Federal Register Vol. 80, No.79,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 79 (April 24, 2015)

Page Range22871-23227
FR Document

80_FR_79
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 23056 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
80 FR 22965 - Television Broadcasting Services; Providence, Rhode IslandPDF
80 FR 22871 - Earth Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 23056 - Sunshine Act: Notice Of Agency MeetingPDF
80 FR 22967 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 23056 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 22983 - Sunshine Act Notice; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 23060 - In the Matter of First American Scientific Corp., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 22993 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review PanelPDF
80 FR 22954 - Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance CompaniesPDF
80 FR 22964 - Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 22994 - Human Studies Review Board Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 23041 - Announcement of Funding Awards; Fair Housing Initiatives Program Fiscal Year 2014PDF
80 FR 22996 - Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel ProductionPDF
80 FR 23040 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Assessment of HUD-Funded or Designated Neighborhood Networks Centers and Other Computer Labs Within Public Housing Authorities and Multifamily Housing PropertiesPDF
80 FR 22992 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 23009 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Application by the American Association of Diabetes Educators for Continued Deeming Authority for Diabetes Self-Management TrainingPDF
80 FR 23009 - Medicare Program: Renewal of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient PaymentPDF
80 FR 22983 - Applications for New Awards; Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student SuccessPDF
80 FR 23007 - Medicare Program; Meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee-July 22, 2015PDF
80 FR 23032 - Final Priority; National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects ProgramPDF
80 FR 23036 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
80 FR 22873 - Conservation CompliancePDF
80 FR 23027 - Applications for New Awards; National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR)-DRRP-Promoting Universal Design in the Built EnvironmentPDF
80 FR 22976 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 22977 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionPDF
80 FR 22965 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
80 FR 22924 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive AuctionsPDF
80 FR 23006 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 23011 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 22900 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA.PDF
80 FR 23050 - Information Collection: Prospecting for Minerals Other Than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur on the Outer Continental Shelf and Authorizations of Noncommercial Geological and Geophysical Activities; Proposed Collection for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 22903 - Safety Zone: Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CAPDF
80 FR 22975 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 22974 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 22975 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 22973 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 22969 - Notice of Scope RulingsPDF
80 FR 22971 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 22930 - Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United StatesPDF
80 FR 22901 - Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa Bay; Tampa, FLPDF
80 FR 23053 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
80 FR 22927 - Importation of Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United StatesPDF
80 FR 22934 - Importation of Fresh Peppers From Peru Into the Continental United States and the TerritoriesPDF
80 FR 22885 - Importation of Papayas From PeruPDF
80 FR 23054 - Copyright Protection for Certain Visual WorksPDF
80 FR 23071 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 52)PDF
80 FR 22886 - Restrictions on Sale of Assets of a Failed Institution by the Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationPDF
80 FR 22967 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 22925 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Sagaponack, New YorkPDF
80 FR 23073 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 22939 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 22938 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 22988 - Commission To Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy LaboratoriesPDF
80 FR 23065 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
80 FR 22926 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; ClosurePDF
80 FR 23003 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 23067 - Notice With Respect to List of Countries Denying Fair Market Opportunities for Government-Funded Airport Construction ProjectsPDF
80 FR 23026 - Administration for Native Americans; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 23064 - D-W Investments LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 22990 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 22989 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 22989 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 22990 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 22981 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 22943 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 23045 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger SalamanderPDF
80 FR 23068 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
80 FR 22968 - Joint Millennium Challenge Corporation and Department of Commerce Energy Sector Business Development Mission to Tanzania, May 31-June 2, 2015PDF
80 FR 23013 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-January through March 2015PDF
80 FR 23049 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 23054 - Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review BoardPDF
80 FR 22995 - Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 23004 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 22953 - Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 23035 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; KYNAMROPDF
80 FR 23034 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FLUBLOKPDF
80 FR 22979 - Army Education Advisory Subcommittee Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 22977 - Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Activities and Operations at Yuma Proving Ground, AZPDF
80 FR 22978 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Schofield Generating Station Project, United States Army Garrison, HawaiiPDF
80 FR 23057 - Actuarial Advisory Committee With Respect to the Railroad Retirement Account; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 22980 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 22991 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 22992 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 23039 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 23039 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 23039 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 23038 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 23038 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 23038 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 22973 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
80 FR 23060 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 23057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC.PDF
80 FR 23059 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 23060 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 22968 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 23069 - Notification of Modification of Information Collection Requirements; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 23046 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan Revisions and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Western OregonPDF
80 FR 23003 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Nottoway County, VirginiaPDF
80 FR 23067 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in WisconsinPDF
80 FR 22909 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference for MontanaPDF
80 FR 22950 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Campbellsville, KYPDF
80 FR 22896 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; West Creek, NJPDF
80 FR 22892 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Key Largo, FLPDF
80 FR 22891 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cando, NDPDF
80 FR 22946 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Headland, ALPDF
80 FR 22898 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baton Rouge, LAPDF
80 FR 22893 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Edgeley, NDPDF
80 FR 22894 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cypress, TXPDF
80 FR 22899 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Manchester, NHPDF
80 FR 22952 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenville, SCPDF
80 FR 22897 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sonora, TXPDF
80 FR 22949 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Defuniak Springs, FLPDF
80 FR 22947 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Highmore, SDPDF
80 FR 22895 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Zephyrhills, FLPDF
80 FR 22956 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ProgramPDF
80 FR 22906 - Driving Distance Eligibility for the Veterans Choice ProgramPDF
80 FR 22939 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 23197 - Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public UtilitiesPDF
80 FR 23077 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF

Issue

80 79 Friday, April 24, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

RULES Conservation Compliance, 22873-22885 2015-09599 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22967 2015-09569
Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23071-23073 2015-09574 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Imports: Papayas from Peru, 22885-22886 2015-09576 PROPOSED RULES Imports: Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental U.S., 22927-22930 2015-09578 Fresh Peppers from Ecuador Into the U.S., 22930-22934 2015-09581 Fresh Peppers from Peru Into the Continental U.S. and the Territories, 22934-22938 2015-09577 Army Army Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Activities and Operations; Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, 22977-22978 2015-09519 Schofield Generating Station Project, United States Army Garrison, HI, 22978-22979 2015-09518 Meetings: Army Education Advisory Subcommittee, 22979-22980 2015-09520 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 22967 2015-09724 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Metal and Nonmetal Miner Health Program, 23004-23006 2015-09524 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23006-23007, 23011-23013 2015-09591 2015-09592 Authorities for Diabetes Self-Management Training: American Association of Diabetes Educators, 23009-23011 2015-09610 Charter Renewals: Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment, 23009 2015-09609 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances January through March 2015, 23013-23026 2015-09539 Meetings: Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, 23007-23009 2015-09607 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Meetings: Administration for Native Americans, 23026-23027 2015-09557 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Texas Advisory Committee, 22968 2015-09494 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL, 22901-22903 2015-09580 Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA, 22900-22901 2015-09590 Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA, 22903-22906 2015-09588 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 22976-22977 2015-09595 2015-09596 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Applications for New Awards: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects; Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment, 23027-23032 2015-09598 Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects Program, 23032-23034 2015-09606 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Copyright Protection for Certain Visual Works, 23054-23056 2015-09575 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Arms Sales, 22981-22983 2015-09550 Meetings: Defense Health Board, 22980-22981 2015-09512
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 22983 2015-09706 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, 22983-22988 2015-09608 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps; Corrections, 22938 2015-09565 Test Procedure for Pumps; Corrections, 22939 2015-09566 NOTICES Meetings: Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, 22988-22989 2015-09564
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference, 22909-22924 2015-09414 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, 22956-22964 2015-09372 Health and Environmental Protection Standards: Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Extension, 22964-22965 2015-09624 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production--Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese, 22991-22992 2015-09507 NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills, 22992-22993 2015-09506 Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production, 22996-23003 2015-09618 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 22992 2015-09611 Meetings: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel, 22993-22994 2015-09631 Registration Reviews: Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Correction, 22995-22996 2015-09525 Requests for Nominations: Human Studies Review Board Advisory Committee, 22994-22995 2015-09620 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Baton Rouge, LA, 22898-22899 2015-09402 Manchester, NH, 22899-22900 2015-09399 Zephyrhills, FL, 22895-22896 2015-09388 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Cando, ND, 22891-22892 2015-09406 Cypress, TX, 22894-22895 2015-09400 Edgeley, ND, 22893-22894 2015-09401 Key Largo, FL, 22892-22893 2015-09408 Sonora, TX, 22897-22898 2015-09397 West Creek, NJ, 22896-22897 2015-09411 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 22939-22946 2015-09288 2015-09549 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Campbellsville, KY, 22950-22951 2015-09413 Greenville, SC, 22952-22953 2015-09398 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Defuniak Springs, FL, 22949-22950 2015-09395 Headland, AL, 22946-22947 2015-09404 Highmore, SD, 22947-22949 2015-09390 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 22924-22925 2015-09593 Radio Broadcasting Services: Sagaponack, NY, 22925-22926 2015-09568 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceedings, 22965 2015-09490 2015-09594 Television Broadcasting Services: Providence, RI, 22965-22966 2015-09728 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Restrictions on Sale of Assets of a Failed Institution, 22886-22891 2015-09572 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities, 23198-23227 2015-09275 NOTICES Combined Filings, 22989-22991 2015-09551 2015-09552 2015-09553 2015-09554 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in Wisconsin, 23067-23068 2015-09445 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23069-23071 2015-09486 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 23068-23069 2015-09546 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 23003 2015-09561 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: California Tiger Salamander; Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment, 23045-23046 2015-09547 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Abbreviated New Drug Applications, etc.; Extension of Comment Period, 22953-22954 2015-09523 NOTICES Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension: FLUBLOK, 23034-23035 2015-09521 KYNAMRO, 23035-23036 2015-09522 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Department of State Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Nottoway County, VA, 23003-23004 2015-09461 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 23036-23038 2015-09602 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assessment of HUD-Funded or Designated Neighborhood Networks Centers and Other Computer Labs within Public Housing Authorities and Multifamily Housing Properties, 23040 2015-09616 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 23078-23195 2015-08625 Funding Awards: Fair Housing Initiatives Program, 23041-23045 2015-09619 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Exception from Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies, 22954-22956 2015-09630 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea, 22971-22973 2015-09582 Business Development Missions: Joint Millennium Challenge Corporation and Department of Commerce Energy Sector; Tanzania, May—June 2015, 22968-22969 2015-09544 Scope Rulings, 22969-22971 2015-09583 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, 23053-23054 2015-09579 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, 23054 2015-09529 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Draft Resource Management Plan, Western Oregon; Revisions, 23046-23049 2015-09474 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23056 2015-09726 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 23038-23040 2015-09500 2015-09505 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 23038 2015-09502 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 23039 2015-09504 National Human Genome Research Institute, 23038-23039 2015-09501 National Institute of Nursing Research, 23039 2015-09503 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Closure, 22926 2015-09562 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Take of Anadromous Fish, 22973-22974 2015-09499 Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 22973 2015-09584 New England Fishery Management Council, 22975 2015-09587 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 22975-22976 2015-09585 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 22974-22975 2015-09586 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 23049-23050 2015-09531 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23056 2015-09734 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23056-23057 2015-09707 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prospecting for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur on the Outer Continental Shelf and Authorizations of Noncommercial Geological and Geophysical Activities, 23050-23053 2015-09589 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Earth Day (Proc. 9259), 22871-22872 2015-09727 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Meetings: Actuarial Advisory Committee, Railroad Retirement Account, 23057 2015-09513 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23059-23060 2015-09495 2015-09496 Applications: D-W Investments, LLC, 23064-23065 2015-09556 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 23060-23064 2015-09498 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 23057-23059 2015-09497 Trading Suspension Orders: First American Scientific Corp., 23060 2015-09685 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 23065-23067 2015-09563 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES List of Countries Denying Fair Market Opportunities for Government-Funded Airport Construction Projects, 23067 2015-09559 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Driving Distance Eligibility for the Veterans Choice Program, 22906-22909 2015-09370 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23073-23076 2015-09567 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 23078-23195 2015-08625 Part III Energy Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 23198-23227 2015-09275 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 79 Friday, April 24, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary 7 CFR Part 12 RIN 0560-AI26 Conservation Compliance AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary and Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations that specify the conservation compliance requirements that participants in USDA programs must meet to be eligible for certain USDA benefits. The USDA benefits to which conservation compliance requirements currently apply include marketing assistance loans, farm storage facility loans, and payments under commodity, disaster, and conservation programs. The conservation compliance requirements apply to land that is either highly erodible land (HEL) or that is wetlands. This rule amends the regulations to implement the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) provisions that: make the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy benefits subject to conservation compliance requirements; and convert the wetland mitigation banking pilot to a program and authorizes $ 10 million for the Secretary to operate a wetland mitigation banking program. This rule specifies the conservation compliance requirements, exemptions, and deadlines that apply in determining eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). This rule also modifies easement provisions relating to mitigation banks as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, and clarifies provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations.

