results of the Review

    We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below:

    Producer/exporter Dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • King Young Enterprise Co., Ltd./
  • Glory Young Enterprise Co., Ltd./
  • Ethel Enterprise Co., Ltd. Taiwan
  • 30.64
    Hen Hao Trading Co. Ltd. a.k.a. Taiwan
  • Tulip Ribbons and Braids Co. Ltd.
  • 137.20
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    For King Young, the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates equal to the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping duties pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For Hen Hao's U.S. sales, we will base the assessment rate assigned to the corresponding entries on the AFA rate listed above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rates for Hen Hao and King Young will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; 2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative 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 recently-completed segment; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.37 percent, the all-others rate determined in the LTFV investigation.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Order, 75 FR 56985.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 6, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Margin Calculations 4. Scope of the Order 5. Discussion of the Issues a. The Appropriate Unit of Measure On Which to Base Sales and Cost Data for King Young b. Limiting the Model Matching Methodology for Width and Length c. Allegation That King Young's Piece Sales Are Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade d. Allegation That King Young's Channel 3 Sales Are Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade e. Level of Trade for King Young f. Clerical Error in King Young's Preliminary Dumping Margin g. King Young's Unaffiliated Suppliers' Cost of Production h. General and Administrative Expense Ratio for King Young i. Financial Expenses for King Young j. Labor and Overhead Ratios for King Young k. King Young's Allocation of Fixed Overhead Costs l. AFA Rate for Hen Hao 6. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-08436 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-844] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2012 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) completed the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain lined paper products from India for the January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, period of review (POR) 1 in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The respondent in this administrative review is A.R. Printing & Packaging India Private Limited (AR Printing).2 In these final results, the Department made changes to the subsidy rate determined for AR Printing. Our analysis of comments received is contained in the Decision Memorandum accompanying this Federal Register notice.3 The final net subsidy rate for AR Printing is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section.

    1 The Department published its preliminary results for this administrative review in Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2012, 79 FR 60447 (October 7, 2014) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated September 30, 2014 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2 AR Printing is also known as A.R. Printing & Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd.

    3See “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from India” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently and hereby adopted by this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 28, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the CVD order on certain lined paper products from India.4 On October 7, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results of administrative review of the Lined Paper Order for the POR.5

    4See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Order).

    5See Preliminary Results.

    After the Preliminary Results, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire providing the Government of India (GOI) with an opportunity to describe the steps on which it based its claims that AR Printing did not use certain subsidy programs at issue in the review,6 to which the GOI responded on October 31, 2014.7 On March 4, 2015, we conducted verification at the GOI offices in New Delhi, India.8

    6See the Department's October 10, 2014, Third Supplemental Questionnaire to the GOI.

    7See the GOI's October 31, 2014, Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response.

    8See Memorandum to Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD Duty Operations, Office III, “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of India,” (March 4, 2015).

    Petitioner 9 submitted a case brief on March 11, 2015,10 and the GOI submitted a rebuttal brief on March 16, 2015.11 No interested party requested a hearing.

    9 Petitioner is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioner).

    10See Petitioner' March 11, 2015, case brief.

    11See the GOI's March 16, 2015, rebuttal brief.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain lined paper products. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from India.” The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).12 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    12 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Methodology

    The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.13

    13See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts otherwise available on the administrative record because AR Printing: (1) Failed to respond to the Department's requests for necessary information and therefore necessary information was not on the record; (2) withheld requested information; (3) failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines; and (4) significantly impeded this proceeding. See sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Furthermore, because we determine that AR Printing failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See section 776(b) of the Act.

    Changes Since Preliminary Results

    After the Preliminary Results, the Department verified information from the GOI concerning the Market Development Assistance, Status Certificate, and Market Access Initiative programs.14 Based on the findings at verification and for the reasons set forth in the Decision Memorandum, we find that AR Printing did not use these three programs during the POR. Th