DATES:

Effective date: April 24, 2015.

Date to certify compliance for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for 2016 reinsurance year: June 1, 2015.

Comment date: We will consider comments that we receive by June 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

We invite you to submit comments on this interim rule. In your comment, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

Mail, hand delivery, or courier: Daniel McGlynn, Production, Emergencies and Compliance Division, Farm Service Agency (FSA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MAIL STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0517.

Comments will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection at the above address during business hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. A copy of this interim rule is available through the FSA home page at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel McGlynn; telephone: (202) 720 7641. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The conservation compliance provisions in the current regulations at 7 CFR part 12 were originally authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198, referred to as the 1985 Farm Bill). Generally, the regulations specify that a person is ineligible for certain USDA benefits if they undertake certain activities relating to HEL and wetlands, specifically those involving planting agricultural commodities on HEL or a wetland, or converting a wetland for agricultural purposes.

HEL is cropland, hayland or pasture that can erode at excessive rates. As specified in § 12.21, soil map units and the erodibility index are used as the basis for identifying HEL. The erodibility index is a numerical value that expresses the potential erodibility of a soil in relation to its soil loss tolerance value without consideration of applied conservation practices or management. A field is identified as highly erodible if it contains a critical amount of soil map units with an erodibility index of eight or more. If a producer has a field identified as HEL, that producer is required to maintain a conservation system of practices that keeps erosion rates at a substantial reduction of soil loss in order to receive certain USDA benefits. Additional information can be found at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wi/programs/?cid=nrcs142p2_020795.

A “wetland” is an area that has a predominance of wet soils; is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of water tolerant vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and under normal circumstances supports a prevalence of such vegetation.

The major difference between the prior regulations for conservation compliance in 7 CFR part 12 and this rule is that persons who seek eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must comply with the conservation compliance requirements as specified in this rule. Many persons who obtain Federal crop insurance already receive benefits from other USDA programs, for example, FSA programs that also require compliance with the conservation compliance rules. Therefore, this new requirement will only be a change for those persons who will be required to comply with the conservation compliance rules for the first time because of the 2014 Farm Bill.

The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill to the conservation compliance rules only apply to eligibility for FCIC paid premium subsidy. In addition, the time between the final determination of a violation and the loss of eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy is different from the other conservation compliance rules as described below. Therefore, while a violation of conservation compliance rules may not trigger an immediate loss of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy, it may trigger an immediate loss of other USDA program benefits, including any FSA and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) benefits specified in 7 CFR 12.4(d) and (e). Nothing in this rule changes violations that may result from other laws or regulations under the responsibility of another Federal government agency.

This interim rule amends the conservation compliance regulations in 7 CFR part 12 to:

(1) Implement 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) provisions that make the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance provisions;

(2) Modify easement provisions relating to mitigation banks as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill; and

(3) Clarify provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations.

This rule also implements sections 2609 and 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill which amend provisions related to wetland mitigation banking and clarifies provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations. The provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014 (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by persons participating in USDA's crop insurance program.

FSA handles conservation compliance administrative functions, while technical determinations regarding HEL and wetlands are made by NRCS. The 2014 Farm Bill extends conservation compliance requirements to the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy. Federal crop insurance is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524). The Federal crop insurance program is administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) on behalf of FCIC. Persons can obtain Federally subsidized crop insurance from Approved Insurance Providers (AIP), which are approved by RMA, on behalf of FCIC, to sell and service Federal crop insurance policies. The Federal crop insurance policies issued by these AIP are reinsured by FCIC in accordance with the FCIA. The FCIA also authorizes FCIC to subsidize Federal crop insurance premiums charged for the coverage provided by the Federal crop insurance policies reinsured by FCIC.

FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, (79 FR 37155-37166) that amended the Federal crop insurance regulations to implement the same conservation compliance provisions from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill as this rule in 7 CFR parts 400, 402, 407, and 457. This rule is needed to make conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.

New Federal Crop Insurance Subsidy Conservation Compliance Eligibility Provisions

Section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill links conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies paid by FCIC. Section 2611 provides exemptions and extended deadlines for certain persons to achieve compliance.

Persons who have not participated in, and were not affiliated with any person who participated in, any USDA program for which conservation compliance was a requirement will have additional time to develop and comply with an NRCS approved conservation plan for HEL. Section 2611(a)(2)(C) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that persons who are subject to the HEL conservation requirements for the first time solely because of the linkage of conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy will have 5 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

The beginning of the 5 reinsurance year period depends on whether a HEL determination was made on any of the land in the person's farming operation and whether administrative appeal rights have been exhausted for that determination. The 5 reinsurance year period begins:

• For persons who have no land with an NRCS HEL determination, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date NRCS makes a HEL determination and the person exhausts all their administrative appeals.

• For persons who have any land for which a NRCS HEL determination has been made and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.

Any affiliated person of a person requesting benefits that are subject to HEL and wetland conservation provisions must also be in compliance with those provisions. Such affiliated persons must also file a Form AD-1026 if the affiliated person has a separate farming interest. “Affiliated persons” include, with some exceptions, the spouse and minor child of the person; the partnership, joint venture, or other enterprise in which the person, spouse, or minor child of the person has an ownership interest or financial interest; and a trust in which the individual, business enterprise, or any person, spouse, or minor child is a beneficiary or has a financial interest. In the case of a violation, the offending person and affiliated persons such as spouses and entities in which the offending person has an interest will lose benefits at all their farming operation locations, not just the locale of the violation.

In addition to the time lags and deadlines applicable to initial compliance with this new conservation compliance requirement, there are exemptions and reasonable timeframes to comply for later conservation compliance issues. The exemptions and timelines described below apply only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies, and not compliance requirements for other USDA programs. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and in this rule, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy because of a conservation compliance violation, whether associated with HEL or wetlands, will apply to reinsurance years after the date of a final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals. Reinsurance years start on July 1 of any given year and end the following June 30. As an example, suppose that USDA determines that a violation occurred during the 2017 calendar year, and the determination is final, including all administrative appeals, on November 15, 2017, which is during the 2018 reinsurance year. The person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy no earlier than the 2019 reinsurance year, which begins on July 1, 2018, and will remain ineligible until the violation is remedied. The person will remain eligible for a premium subsidy on any policies with a sales closing date before July 1, 2018.

In the case of wetland conservation requirements, as noted earlier, ineligibility for premium subsidy due to a violation of the wetland conservation provisions will be limited to wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, and for which a final determination has been made and administrative appeals have been exhausted. The 2014 Farm Bill also provides a limited exemption for wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, but before Federal crop insurance for an agricultural commodity becomes available to the person for the first time. This exemption provides up to 2 reinsurance years to mitigate such conversions. This rule specifies that USDA will consider Federal crop insurance to be “available” to the person if in any county in which the person had any interest in any acreage there is an FCIC-approved policy or plan of insurance available on the county actuarial documents that provide insurance for the crop, or the person obtained a written agreement to insure the crop in any county.

A person that is subject to wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 2 reinsurance years after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

Persons not subject to the wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 1 reinsurance year after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

Persons determined ineligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC for a reinsurance year will be ineligible for a premium subsidy on all their policies and plans of insurance, unless the specific exemptions apply.

The 2014 Farm Bill included tenant relief provisions applicable to the wetland conservation provisions, but only for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill amendments made the HEL tenant relief provisions applicable to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In both cases, the tenant relief provisions provide that the Secretary may limit ineligibility only to the farm that is the basis for the ineligibility. Federal crop insurance policies under FCIA are constructed on the basis of persons, counties, and units, which may include multiple farms. Although the 2014 Farm Bill used the word “farm,” FCIC does not allow for differing terms of insurance on a “farm” basis, and therefore, does not provide premium subsides on such basis. Therefore, with regard to Federal crop insurance premium subsidy, application of the tenant relief provisions will be achieved through a prorated reduction of premium subsidy on all of a person's policies and plans of insurance. Specifically, a tenant's or sharecropper's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be reduced, in lieu of ineligibility for all premium subsidy, when the tenant or sharecropper made a good faith effort to comply with the conservation compliance provisions, the owner of the farm refuses to allow the tenant or sharecropper to comply with the provisions, FSA determines there is no scheme or device, and the tenant or sharecropper complies with the provisions that are under their control. The reduction in premium subsidy will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurs to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in the nation in which the tenant or sharecropper has an interest. The farms and cropland acres used to determine the reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. A landlord's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be prorated in the same manner when the landlord is determined in violation because of the actions or inactions of their tenant or sharecropper.

Persons who were subject to HEL conservation requirements in the past because they participated in USDA programs, stopped participating in those programs before February 7, 2014, but would have been in violation of the HEL requirements had they continued participation in such programs after February 7, 2014, have 2 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. The 2 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.

For some wetland conversions that impact less than 5 acres on the entire farm, a person may regain eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy by making a payment equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigation of the converted wetland in lieu of restoring or mitigating the lost wetland functions and values. The applicability of this exemption is at the discretion and approval of NRCS and the funds will be deposited in an account to be used later for wetland restoration. This exception is in lieu of the mitigation actions that a person would otherwise be required to conduct to restore the lost wetland functions and values of the converted wetland. While it provides flexibility to a person for how to remedy a small acreage violation, the text of the exception indicates that the intention of the 2014 Farm Bill is to limit the scope of its availability, specifying that it applies to any violation that “impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm.” To ensure that this exception can be appropriately tracked and limit the potential for its abuse, the regulation specifies that a person is limited to only one exemption per farm. This is a discretionary change USDA is making to ensure the integrity of the intention that it impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm and not just 5 acres per occurrence, which could add up to impacting much more than the intended 5 acres. Additionally, USDA clarifies in the regulation that the payment to the fund is not refundable, even if the person subsequently restores the wetland that had been converted. This exemption applies only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

For wetland conservation violations, if the person acted in good faith and without intent to commit the violation, FSA may waive the ineligibility provisions for 2 reinsurance years to allow the person to remedy or mitigate the converted wetland.

What Federal Crop Insurance Participants Must Do To Remain Eligible for Premium Subsidies

As required by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, all persons seeking eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must have on file a certification of compliance (AD-1026) at the local FSA office.

For the 2016 and every subsequent reinsurance year, the deadline to file a Form AD-1026 is June 1 prior to the reinsurance year. Outreach and informational materials for the 2016 reinsurance year will include information on how to contact the local FSA office. Persons must have a Form AD-1026 on file with FSA on or before the June 1 prior to the beginning of a given reinsurance year (which begins on July 1). A person will have until the first applicable crop insurance sales closing date to provide the information for a Form AD-1026 if the person either is unable to file a Form AD-1026 by June 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control, or the person in good faith filed a Form AD-1026 and FSA subsequently determined that additional information is needed but the person is unable to comply by July 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control. A new AD-1026 only needs to be filed if a change in the farming operation has occurred that results in the previously filed AD-1026 being incorrect, or there has been a violation of the HEL or wetland conservation provisions negating the previously filed AD-1026.

On Form AD-1026, persons self-certify compliance with HEL and wetland conservation requirements. If the person indicates on the form that they have conducted an activity that might lead to a violation, such as creating new drainage systems, land leveling, filling, dredging, land clearing, excavation, or stump removal since 1985 on their land, they will be asked for additional information that will be forwarded to NRCS for evaluation. If NRCS fails to complete an evaluation of the person's Form AD-1026, or successor form in a timely manner after all documentation has been provided to NRCS, the person will not be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance for a violation that occurred prior to NRCS completing the evaluation.

Failure to timely file a Form AD-1026 will result in ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the entire reinsurance year, unless the person can demonstrate they began farming for the first time after June 1 but prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year. For example, a person who started farming for the first time on June 15, 2015, will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the 2016 reinsurance year without a Form AD-1026 on file with FSA. However, in that case, the person must file Form AD-1026 with FSA on or before June 1, 2016 to be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2017 reinsurance year.

Failure to notify USDA and revise the Form AD-1026 when required may result in assessment of a monetary penalty, as determined by NRCS, but the penalty will never exceed the total amount of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy paid by FCIC for the person on all policies and plans of insurance for all years the person is determined to have been in violation. The monetary penalty is assessed for wetland conservation compliance only.

USDA Service Centers will provide additional information and assistance to persons in meeting compliance requirements. USDA will determine a person's eligibility for premium subsidy paid by FCIC at a time that is as close to the beginning of the next reinsurance year (July 1) as practical. The determination will be based on FSA and NRCS determinations regarding conservation compliance. For example, a person who has a determination of ineligibility that is final on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any premium subsidy for any policies or plans of insurance during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the person becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the person will not be eligible for premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year, starting on July 1, 2016.

For acts or situations of non-compliance or failure to certify compliance according to this part, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year for any Federally reinsured policy or plan of insurance with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.

Changes to Mitigation Bank Program Required by the 2014 Farm Bill

The rule also implements section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which amends provisions related to wetland mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is a form of environmental market trading where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored to create marketable wetland credits (acres and functions). The 1985 Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, and some State wetland laws specify that negative impacts to existing wetlands can be mitigated by providing restored, enhanced, or created wetlands as compensation for the losses. The replacement of impacted wetlands with new wetlands is called wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetland mitigation where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored prior to impacts and the wetlands are sold to those required to compensate for the impacts. These credits are sold to others as compensation for unavoidable wetland impacts. For more information on the existing wetlands mitigation banking program, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/water/wetlands/wmb/.

As specified in the current regulations, persons may maintain their payment eligibility for most USDA benefits if the wetland values, acreage, and functions of any wetland conversion activity are adequately mitigated, as determined by NRCS, through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland. However, agricultural mitigation options are limited, and, to date, mitigation banks are not abundant nor are they readily accessible. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides $10 million of the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation funds to operate a mitigation banking program and allows USDA to have third parties hold the wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself.

NRCS is modifying the mitigation bank provisions in this rule to clarify who may hold title to wetland mitigation easements under the wetland conservation provisions. The existing regulations require that the person grant an easement to USDA to protect the wetland that is providing the mitigation of wetland functions and benefits. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill specifies that USDA is no longer required to hold the easements in a mitigation bank. Therefore, this rule amends 7 CFR 12.5 to authorize other qualifying entities, which are recognized by USDA, to hold mitigation banking easements granted by a person who wishes to maintain payment eligibility under the wetland conservation provision, and remove the requirement that an easement be granted to USDA for mitigation sites when part of a mitigation banking program that is operated by USDA.

To encourage the development of mitigation banks, USDA will implement a prioritized and competitive mitigation banking program through an Announcement of Program Funding that focuses on agricultural wetlands. Application selection criteria will emphasize areas with the greatest opportunities for using wetland banking mitigation for agricultural purposes.

General Provisions and Technical Clarifications

This rule updates the general applicability section by removing unneeded references. Regulation changes in this rule do not affect past obligations and liabilities. Reference to certain former territories of the United States are removed because they were covered by 1985 Farm Bill provisions as trust territories only and no longer have that status.

This rule also makes a minor revision to the ineligibility determination for wetland conservation violations to make the regulation consistent with the statutory requirement; the change is to clarify the limited circumstances for which partial ineligibility may apply instead of complete ineligibility. Section 1221(b) of the 1985 Farm Bill (16 U.S.C. 3821) allows the Secretary to determine whether all or a part of a person's benefits will be lost because of violations for producing an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland. There are two types of wetland conservation violations in 16 U.S.C. 3821 that may result in ineligibility for some or all of a person's benefits; those violations are production on converted wetland (16 U.S.C. 3821(a)) and wetland conversion (16 U.S.C. 3821(d)) for the purpose of agricultural production. The consequences for the two types of wetland conservation violations are not the same. For production on converted wetland, 16 U.S.C. 3821(a)(2) specifies that the person's ineligibility is to be in an amount determined by the Secretary to be proportionate to the severity of the violation and 16 U.S.C. 3821(b) further specifies that if a person is determined to have produced an agricultural commodity on converted wetland, the Secretary determines which of, and the amount of, benefits for which the person will be ineligible due to that violation. For a wetland conversion violation, 16 U.S.C. 3821(d) provides that if a person converts a wetland making the production of an agricultural commodity possible on such converted wetland, the person will be ineligible for benefits for that crop year and all subsequent crop years. There is no authority under 16 U.S.C. 3821 for the Secretary to make a determination of only partial ineligibility for a wetland conversion violation, or allow a reduction in benefits proportionate to the severity of the violation or a limited reduction to certain benefits or amounts instead of complete ineligibility. Unless an exemption applies, a wetland conversion violation results in ineligibility for all benefits for the year of violation and all subsequent years. In the past, the text in § 12.4(c) has been used by persons who have been determined to have converted a wetland to argue that the Secretary has discretion to partially reduce ineligibility for a wetland conversion in the same manner allowed by 16 U.S.C. 3821 for a violation of production on converted wetland. There is no such discretion authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3821 for a wetland conversion; therefore, the reference to a potential reduction in ineligibility for wetland conversion is being removed by this rule. The specific change is to remove the reference to paragraph (a)(3) for the potential ineligibility reduction.

A section with obsolete information on information collection requirements is removed.

Notice and Comment

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires that the programs of Title II be implemented by interim rules effective on publication with an opportunity for notice and comment.

Comments Requested

The primary purpose of this rule is to revise USDA conservation compliance regulations to incorporate the 2014 Farm Bill provisions that make persons receiving Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance requirements. As noted above, FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, that amended Federal crop insurance regulations to implement this provision from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule is making conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.

The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and included in this rule, extend the existing conservation compliance requirements to apply to FCIC premium subsidy recipients. Section 2611 does not include any changes to the existing requirements for conservation compliance (often referred to as “Sodbuster” and “Swampbuster”) specified in the 1985 Farm Bill and in 16 U.S.C. 3801-3824, the definition of HEL, the Wetland Conservation Program, or other conservation programs. However, in the context of making the regulatory changes required by section 2611, we are requesting comments on specific changes USDA could consider making.

For example, all persons who produce agricultural commodities are required to protect all cropland classified as HEL from excessive erosion as a condition of eligibility for USDA programs. On lands which have a cropping history prior to December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in a “substantial reduction” in soil erosion. On lands converted to crop production after December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in “no substantial increase” in soil erosion. USDA has a goal of working with farmers to help them stay in compliance or bring them into compliance through progressive planning and implementation. We welcome comments on what additional steps USDA could take to achieve these goals. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. While conservation systems provide a substantial reduction in soil erosion, are there additional conservation activities that USDA could consider to ensure that agricultural production and soil erosion reduction goals from HEL soils are met?

As another example, since December 23, 1985, the “Swampbuster” provision helps preserve the environmental functions and values of wetlands, including flood control, sediment control, groundwater recharge, water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and esthetics. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. Are there additional steps USDA should consider to ensure these benefits for wetlands are retained?

In your comments, please suggest specific alternatives and provide data, if available, for the suggestion as it relates to the goals of conservation compliance. Specifically, USDA requests comments on the following questions:

• What information could USDA collect to simplify the conservation compliance process, expedite determinations, and allow the USDA to identify more complex determination requests to evaluate first?

• What information could USDA reasonably collect that would provide more information on derived conservation benefits from conservation compliance activities? What would be the burden of collecting that information?

• With the addition of new persons being subject to conservation compliance requirements, how should USDA prioritize the evaluation of the submitted Form AD-1026 information?

USDA is also requesting comments on conservation compliance for the retrospective review of regulations initiative. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” USDA continues to review its existing regulations as well as its methods for gathering information. This evaluation helps USDA to measure its effectiveness in implementing its regulations. The review will continue to focus on:

• Identifying whether information technology can be used to replace paper submissions with electronic submissions;

• Streamlining or redesigning existing information collecting methods in order to reduce any burdens on the public for participating in and complying with USDA programs;

• Reducing duplication through increased data sharing and harmonizing programs that have similar regulatory requirements; and

• Providing increased regulatory flexibility to achieve desired program outcomes and save money.

Please provide information on these issues in your comment as specified in the ADDRESSES section. Specific comments addressing the issues raised above are most helpful; all comments are welcome. Proposals for alternatives should address data sources, costs, and the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill that support the alternative. The following suggestions may be helpful for preparing your comments:

• Explain your views as clearly as possible.

• Describe any assumptions that you used.

• Provide any technical information and data on which you based your views.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your points.

• Offer specific alternatives to the current regulations or policies and indicate the source of necessary data, the estimated cost of obtaining the data, and how the data can be verified.

• Submit your comments to be received by FSA by the comment period deadline.

Effective Date

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule is required to be published in the Federal Register, and the required publication of a substantive rule is to be not less than 30 days before its effective date. However, Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that this interim rule be effective on publication.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and, therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. A summary of the cost-benefit analysis of this rule is provided below and the full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

Cost Benefit Analysis Summary

Estimated costs to persons and the government through 2020 are expected to be between $55 million and $86.5 million for the conservation compliance requirements and $10 million for the wetlands mitigation banking that reflects new authority to operate or work with third parties to operate a wetland mitigation banking program. These are the total costs, not annual costs. While the $10 million may increase wetland mitigation bank activity, the negligible amount in the agricultural context to date makes it impossible to estimate the impact this will have on conservation compliance costs.

Implementing the 2014 Farm Bill provisions for conservation compliance is expected to result in benefits of extending HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat.

For the conservation compliance requirements, given that most persons who have Federal crop insurance are already subject to conservation compliance due to participation in other USDA programs, the benefits as a whole are expected to extend HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands and could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat. Ecological benefits could be measurable on individual properties if those properties were not previously subject to conservation compliance and were not in compliance, which is not expected to be common. We estimate that between 16,000 and 25,000 persons or entities will be impacted by the expanded requirements, and that slightly less than a third of those producers will need a conservation plan.

The conservation compliance provisions have been in place since 1985, and the interim rule will not impose any new compliance costs on persons that were already in compliance. There will be increased training and staffing costs associated with ensuring that NRCS staff conduct HEL and wetland determinations correctly for persons who receive subsidy premiums for Federal crop insurance. Government costs for making wetlands and HEL determinations, developing conservation plans for producers, providing technical assistance, and providing financial assistance with implementation costs for conservation practices, are expected to total between $19.7 million and $30.9 million between 2015 and 2020. Producers' costs for implementing conservation practices to achieve compliance are estimated at between $35.3 million and $55.5 million between 2015 and 2020, for a one-time overall cost to the government and to producers combined of $55 million to $86.5 million.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All conservation compliance eligibility requirements are the same for all persons regardless of the size of their farming operation. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the Secretary of Agriculture and FSA are not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The 2014 Farm Bill mandates the expansion of current conservation compliance requirements to apply to persons who obtain subsidized Federal crop insurance under FCIA and it slightly modifies the existing wetlands “Mitigation Banking” program to remove the requirement that USDA hold easements in the mitigation program. These are mandatory provisions and USDA does not have discretion over whether or not they are implemented. We have determined that the limited discretion in the way in which the mandatory provisions can be implemented are administrative clarifications of aspects that were not defined in the mandatory provisions; therefore, they are not subject to review under NEPA. As such, USDA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action.

Executive Order 12372

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the Federal Register on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29115).

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule has retroactive effect in that the provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014, (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by USDA program participants. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 614, and 780 must be exhausted.

Executive Order 13132

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA, NRCS, or RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Federal Assistance Programs

This rule has a potential impact on participants for many programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the Agency Program Index under the Department of Agriculture.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that regulations issued under Title II—Conservation are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

E-Government Act Compliance

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 12

Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Crop insurance, Flood plains, Loan programs—agriculture, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soil conservation.

For the reasons explained above, USDA amends 7 CFR part 12 as follows:

PART 12—HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION AND WETLAND CONSERVATION 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 12 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 3801, 3811-12, 3812a, 3813-3814, and 3821-3824.

2. Revise the heading for part 12 to read as set forth above. 3. In § 12.2(a) add definitions, in alphabetical order, for “Approved insurance provider,” “FCIC,” “Reinsurance year,” and “RMA” to read as follows:
§ 12.2 Definitions.

(a) * * *

Approved insurance provider means a private insurance company that has been approved and reinsured by FCIC to provide insurance coverage to persons participating in programs authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524).

FCIC means the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned corporation within USDA whose programs are administered by RMA.

Reinsurance year means a 1-year period beginning July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following year, identified by reference to the year containing June.

RMA means the Risk Management Agency, an agency within USDA that administers the programs of the FCIC through which Federally reinsured crop insurance is provided to American farmers and ranchers.

4. Revise § 12.3 to read as follows:
§ 12.3 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this part apply to all land, including Indian tribal land, in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(b) The rules in this part are applicable to all current and future determinations on matters within the scope of this part. Nothing in these rules relieves any person of any liability under previous versions of these rules.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, for the purpose of eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524), the provisions of this part apply to final HEL and wetland conservation determinations, including all administrative appeals, after February 7, 2014, on matters within the scope of this part.

(1) For acts or situations of non-compliance or failure to certify compliance according to this part, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year for any Federally reinsured policy or plan of insurance with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.

(2) [Reserved]

5. Amend § 12.4 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, remove the cross reference “in § 12.5” and add the cross reference “in §§ 12.5 or 12.13” in its place; b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the words “on wetland” and add the words “on a wetland” in their place; c. In paragraph (c): i. At the beginning of the first and second sentences, remove the words “A person” and add the words “Except as provided in § 12.13, a person” in their place; ii. In the first and second sentences, remove the words “shall be” and replace them with the word “is”; iii. In the third sentence, remove the cross reference “or (a)(3)”; and iv. In the fourth sentence, remove the words “shall be considered to” and replace it with the word “will be considered in”; d. Revise paragraph (d)(1); e. In paragraph (d)(5), remove the period at its end and add the word and punctuation “and;” in its place; f. Add paragraph (d)(6); and g. Remove paragraph (f) and redesignate paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 12.4 Determination of ineligibility.

(d) * * *

(1) Contract payments, marketing assistance loans, and any type of price support or payment made available under the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c), or successor Acts.

(6) Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance offered under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524).

§ 12.5 [Amended]
6. Amend § 12.5 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(4)(i)(C), remove the word “pilot”; and b. In paragraph (b)(4)(i)(E), add the words and punctuation “or in the case of a mitigation bank operated under a USDA program, an entity approved by USDA,” immediately after the word “USDA”.
7. Amend § 12.6 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a); b. In paragraph (b)(3)(x), add the words “plan or” immediately before the word “system”; c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the words “Deputy Chief for Natural Resources Conservation Programs” and add the words “Associate Chief for Conservation” in their place; d. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B), remove the word “By”; and e. Add paragraphs (c)(10), (f), and (g).

The revision and additions read as follows:

§ 12.6 Administration.

(a) General. In general determinations will be made as follows:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a determination of ineligibility for benefits in accordance with the provisions of this part will be made by the agency of USDA to which the person has applied for benefits. All determinations required to be made under the provisions of this part will be made by the agency responsible for making such determinations, as provided in this section.

(2) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be based on final determinations, including all administrative appeals, made by NRCS and FSA. Neither RMA, FCIC, approved insurance providers, or any employee, agent, or contractors thereof, will make any determination regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions of this part, unless specifically provided for in § 12.13.

(c) * * *

(10) NRCS will operate a program or work with third parties to establish mitigation banks to assist persons in complying with §§ 12.4(c) and 12.5(b)(4). Persons will be able to access mitigation banks established or approved through this program without requiring the Secretary to hold an easement in a mitigation bank.

(f) Administration by RMA. The provisions of this part that are applicable to RMA will be administered under the general supervision of the Administrator, RMA.

(1) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be based on the person's:

(i) Accurate and timely filing of a certification of compliance (Form AD-1026 or successor form) with the conservation compliance provisions; and

(ii) Compliance with the conservation compliance provisions.

(2) Ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies due to violations of the conservation compliance provisions will be based on final determinations, including all administrative appeals, made by NRCS and FSA as provided in this part.

(3) Neither RMA nor FCIC will make any determination of eligibility regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions in this part, unless specifically provided for in § 12.13.

(4) RMA will provide the applicable information regarding determinations made by NRCS and FSA to the appropriate approved insurance providers to ensure those determinations affecting Federal crop insurance premium subsidy eligibility are implemented according to this part.

(g) Approved insurance providers. No approved insurance provider or any employee, agent, or contractor of an approved insurance provider will:

(1) Make any determination of eligibility regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions of this part; or

(2) Be responsible or liable for a person's eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy under this part, except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or scheme and device by the approved insurance provider or any employee, agent, or contractor thereof.

8. Amend § 12.7 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the cross reference “under § 12.5” and add the cross reference “under §§ 12.5 or 12.13” in its place; and b. Add paragraph (d).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 12.7 Certification of compliance.

(d) Timely filing. In order for a person to be determined eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524), the person must have Form AD-1026 or successor form on file with FSA, as specified in § 12.13.

9. Amend § 12.9 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(1); b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph (b)(3); c. Add paragraph (b)(2); d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3), remove the word “renter” both times it appears, and add the word “sharecropper” in its place.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 12.9 Landlords and tenants.

(a) Landlord eligibility. Landlord eligibility will include the following:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper for:

(i) Program benefits (as specified in § 12.4) except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section will not cause a landlord to be ineligible for USDA program benefits accruing with respect to land other than those in which the tenant or sharecropper has an interest; and

(ii) Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) will, in lieu of ineligibility for premium subsidy, result in a reduction in the amount of premium subsidy paid by FCIC on all policies and plans of insurance for the landlord.

(A) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which landlord has an interest, as determined by FSA.

(B) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the landlord for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(C) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the landlord in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(D) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.

(2) If the production of an agricultural commodity on highly erodible land or converted wetland by the landlord's tenant or sharecropper is required under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and such tenant or sharecropper and such agreement was entered into after December 23, 1985, or if the landlord has acquiesced in such activities by the tenant or sharecropper:

(i) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section will not be applicable to a landlord; and

(ii) A landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(b) Tenant or sharecropper eligibility. Tenant or sharecropper eligibility will include the following:

(1) If all of the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met:

(i) The ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper, except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, may be limited to the program benefits listed in § 12.4(b) accruing with respect to only the farm on which the violation occurred; and

(ii) In lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for all policies or plans of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524), the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance of the ineligible tenant or sharecropper will be reduced.

(A) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which tenant or sharecropper has an interest, as determined by FSA.

(B) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(C) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(D) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the tenant or sharecropper will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.

(2) The provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section will not apply unless all the following are met:

(i) The tenant or sharecropper shows that a good-faith effort was made to comply by developing an approved conservation plan for the highly erodible land in a timely manner and prior to any violation of the provisions of this part;

(ii) The owner of such farm refuses to apply such a plan and prevents the tenant or sharecropper from implementing certain practices that are a part of the approved conservation plan; and

(iii) FSA determines that the lack of compliance is not a part of a scheme or device as described in § 12.10.

10. Add § 12.13 to read as follows:
§ 12.13 Special Federal crop insurance premium subsidy provisions.

(a) General. The provisions and exemptions in this section are only applicable to Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524). The exemptions in this section are in addition to any that apply under § 12.5. Any conflict between this section and another will be resolved by applying this section, but only for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. Any exemptions or relief under this section apply to Federal crop insurance premium subsidies and do not apply to other benefits even for the same person for the same crop year or reinsurance year. Unless otherwise specified in this section, the provisions in this section apply to both highly erodible land and wetlands.

(b) Ineligibility for failing to certify compliance. Subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, failing to certify compliance as specified in § 12.7 will result in ineligibility as follows:

(1) A Form AD-1026, or successor form, for the person must be on file with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1) in order for the person to be eligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the reinsurance year. Failure to file Form AD-1026, or successor form, with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1) will result in ineligibility for premium subsidies for the entirety of that reinsurance year.

(2) A person will have until the first applicable crop insurance sales closing date to provide information necessary for the person's filing of a Form AD-1026 if the person:

(i) Is unable to file a Form AD-1026 by June 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control, as determined by FSA; or

(ii) Files a Form AD-1026 by June 1 in good faith and FSA subsequently determines that additional information is needed, but the person is unable to comply by July 1 due to circumstances beyond the control of the person.

(3) A person who does not have Form AD-1026, or successor form, on file with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year may be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for the subsequent reinsurance year if the person can demonstrate they began farming for the first time after June 1 but prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1). For example, a person who started farming for the first time on June 15, 2015, will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the 2016 reinsurance year without a Form AD-1026 on file with FSA. However, in that case, the person must file Form AD-1026 with FSA on or before June 1, 2016 to be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2017 reinsurance year.

(c) Ineligibility for violations. If a person is ineligible due to a violation of the provisions of this part, the timing and results will be as follows:

(1) Unless an exemption in this section or § 12.5 applies, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) due to a violation of the provisions of this part will:

(i) Not apply to the reinsurance year in which the violation occurred or any reinsurance year prior to the date of the final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals of the determination, as determined by NRCS or FSA as applicable; and

(ii) Only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the date of a final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals of the determination, as determined by NRCS or FSA as applicable. A person who is in violation of the provisions of this part, as determined by FSA or NRCS, in a reinsurance year, will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidy beginning with the subsequent reinsurance year. For example, a person who is determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part and has exhausted all administrative appeals on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for any policy or plan of insurance during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the person becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the person will not be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year starting on July 1, 2016.

(2) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) due to a violation of the provisions of this part will be based on FSA and NRCS final determinations, including all administrative appeals, regarding compliance with the provisions of this part.

(3) The amount of premium subsidy for an insured person will be reduced when any person with a substantial beneficial interest in the insured person is ineligible for premium subsidy under this part. The amount of reduction will be commensurate with the ineligible person's substantial beneficial interest in the insured person. The ineligible person's substantial beneficial interest in the insured person will be determined according to the policy provisions of the insured person.

(4) Administrative appeals include appeals made in accordance with § 12.12 and part 11 of this title, but do not include any judicial review or appeal, or any other legal action.

(d) Exemption to develop and comply with an approved HEL conservation plan. The following exemptions provide a delay in the requirement to develop and comply with an NRCS approved HEL conservation plan for certain persons.

(1) Persons subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land, specifically those related to section 1211(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, for the first time solely due to amendments to that section by section 2611(a) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)), will have 5 reinsurance years after the date the person is determined to have HEL and has exhausted all administrative appeals, if applicable, to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before being ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. The additional time to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS applies only to persons who have not previously been subject to the highly erodible land conservation provisions of this part. The additional time provided in this paragraph does not apply to any person who had any interest in any land or crop, including an affiliated person, that was subject to the provisions of this part before February 7, 2014. The 5 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS starts:

(i) For persons who have no land with an NRCS HEL determination, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date NRCS makes a HEL determination and the person exhausts all their administrative appeals; or

(ii) For persons who have any land for which an NRCS HEL determination has been made and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.

(2) Persons who meet all the following criteria will have 2 reinsurance years from the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before being ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies:

(i) Were subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land, specifically those related to section 1211(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)), as amended, any time before February 7, 2014;

(ii) Before February 7, 2014, stopped participating in all USDA programs subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land;

(iii) Would have been in violation of the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land had they continued to participate in those programs after February 7, 2014; and

(iv) Are currently in violation of the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land.

(e) Exemption for prior wetland conversions completed prior to February 7, 2014. No person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) for:

(1) Converting a wetland if the wetland conversion was completed, as determined by NRCS, before February 7, 2014; or

(2) Planting or producing an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland if the wetland conversion was completed, as determined by NRCS, before February 7, 2014.

(f) Exemption for wetland conversion that impacts less than 5 acres. The following exemption is for wetland conversion that impacts less than 5 acres of an entire farm:

(1) In lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) due to a wetland conversion violation or concurrent with a planned wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, a person may, if approved by NRCS, pay a contribution to NRCS in an amount equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigating the converted wetland, as determined by NRCS.

(2) A person is limited to only one exemption, as determined by NRCS, described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section per farm.

(3) NRCS will not refund this payment even if the person later conducts actions which will mitigate the earlier conversion.

(g) Exemption for wetland conversion when a policy or plan of insurance is available to a person for the first time. The following exemption is for wetland conversion when a policy or plan of insurance is available to the person for the first time.

(1) When a policy or plan of insurance that provides coverage for an agricultural commodity is available to the person, including as a person who is a substantial beneficial interest holder, for the first time after February 7, 2014, as determined by RMA, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for such policy or plan of insurance due to a wetland conversion violation will only apply to wetland conversions that are completed, as determined by NRCS, after the date the policy or plan of insurance first becomes available to the person.

(2) The exemption described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section:

(i) Applies only to the policy or plan of insurance that becomes available to the person for the first time after February 7, 2014, as determined by RMA;

(ii) Does not exempt or otherwise negate the person's ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies on any other policy or plan of insurance; and

(iii) Applies only if the person takes steps necessary, as determined by NRCS, to mitigate all wetlands converted after February 7, 2014, in a timely manner, as determined by NRCS, but not to exceed 2 reinsurance years.

(3) For the purposes of the paragraph (g)(1) of this section:

(i) A policy or plan of insurance is considered to have been available to the person after February 7, 2014, if, after February 7, 2014, in any county in which the person had any interest in any acreage, including as a person who is a substantial beneficial interest holder:

(A) There was a policy or plan of insurance available on the county actuarial documents that provided coverage for the agricultural commodity; or

(B) The person obtained a written agreement to insure the agricultural commodity in any county; and

(ii) Changing, adding, or removing options, endorsements, or coverage to an existing policy or plan of insurance will not be considered as a policy or plan of insurance being available for the first time to a person.

(h) Wetland conversion mitigation exemption. Unless another exemption applies, the following exemption provides additional time to mitigate wetland conversions.

(1) A person determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part due to a wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, will have 1 reinsurance year after the final determination of violation, including all administrative appeals, as determined by NRCS, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy the violation, as determined by NRCS, before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524.). For example, if in May 2017, after NRCS has determined that a person is in violation for converting a wetland and the person has exhausted all administrative appeals, the person will have until June 30, 2018, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy the violation before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies starting with the 2019 reinsurance year.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of this section, if a person determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part due to a wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, as determined by NRCS, and is subject to the provisions of this part for the first time solely due to section 2611(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014, such person will have 2 reinsurance years after the final determination of violation, including all administrative appeals, as determined by NRCS, to be implementing all practices in a mitigation plan to remedy the violation, as determined by NRCS, before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524).

(3) Administrative appeals include appeals made in accordance with § 12.12 and part 11 of this title, but do not include any judicial review or appeal, or any other legal action.

(i) Good faith exemption. The following is a good faith exemption for wetland conservation:

(1) A person determined by FSA or NRCS to be in violation, including all administrative appeals, of the provisions of this part due to converting a wetland after February 7, 2014, or producing an agricultural commodity on a wetland that was converted after February 7, 2014, may regain eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) if all of the following criteria are met:

(i) FSA determines that such person acted in good faith and without the intent to violate the wetland conservation provisions of this part;

(ii) NRCS determines that the person is implementing all practices in a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation within an agreed-to period, not to exceed 2 reinsurance years; and

(iii) The good faith determination of the FSA county or State committee has been reviewed and approved by the applicable State Executive Director, with the technical concurrence of the State Conservationist; or District Director, with the technical concurrence of the area conservationist.

(2) In determining whether a person acted in good faith under paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section, FSA will consider such factors as whether:

(i) The characteristics of the site were such that the person should have been aware that a wetland existed on the subject land;

(ii) NRCS had informed the person about the existence of a wetland on the subject land;

(iii) The person has a record of violating the wetland provisions of this part or other Federal, State, or local wetland provisions; or

(iv) There exists other information that demonstrates the person acted with the intent to violate the wetland conservation provisions of this part.

(3) After the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section are met, FSA may waive applying the ineligibility provisions of this section to allow the person to implement the mitigation plan approved by NRCS. The waiver will apply for up to two reinsurance years.

(j) Landlord and Tenant wetland violations relief. The following provides landlord and tenant relief for wetland violations:

(1) Except as provided in (j)(2) of this section, the ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) will, in lieu of ineligibility for premium subsidy, result in a reduction in the amount of premium subsidy paid by FCIC on all policies and plans of insurance for the landlord.

(i) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which landlord has an interest, as determined by FSA.

(ii) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the landlord for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(iii) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the landlord in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(iv) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.

(2) A landlord will be ineligible for the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible if the production of an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland by the landlord's tenant or sharecropper is required under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and such tenant or sharecropper and such agreement was entered into after February 7, 2014, or if the landlord has acquiesced in such activities by the tenant or sharecropper.

(3) If all the requirements in paragraph (j)(4) of this section are met, in lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for all policies or plans of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) for producing or planting an agricultural commodity on a wetland converted after February 7, 2014, the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance of the ineligible tenant or sharecropper will be reduced.

(i) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which tenant or sharecropper has an interest, as determined by FSA.

(ii) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(iii) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.

(iv) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the tenant or sharecropper will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of this section will not apply unless all the following are met:

(i) The tenant or sharecropper shows that a good-faith effort was made to comply by developing a plan, approved by NRCS, for the restoration or mitigation of the converted wetland in a timely manner and prior to any violation;

(ii) The owner of such farm refuses to apply such a plan and prevents the tenant or sharecropper from implementing the approved plan;

(iii) FSA determines the lack of compliance is not a part of a scheme or device as described in § 12.10; and

(iv) The tenant or sharecropper actively applies the practices and measures of the approved plan that are within their control.

(k) Evaluation of certification. NRCS will evaluate the certification in a timely manner.

(1) A person who properly completes, signs, and files Form AD-1026, or successor form, with FSA certifying compliance with the provisions of this part will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) during the period of time such certification is being evaluated by NRCS, if an evaluation is required.

(2) A person will not be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524) if:

(i) NRCS fails to complete a required evaluation of the person's Form AD-1026, or successor form in a timely manner after all documentation has been provided to NRCS; and

(ii) The person is subsequently determined to have been in violation of the provisions of this part during the time NRCS was completing the evaluation.

(3) The relief from ineligibility provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section:

(i) Applies only to violations that occurred prior to or during the time NRCS is completing the required evaluation;

(ii) Does not apply to any violations that occur subsequent to NRCS completing the evaluation;

(iii) Does not apply if FSA or NRCS determines the person employed, adopted, or participated in employing or adopting a scheme or device, as provided in § 12.10, to evade the provisions of this part or to become eligible for the relief provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section; and

(iv) Does not apply if the required evaluation is delayed due to unfavorable site conditions for the evaluation of soils, hydrology, or vegetation.

(l) Failing to notify FSA of a change. Requirements to pay equitable contribution for failing to notify FSA of a change are as follows.

(1) A person who fails to notify FSA of any change that could alter their status as compliant with the provisions of this part and is subsequently determined, by FSA or NRCS, to have committed a violation of the wetland conservation provisions of this part after February 7, 2014, will be required to pay to NRCS an equitable contribution.

(2) The amount of equitable contribution will be determined by NRCS, but will not exceed the total amount of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy paid by FCIC on behalf of the person for all policies and plans of insurance for all years in which the person is determined to have been in violation.

(3) A person who fails to pay the full equitable contribution amount by the due date determined by NRCS will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy on any policy or plan of insurance beginning with the subsequent reinsurance year. The person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for the entire reinsurance year even if full payment of the equitable contribution amount is received by NRCS during the reinsurance year.

§ 12.31 [Amended]
11. Amend § 12.31(b)(1), as follows: a. Remove the words “in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands” and add the words “in the National Wetland Plant List, or (as determined by NRCS) successor publication” in their place; and b. Remove the words “may be obtained upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at National Wetland Inventory, Monroe Bldg. Suite 101, 9720 Executive Center Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702” and add the words “may be accessed at: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/” in their place.
§ 12.34 [Removed]
12. Remove § 12.34.
Signed on April 20, 2015. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2015-09599 Filed 4-23-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2012-0014] RIN 0579-AD68 Importation of Papayas From Peru AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of commercial consignments of fresh papayas from Peru into the continental United States. The conditions for the importation of papayas from Peru will include requirements for approved production locations; field sanitation; hot water treatment; procedures for packing and shipping the papayas; and fruit fly trapping in papaya production areas. This action will allow for the importation of papayas from Peru while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States.

DATES:

Effective May 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh papayas (Carica papaya) to be imported from Peru into the continental United States.

On August 9, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 48628-48631, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0014) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of commercial consignments of fresh papayas from Peru into the continental United States. Consistent with the risk management document that accompanied the proposed rule, we proposed to require that the papayas be subjected to a systems approach to pest mitigation. This proposed systems approach included requirements to produce the papayas at places of production registered with the NPPO of Peru, required packing procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests, and required fruit fly trapping, field sanitation, and hot water treatment to remove pests of concern from the pathway. We proposed to allow only commercial consignments of papayas to be imported from Peru and to require that consignments of papayas from Peru be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru stating that the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the proposed requirements.

1 To view the proposed rule and the comment we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0014.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 8, 2013. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The commenter supported the risk mitigation approach in the proposed rule, but suggested that an integrated pest management approach might also be effective at managing the risk associated with Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly.

We based the proposed risk mitigations on those in § 319.56-25, which have allowed the pest-free importation of papaya from certain areas of Brazil, Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador. We are open to alternative approaches of mitigating C. capitata, although we would need a request from the NPPO of Peru to be submitted in accordance with § 319.5 to begin considering such approaches.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This final rule will allow the importation of fresh papaya fruit from Peru into the continental United States. Papaya is a relatively minor crop in the United States that is primarily grown in Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, in Florida. Very small acreages of papaya are found in Texas and California.

Peru is expected to ship up to 36 metric tons of fresh papaya to the United States per year. This amount will be equivalent to less than 0.03 percent of net imports of fresh papaya by the United States in 2012. With U.S. net imports estimated to be at least eight times as large as U.S. fresh papaya production, any market effects of such a relatively negligible change in papaya imports are as likely to impact foreign suppliers as they are U.S. producers. In addition, effects for the majority of U.S. papaya producers, who are located in Hawaii, will be further muted by the prohibition on entry of fresh papaya from Peru into that State. While most, if not all, U.S. papaya farms are small entities, we expect this final rule to have a very minor impact regardless of the size of operation.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows papayas to be imported into the continental United States from Peru. State and local laws and regulations regarding papayas imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0410, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319-FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

§ 319.56-25 [Amended]
2. Section 319.56-25 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (b), by removing the words “or Ecuador” and adding the words “, Ecuador, or Peru” in their place. b. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding the word “Peru,” after the word “Ecuador,”. c. In paragraph (h), by removing the citation “(h)” and adding the citation “(g)” in its place. d. In the OMB citation at the end of the section, by removing the words “0579-0128 and 0579-0358” and adding the words “0579-0128, 0579-0358, and 0579-0410” in their place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09576 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 340 RIN 3064-AE26 Restrictions on Sale of Assets of a Failed Institution by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

With this final rule, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is revising its rule concerning restrictions on the sale of assets of a failed institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act in order to clarify the purpose, scope and applicability of that rule and to make that rule more consistent with the FDIC's rule concerning restrictions on the sale of assets of a covered financial company under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James D. Sigler, Senior Franchise and Asset Marketing Specialist, 571-858-8284; Elizabeth Falloon, Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division, 703-562-6148; Shane Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division, 703-562-2632; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The FDIC promulgated part 340 in 2000 to implement section 11(p) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 U.S.C. 1821(p) (section 11(p)). Under section 11(p), individuals or entities whose acts or omissions have, or may have, contributed to the failure of an insured depository institution (failed institution) cannot buy the assets of that failed institution from the FDIC. The FDIC expanded the purchaser eligibility restriction as permitted by statute when it promulgated part 340 by precluding such individuals or entities from purchasing the assets of any failed institution, not only the particular institution affected by the actions of the respective individuals or entities. As provided in section 11(p), part 340 also prohibits the sale of assets involving FDIC financing to certain persons who have defaulted on obligations of $1 million or more, in aggregate, owed to a failed insured depository institution or the FDIC and who have made fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with any of those obligations. Compliance with part 340 is established through a self-certification process in which a prospective purchaser certifies that it is eligible to purchase an asset from the FDIC and that the FDIC's sale of an asset to such prospective purchaser would not be restricted under section 11(p) or part 340.

In March of 2014, the FDIC promulgated § 380.13 to implement section 210(r) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (12 U.S.C. 5390(r) (section 210(r)). Section 210(r) prohibits certain sales of assets held by the FDIC in the course of liquidating a covered financial company. Because section 210(r) and section 11(p) share substantially similar statutory language, part 340 served as a model for the development of § 380.13. While many aspects of part 340 were included in § 380.13, FDIC staff identified new or different concepts to include in § 380.13 that were not already in part 340. The addition of these concepts into part 340 will improve part 340 and make it more consistent with § 380.13.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On October 21, 2014, the Board of Directors approved a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Restrictions on Sale of Assets by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation” (the proposed rule), which was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2014 with a 60-day comment period that ended on December 23, 2014.1 One comment letter addressing the proposed rule was received by the FDIC expressing general support for the proposed rule. The final rule is substantively the same as the proposed rule.

1 79 FR 63580.

III. The Final Rule

With this final rule, the FDIC is adopting the revisions to part 340 in substantially the same form as they were presented in the proposed rule. Part 340 is revised in a number of ways. Some revisions are significant, substantive changes and others are non-substantive, technical or conforming changes. This supplemental information section describes the substantive changes made by the final rule.

The title of part 340 is revised to clarify that part 340 applies to sales of assets of a failed institution (specifically, a failed insured depository institution). This change is made to help distinguish part 340 from § 380.13, which applies to sales of assets of a covered financial company by the FDIC. While the two rules will preclude sales to certain prospective purchasers in a very similar manner, each pertains to a separate set of asset sales by the FDIC.

The final rule amends § 340.1(b), which sets forth the purpose of part 340, to extend the restrictions on sales of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistency between part 340 and § 380.13. Under § 380.13, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340 are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13. Likewise, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13 are prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340.

The final rule makes three changes to clarify part 340's scope of coverage, set forth in § 340.1(c). First, the final rule clarifies the applicability of part 340 to sales of assets by a subsidiary of a failed institution or by a bridge depository institution. Sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution are not expressly subject to section 11(p). However, if the FDIC has the right to control the terms of a sale of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution, or has the ability to control selection of the purchaser of those assets under an agency agreement or as shareholder, the restrictions set forth in section 11(p) and part 340 should apply. The FDIC has discretionary authority to expand the scope of coverage because section 11(p) sets the minimum requirements for restrictions on sales of assets, and the FDIC may prescribe further restrictions on its own accord. Under the final rule's revision of part 340, the restrictions apply to sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or as shareholder.

Second, the final rule amends § 340.1 to explicitly state that part 340 does not apply to certain types of transactions involving marketable securities and other financial instruments. Under § 340.1(c)(5), a sale of a security or a group or index of securities, a commodity, or any qualified financial contract that, in each case, customarily is traded through a financial intermediary where the seller cannot control selection of the purchaser would not be covered by part 340 if the sale is to be consummated through that customary practice. For example, if the FDIC were to sell publicly-traded stocks or bonds that the failed institution held, it might engage a broker or custodian to conduct or facilitate the sale. The broker or custodian would then tender the securities to the market and accept prevailing market terms offered by another broker, a specialist, a central counterparty or a similar financial intermediary who would then sell the security to another purchaser. In this scenario, it is not possible for the FDIC to control selection of the end purchaser at the time of sale. Therefore, the transaction cannot be a sale covered by section 11(p) because the FDIC would have no way to select the prospective purchaser or determine whether that purchaser would or would not be prohibited from purchasing the asset. Moreover, a prospective purchaser of such assets will not be able to select the FDIC as the seller and therefore could not determine whether section 11(p) and part 340 apply to the transaction. The final rule defines the term “financial intermediary,” as discussed below, for the purposes of part 340. This express limitation on the scope of part 340's coverage will provide greater certainty regarding the applicability of section 11(p) and part 340 to market participants and FDIC staff who conduct asset sales.

Third, the final rule clarifies in § 340.1(c)(6) that part 340 is not applicable to a judicial sale or a trustee's sale of property securing an obligation to the FDIC if the sale is not conducted or controlled by the FDIC. Although the FDIC could have a security interest in property serving as collateral and therefore the authority to initiate a foreclosure action, the selection of the purchaser and terms of the sale are not necessarily within the FDIC's control. Rather, a court or trustee would conduct the sale in accordance with applicable state law and would select the purchaser. In this situation, the sale is not a sale by the FDIC. While the plain language of part 340 does not suggest that such a sale would fall within its scope, the FDIC makes this change for the sake of clarity. This exception does not affect sales if the FDIC is in possession of the collateral property and conducts the sale itself, however. Where the FDIC has control over the manner and terms of the sale, it will require the prospective purchaser's certification that the prospective purchaser is not prohibited under section 11(p) or part 340 from purchasing the asset.

Section 340.2 sets forth definitions for certain terms used in part 340 and several are revised by the final rule. The definition of “associated person” is revised to include limited liability companies of which an individual is a member (or was a member at the time of the occurrence of any event that would result in a restriction on sale as set forth in § 340.4) if the prospective purchaser of assets is an individual and, if the prospective purchaser is a limited liability company, to include the manager of the limited liability company. The definition of “failed institution” is revised to remove reference to entities “owned and controlled” by the failed institution because the revision to § 340.1(c), discussed above, explicitly states that sales of subsidiary assets are covered under part 340 if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or in its role as shareholder. Additionally, references to the Resolution Trust Corporation and RTC are removed in favor of referencing the FDIC's “predecessor” agencies.

The final rule also adds a new term for use in part 340, “financial intermediary,” which is defined to mean any broker, dealer, bank, underwriter, exchange, clearing agency registered with the SEC under section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, transfer agent (as defined in section 3(a)(25) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), central counterparty or any other entity whose role is to facilitate a transaction by, as a riskless intermediary, purchasing a security or qualified financial contract from one counterparty and then selling it to another. This definition is used to identify transactions of marketable financial instruments described in § 340.1(c) that would not be covered by section 11(p) or part 340. Although not separately defined in the final rule, the term “security” is intended to apply broadly and include, without limitation, all instruments which constitute securities under Federal securities laws.

Section 340.4 sets forth the conditions under which a person (whether an individual or entity) is prohibited from acquiring assets of a failed institution from the FDIC. Those conditions are that the person, or its associated person: (1) Participated as an officer or director of a failed institution or of an affiliate of a failed institution, “in a material way in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to the failed institution” (as defined in paragraph (b) of § 340.4); (2) has been removed from a failed institution by order of a primary federal regulatory agency; (3) engaged in a “pattern or practice of defalcation” (as defined in paragraph (c) of § 340.4) with respect to obligations owed to a failed institution; or (4) committed a certain criminal offense against a financial institution and is in default on an obligation owed by that person or its associated person. The final rule adds a fifth restriction: Prohibition from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC. As explained above, the FDIC believes part 340 should also restrict the sale of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistent treatment of prospective purchasers of assets from the FDIC, whether such assets are assets of a covered financial company or of a failed institution.

The final rule amends paragraph (a) of § 340.7, which sets forth the requirement that a prospective purchaser certify that none of the restrictions set forth in part 340 apply to the sale, by adding a sentence stating that the person must also certify that it is not using a straw purchaser or other subterfuge to allow it to purchase an asset of an insured depository institution from the FDIC or benefit from such transaction if such person would otherwise be ineligible to purchase assets from the FDIC under part 340. The FDIC's form certification (the Purchaser Eligibility Certification, FDIC Form 7300/06) already includes a statement under which a prospective purchaser certifies that neither the identity nor form of the prospective purchaser, nor any aspect of the contemplated transaction, has been created or altered to allow an individual or entity who otherwise would be ineligible to purchase assets of a failed institution from the FDIC to benefit from the sale. Explicitly stating this requirement in the regulatory text itself strengthens part 340.

Paragraph (b) of § 340.7, which excepts from the self-certification requirement certain federal agencies or instrumentalities and states or political subdivisions of states, is revised in the final rule to include bridge depository institutions as well. A bridge depository institution is expected to be in compliance with part 340 because such entity is newly chartered and subject to control or oversight by the FDIC.

Finally, the final rule revises § 340.8, which provides that part 340 does not apply if the sale resolves or settles a person's obligation to the FDIC, to also except a sale that resolves a claim that the FDIC has asserted against a person. This is not intended to be a substantive change but to more closely track section 11(p), which excepts sales that resolve or settle claims as well as obligations. This change ensures that the regulation cites both bases for exception set forth in the statute. It also ensures consistency with the equivalent provision in paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of § 380.13.

The final rule's changes to part 340 ensure consistency among part 340 and § 380.13. This will facilitate efficient administration of the two rules and will help the public better understand how and when each applies. One comment submitted in response to the proposed rule noted that the revisions to part 340 will help to clarify the purpose, scope and applicability, and will make part 340 more consistent with the parallel provision in the FDIC's Orderly Liquidation Authority regulations that implements section 210(r) (§ 380.13). The comment goes on to state that the proposed revisions will improve regulatory consistency and understandability, align better with market practices, and promote the regulatory objectives and intentions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

The substantive amendments and technical and conforming changes to part 340 that are made in the final rule are extensive. Therefore, the FDIC is revising and restating the text of part 340 in full rather than through fragmentary amendments.

III. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure A. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.2 The FDIC has developed a purchaser eligibility certification form for use by prospective purchasers of assets of a failed institution to establish compliance with part 340. The certification is an OMB-approved collection of information under the PRA.3 The FDIC expects that the net PRA burden estimates of this collection will not be affected by the changes made in the final rule. Any subsequent changes to the form will be submitted by the FDIC to OMB for review and approval.

2 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

3 OMB Number: 3064-0135.

Title of Information Collection: Purchaser Eligibility Certification.

OMB Control Number: 3064-0135.

Form Number: FDIC Form 7300/06.

Affected Public: Prospective purchasers of failed insured depository institution assets.

Frequency of Response: Event generated.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 750 hours.

The FDIC has a continuing interest in comments on paperwork burden. Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency either certify that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment.4 The RFA provides that an agency is not required to prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FDIC hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.

4 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a “small entity” includes those firms in the “Finance and Insurance” sector whose size varies from $7.5 million or less in assets (mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers) to $550 million or less in assets (commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and others).5 The final rule imposes no new burden on prospective purchasers of assets sold by the FDIC. The requirement that a prospective purchaser complete and submit the Purchaser Eligibility Certification described above is a precondition to sale that is already required. Completion of the Purchaser Eligibility Certification does not require the use of professional skills or the preparation of special reports or records and should continue to have minimal economic impact on those individuals and entities that seek to purchase assets from the FDIC. Thus, any impact on small entities will not be substantial.

5 13 CFR 121.201.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which provides for agencies to report rules to Congress and for Congress to review such rules.6 The reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the FDIC issues a final rule as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 Because the FDIC is issuing a final rule as defined by the APA, the FDIC will file the reports required by the SBREFA.

6 Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857.

7 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.8 The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

8 Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471.

Text of the Final Rule Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12 CFR Chapter III List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 340

Asset disposition, Banks, banking.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation revises part 340 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 340—RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF ASSETS OF A FAILED INSTITUTION BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sec. 340.1 What is the statutory authority for the regulation, what are its purpose and scope, and can the FDIC have other policies on related topics? 340.2 Definitions. 340.3 What are the restrictions on the sale of assets by the FDIC if the buyer wants to finance the purchase with a loan from the FDIC? 340.4 What are the restrictions on the sale of assets by the FDIC regardless of the method of financing? 340.5 Can the FDIC deny a loan to a buyer who is not disqualified from purchasing assets using seller-financing under this regulation? 340.6 What is the effect of this part on transactions that were entered into before its effective date? 340.7 When is a certification required, and who does not have to provide a certification? 340.8 Does this part apply in the case of a workout, resolution, or settlement of obligations? Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1819 (Tenth), 1821(p).

§ 340.1 What is the statutory authority for the regulation, what are its purpose and scope, and can the FDIC have other policies on related topics?

(a) Authority. The statutory authority for adopting this part is section 11(p) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1821(p). Section 11(p) was added to the FDI Act by section 20 of the Resolution Trust Corporation Completion Act (Pub. L. 103-204, 107 Stat. 2369 (1993)).

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to prohibit individuals or entities that improperly profited or engaged in wrongdoing at the expense of a failed institution or covered financial company, or seriously mismanaged a failed institution, from buying assets of a failed institution from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

(c) Scope. (1) The restrictions of this part generally apply to sales of assets of failed institutions owned or controlled by the FDIC in any capacity.

(2) The restrictions in this section apply to the sale of assets of a subsidiary of a failed institution or a bridge depository institution if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or in its role as shareholder.

(3) Unless we determine otherwise, this part does not apply to the sale of securities in connection with the investment of corporate and receivership funds pursuant to the Investment Policy for Liquidation Funds managed by the FDIC as it is in effect from time to time.

(4) In the case of a sale of securities backed by a pool of assets that may include assets of failed institutions by a trust or other entity, this part applies only to the sale of assets by the FDIC to an underwriter in an initial offering, and not to any other purchaser of the securities.

(5) The restrictions of this part do not apply to a sale of a security or a group or index of securities, a commodity, or any qualified financial contract that, in each case, customarily is traded through a financial intermediary, as defined in § 340.2, where the seller cannot control selection of the purchaser and the sale is consummated through that customary practice.

(6) The restrictions of this part do not apply to a judicial sale or a trustee's sale of property that secures an obligation to the FDIC where the sale is not conducted or controlled by the FDIC.

(d) The FDIC retains the authority to establish other policies restricting asset sales. Neither 12 U.S.C. 1821(p) nor this part in any way limits the authority of the FDIC to establish policies prohibiting the sale of assets to prospective purchasers who have injured any failed institution, or to other prospective purchasers, such as certain employees or contractors of the FDIC, or individuals who are not in compliance with the terms of any debt or duty owed to the FDIC. Any such policies may be independent of, in conjunction with, or in addition to the restrictions set forth in this part.

§ 340.2 Definitions.

Many of the terms used in this part are defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1811, et seq. Additionally, for the purposes of this part, the following terms are defined:

(a) Associated person of an individual or entity means:

(1) With respect to an individual:

(i) The individual's spouse or dependent child or any member of his or her immediate household;

(ii) A partnership of which the individual is or was a general or limited partner;

(iii) A limited liability company of which the individual is or was a member; or

(iv) A corporation of which the individual is or was an officer or director.

(2) With respect to a partnership, a managing or general partner of the partnership or with respect to a limited liability company, a manager; or

(3) With respect to any entity, an individual or entity who, acting individually or in concert with one or more individuals or entities, owns or controls 25 percent or more of the entity.

(b) Default means any failure to comply with the terms of an obligation to such an extent that:

(1) A judgment has been rendered in favor of the FDIC or a failed institution; or

(2) In the case of a secured obligation, the property securing such obligation is foreclosed on.

(c) FDIC means the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

(d) Failed institution means any insured depository institution (as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)) that has been under the conservatorship or receivership of the FDIC or any of its predecessors.

(e) Financial intermediary means any broker, dealer, bank, underwriter, exchange, clearing agency registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, transfer agent (as defined in section 3(a)(25) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), central counterparty or any other entity whose role is to facilitate a transaction by, as a riskless intermediary, purchasing a security or qualified financial contract from one counterparty and then selling it to another.

(f) Obligation means any debt or duty to pay money owed to the FDIC or a failed institution, including any guarantee of any such debt or duty.

(g) Person means an individual, or an entity with a legally independent existence, including: A trustee; the beneficiary of at least a 25 percent share of the proceeds of a trust; a partnership; a corporation; an association; or other organization or society.

(h) Substantial loss means:

(1) An obligation that is delinquent for ninety (90) or more days and on which there remains an outstanding balance of more than $50,000;

(2) An unpaid final judgment in excess of $50,000 regardless of whether it becomes forgiven in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding;

(3) A deficiency balance following a foreclosure of collateral in excess of $50,000, regardless of whether it becomes discharged in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding;

(4) Any loss in excess of $50,000 evidenced by an IRS Form 1099-C (Information Reporting for Cancellation of Debt).

§ 340.3 What are the restrictions on the sale of assets by the FDIC if the buyer wants to finance the purchase with a loan from the FDIC?

A person may not borrow money or accept credit from the FDIC in connection with the purchase of any assets of a failed institution from the FDIC if:

(a) There has been a default with respect to one or more obligations totaling in excess of $1,000,000 owed by that person or its associated person; and

(b) The person or its associated person made any fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with any such obligation(s).

§ 340.4 What are the restrictions on the sale of assets by the FDIC regardless of the method of financing?

(a) A person may not acquire any assets of a failed institution from the FDIC if the person or its associated person:

(1) Has participated, as an officer or director of a failed institution or of an affiliate of a failed institution, in a material way in one or more transaction(s) that caused a substantial loss to that failed institution;

(2) Has been removed from, or prohibited from participating in the affairs of, a failed institution pursuant to any final enforcement action by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, or any of their predecessors or successors;

(3) Has demonstrated a pattern or practice of defalcation regarding obligations to any failed institution;

(4) Has been convicted of committing or conspiring to commit any offense under 18 U.S.C. 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1014, 1032, 1341, 1343 or 1344 affecting any failed institution and there has been a default with respect to one or more obligations owed by that person or its associated person; or

(5) Would be prohibited from purchasing the assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under 12 U.S.C. 5390(r) or its implementing regulation at 12 CFR part 380.13.

(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a person has participated “in a material way in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to a failed institution” if, in connection with a substantial loss to a failed institution, the person has been found in a final determination by a court or administrative tribunal, or is alleged in a judicial or administrative action brought by the FDIC or by any component of the government of the United States or of any state:

(1) To have violated any law, regulation, or order issued by a federal or state banking agency, or breached or defaulted on a written agreement with a federal or state banking agency, or breached a written agreement with a failed institution;

(2) To have engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the affairs of a failed institution; or

(3) To have breached a fiduciary duty owed to a failed institution.

(c) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a person or its associated person has demonstrated a “pattern or practice of defalcation” regarding obligations to a failed institution if the person or associated person has:

(1) Engaged in more than one transaction that created an obligation on the part of such person or its associated person with intent to cause a loss to any insured depository institution or with reckless disregard for whether such transactions would cause a loss to any such insured depository institution; and

(2) The transactions, in the aggregate, caused a substantial loss to one or more failed institution(s).

§ 340.5 Can the FDIC deny a loan to a buyer who is not disqualified from purchasing assets using seller-financing under this regulation?

The FDIC still has the right to make an independent determination, based upon all relevant facts of a person's financial condition and history, of that person's eligibility to receive any loan or extension of credit from the FDIC, even if the person is not in any way disqualified from purchasing assets from the FDIC under the restrictions set forth in this part.

§ 340.6 What is the effect of this part on transactions that were entered into before its effective date?

This part does not affect the enforceability of a contract of sale and/or agreement for seller financing in effect prior to July 1, 2000.

§ 340.7 When is a certification required, and who does not have to provide a certification?

(a) Before any person may purchase any asset from the FDIC that person must certify, under penalty of perjury, that none of the restrictions contained in this part applies to the purchase. The person must also certify that neither the identity nor form of the person, nor any aspect of the contemplated transaction, has been created or altered with the intent, in whole or in part, to allow an individual or entity who otherwise would be ineligible to purchase assets from the FDIC to benefit directly or indirectly from the proposed transaction. The FDIC may establish the form of the certification and may change the form from time to time.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, and unless the Director of the FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receiverships or designee in his or her discretion so requires, a certification need not be provided by:

(1) A state or political subdivision of a state;

(2) A federal agency or instrumentality such as the Government National Mortgage Association;

(3) A federally-regulated, government-sponsored enterprise such as the Federal National Mortgage Association or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or

(4) A bridge depository institution.

§ 340.8 Does this part apply in the case of a workout, resolution, or settlement of obligations?

The restrictions of §§ 340.3 and 340.4 do not apply if the sale or transfer of an asset resolves or settles, or is part of the resolution or settlement of, one or more obligations or claims that have been, or could have been, asserted by the FDIC against the person with whom the FDIC is settling regardless of the amount of such obligations or claims.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April 2015.

By Order of the Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09572 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0746; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-2] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cando, ND AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Cando, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Cando Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES:

Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 28, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for IFR operations at Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND, creating additional controlled airspace at Cando Municipal Airport (79 FR 64151) Docket No. FAA-2014-0746. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,B,C,D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Cando Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airport.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AGL ND E5 Cando, ND [New] Cando Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 48°28′48″ N., long. 099°14′11″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 1, 2015. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09406 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4901-14-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0729; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-10] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Key Largo, FL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E Airspace at Key Largo, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Ocean Reef Club Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Ocean Reef Club Airport, Key Largo, FL, (79 FR 70478). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Ocean Reef Club Airport, Key Largo, FL. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Ocean Reef Club Airport.

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

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASO AL E5 Key Largo, FL [New] Ocean Reef Club Airport, FL (Lat. 25°19′31″ N., long. 80°16′29″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Ocean Reef Club Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09408 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0537; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-38] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Edgeley, ND AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Edgeley, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Edgeley Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES:

Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 8, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for SIAPs at Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND (79 FR 60793) Docket No. FAA-2014-0537. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Edgeley Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AGL ND E5 Edgeley, ND [New] Edgeley Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 46°20′59″ N., long. 098°44′06″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 14, 2015. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09401 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0743; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-2] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cypress, TX AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Cypress, TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Dry Creek Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPS at the airport.

DATES:

Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 15, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Cypress, TX, area, creating controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport (79 FR 61790) Docket No. FAA-2014-0743. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous favorable comment was submitted.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX, to accommodate new SIAPS developed at Dry Creek Airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface. ASW TX E5 Cypress, TX [New] Dry Creek Airport, TX (Lat. 29°59′11″ N., long. 95°41′08″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 2015. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09400 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0917; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-14] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Zephyrhills, FL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E Airspace at Zephyrhills, FL, as the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL., (79 FR 70479). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in concert with FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth ASO FL E5 Zephyrhills, FL [Amended] Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, FL (Lat. 28°13′41″ N., long. 82°09′22″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09388 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0662; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-6] Establishment of Class E Airspace; West Creek, NJ AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E Airspace at West Creek, NJ, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Eagles Nest Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ, (79 FR 70480). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Eagles Nest Airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AEA NJ E5 West Creek, NJ [New] Eagles Nest Airport, NJ (Lat. 39°39′54″ N., long. 74°18′27″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5- mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09411 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0247; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-1] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sonora, TX AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Sonora, TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, (79 FR 70482). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,B,C,D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth ASW TX E5 Sonora, TX [New] JL Bar Ranch Airport, TX (Lat. 30°34′06″ N., long. 100°26′39″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 1, 2015. Christopher L. Southerland Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09397 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4901-14-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1072; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-9] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baton Rouge, LA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This action amends the legal description of the Baton Rouge, LA, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation aid (VORTAC) located in Class E airspace at Baton Rouge, LA. The Baton Rouge VORTAC and Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, have similar names and both share the same facility identifier but are not co-located. The FAA is renaming the Baton Rouge VORTAC as well as assigning a new facility identifier for the safety and management of aircraft operations within the Baton Rouge, LA, airspace area. This does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

The Baton Rouge Airport Air Traffic Control Tower has submitted a request to change the name and facility identifier of the Baton Rouge, LA, VORTAC (BTR), to Fighting Tiger VORTAC (LSU). The request is prompted by the distance of the VORTAC, which is located 8 miles outside the boundary of Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. FAA Order 7350.9A, Location Identifiers, states in part that the navigation aid must be within the airport boundary in order to share the same identifier.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area at Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, Baton Rouge, LA. The name of the Baton Rouge VORTAC navigation aid is changed to the Fighting Tiger VORTAC, and the facility identifier is changed from (BTR) to (LSU). This rule is meant to ensure pilots do not confuse instructions provided to them by Air Traffic Control.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace areas listed below consist of airspace extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to a Class C surface area. ASW LA E3 Baton Rouge, LA [Amended] Fighting Tiger VORTAC (Lat. 30°29′06″ N., long. 91°17′39″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 071° radial of the Fighting Tiger VORTAC extending from a 5-mile radius of the Metropolitan, Ryan Field to 5.8 miles southwest of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 25, 2015. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-09402 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0601; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-7] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Manchester, NH AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E Airspace at Manchester, NH, as a new approach procedure has been developed, requiring airspace redesign at Manchester Airport. This enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 16, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH, (79 FR 62079). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous, positive comment was received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C surface area, at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH. Airspace reconfiguration extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport is necessary due to the development of the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17 approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of Manchester Airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. An editorial change is made to correct the title of paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, to read “Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class C Surface area”.

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

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area ANE NH E3 Manchester, NH [Amended] Manchester Airport, NH (Lat. 42°55′58″ N., long. 71°26′09″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.3-miles each side of the 337° bearing of Manchester Airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 30, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09399 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0235] Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA. AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15, will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco Waterways Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 415-399-7442, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. on July 4, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics off of Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, CA in approximate position 38°56′05″ N., 120°00′09″ W. (NAD 83). From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Tahoe Keys Marina to the launch site off of Tahoe City, CA in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15. This safety zone will be in effect from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: April 7, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-09590 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0071] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard establishes a temporary moving safety zone on the waters of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida during the 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. The 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim is scheduled to take place on April 25, 2015. Approximately 30 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the marathon swim event. No spectators are expected to be present during the event. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, participant vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around safety vessels including kayaks involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule will be effective from April 24, 2015 through April 25, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0071]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Tyrone J. Stafford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Rich Walter, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

On March 9, 2015, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim; Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 12365). Only 1 comment was received; however, the comment was provided under a separate event (Swim Around Lido Key) comment section. The comment stated concern for a safety zone encompassing the entire 24 mile swim route for the event. The safety zone will be a moving zone that will not impact any other areas of the race path while not in use by the swimmers during the race.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential hazards associated with a marathon swim with approximately 30 swimmers involved.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the swimming event.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

On April 25, 2015, Distance Matters, Inc. is sponsoring The 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. This open water swim event will be held on the waters of Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida. Approximately 30 participants are anticipated to participate in the event. No spectator vessels are expected during the event.

This rule will establish a temporary moving safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay located in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. The temporary moving safety zone will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around all safety vessels involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for seventeen hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of non-participant vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone described in this regulation during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced for 17 hours total. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0071 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0071 Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim, Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL.

(a) The following regulated area is a safety zone: All waters within a 50-yard radius around safety vessels including kayaks.

(b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

(c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

(2) Non-participant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

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

(d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

Dated: April 1, 2015. G. D. Case, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2015-09580 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0221] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near AT&T Park in support of Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display on May 22, 2015. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective on May 22, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on May 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0221. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua V. Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as it would be impracticable due to the short notice of the event. The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on March 24, 2015, and it would be impracticable to accept comments before the fireworks display. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register due to the short notice of the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

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

Giants Enterprises will sponsor the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display on May 22, 2015, near Pier 48 in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. From 11 a.m. until 8:50 p.m. on May 22, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:50 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 22, 2015 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. A 10 minute fireworks display is scheduled to begin at 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2015.

The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. A restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under a fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. The safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) for the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

2. Impact on Small Entities

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

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3707; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T11-693 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11-693 Safety Zone; Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

(a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Pier 48 in San Francisco, CA as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. From 11 a.m. until 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2015, the temporary safety zone applies to the nearest point of the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83). From 9:20 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 22, 2015, the temporary safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83) within a radius of 700 feet.

(b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 11 a.m. through 9:30 p.m. on May 22, 2015. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP to assist in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zones.

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

Dated: April 7, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-09588 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P`
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP24 Driving Distance Eligibility for the Veterans Choice Program AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its medical regulations implementing section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which directed VA to establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical services through eligible non-VA health care providers to eligible veterans who either cannot be seen within the wait-time goals of the Veterans Health Administration or who qualify based on their place of residence (hereafter referred to as the Veterans Choice Program, or the “Program”). VA published an interim final rule implementing the Veterans Choice Program on November 5, 2014. Under current law, VA uses a straight-line or geodesic distance to determine eligibility based on place of residence. This interim final rule modifies how VA measures the distance from a veteran's residence to the nearest VA medical facility. This modified standard will consider the distance the veteran must drive to the nearest VA medical facility, rather than the straight-line or geodesic distance to such a facility.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 24, 2015.

Comment date: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments may be submitted by email through http://www.regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. (This is not a toll-free number.) Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP24-Driving Distance Eligibility for the Veterans Choice Program.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristin Cunningham, Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On August 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (“the Act,” Pub. L. 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754). Further technical revisions to the Act were made on September 26, 2014, when the President signed into law the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-175, 128 Stat. 1901, 1906), and on December 16, 2014, when the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2568). Section 101 of the Act creates the Veterans Choice Program (“the Program”). Section 101 requires the Secretary to enter into agreements with identified eligible non-VA entities or providers to furnish hospital care and medical services to eligible veterans who elect to receive care under the Program. Sec. 101(a)(1)(A), Public Law 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754. Veterans are eligible for the Program if they meet eligibility criteria identified in the Act; one criterion for eligibility is that a veteran who meets initial eligibility standards (being enrolled as of August 1, 2014, or who qualifies based on being recently separated from the Armed Forces following service in a theater of combat operations) can participate in the Program if he or she resides more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department, including a community-based outpatient clinic, that is closest to the residence of the veteran. Sec. 101(b)(2)(B), Public Law 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754. The Act required VA to implement the Program through an interim final rule, and on November 5, 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an interim final rulemaking implementing the Program by creating new regulations at 38 CFR 17.1500-17.1540. 79 FR 65571. Under § 17.1510(b)(2), veterans whose residence is more than 40 miles from the VA medical facility that is closest to the veteran's residence are eligible.

The Act states that a veteran must reside more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department that is closest to the residence of the veteran, but does not state how that distance should be calculated. When Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue—here the method for calculating distance—a Federal agency charged with implementing a statute is permitted to make a reasonable interpretation of that statute. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844 (1984). Accordingly, VA may, through rulemaking, define the methodology it will use to calculate such distances between a veteran's residence and the nearest VA medical facility.

The most common methodologies for calculating the distance between two places are by using a straight-line and by following the actual driving path between the two points. In the interim final rule published in November, VA determined that it would use the straight-line distance between the veteran's residence and the VA medical facility that is closest to the veteran's residence. 38 CFR 17.1510(e). We did so consistent with language in the Conference Report accompanying the final bill prior to its enactment. 79 FR 65577. The Conference Report stated: “In calculating the distance from a nearest VA medical facility, it is the Conferees' expectation that VA will use geodesic distance, or the shortest distance between two points.” H.R. Rpt. 113-564, p. 55. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so VA concluded that a veteran who is outside of a 40 mile radius of a VA medical facility would be eligible under this provision. 79 FR 65577.

VA also could have concluded that a driving distance calculation would have been a reasonable interpretation of the Act. Although the Conference Report language appeared to state the Conferees' expectation, other statements in the legislative history suggest Congress was not of one mind regarding how the 40 miles should be measured. For example, during the Senate floor debate on the final legislation just three days after the Conference Report was published, one of the bill's principal sponsors stated, “Mr. President, what we are talking about, really, is rather than get in a car or van and drive for 40 miles and hours and have that all reimbursed and paid for, a person will go to the local care provider.” See 160 Cong. Rec. S5207 (July 31, 2014). In addition, the overall purpose of the Act is to increase access to health care for veterans. As one of the Act's main sponsors in the House said during floor consideration of the bill, “This bill will expand access to non-VA care, making wait times shorter and increase convenience.” See 160 Cong. Rec. H7080 (July 30, 2014). Moreover, what affects a veteran's access when it comes to travel is how far he or she must actually travel, not the length of a straight-line route that cannot, practically speaking, be traversed. Distances are also more commonly understood in terms of travel upon actual paths, rather than along a straight line. For these reasons, the ordinary understanding of distance is also a reasonable one to adopt in this context.

This interpretation also makes sense in light of the exceptions Congress created for veterans residing 40 miles or less from the nearest VA medical facility. For example, under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I), veterans are eligible if they must travel by air, boat, or ferry to reach each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran. Veterans also may be eligible under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II) if they face an unusual or excessive burden in accessing each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran due to geographical challenges. Both of these criteria explicitly consider the actual means or path of travel a veteran must take. Consequently, it is reasonable for VA to make a similar consideration when determining whether or not a veteran's residence is more than 40 miles from the closest VA medical facility.

Finally, when two interpretations of an Act are permissible, the interpretation that is more beneficial to veterans is typically preferred.

We received many thoughtful comments on this topic in response to the interim final rule we published in November. More than a third of the comments we received related to how VA measures distance for purposes of determining eligibility, and many commenters specifically argued in favor of the use of driving distance to determine eligibility based on place of residence. Other commenters suggested similar changes, such as the use of driving time. These comments came from veterans as well as providers, and show a broad interest in expanding the Program to better facilitate health care options. By contrast, VA received no comments in support of the use of geodesic or straight-line distance. This indicated to us a need to revisit VA's method of measuring distance. After doing so, VA is issuing this new interim final rule adopting the use of driving distance when measuring the distance from a veteran's residence to the nearest VA medical facility. We believe based on the public comments we received in response to the interim final rule published in November that this change to a driving distance measure will have strong support from the public. We intend to address all of the comments prior to finalizing the rule but have decided to address this particular issue now.

Practical considerations also support promulgating a limited interim final rule addressing this issue now. The use of driving distance would result in more veterans being eligible than the use of straight-line distance, and as stated above, the general intent of the Act is to expand access to health care for veterans. Through the first 6 months of operating the Program, we have found this standard to be a limiting factor for participation in the Program. Actual utilization of the Program is well below projections made at the time of the interim final rule in November, and as a result, VA believes it is more likely to have additional resources remaining at the end of the Program's period of authorization unless we increase the population eligible to participate in the Program. While veterans could qualify for this Program under other eligibility criteria, 38 CFR 17.1510(b)(3)-(4), changing the methodology for calculating distance to driving distance rather than straight-line distance will allow more veterans to participate in the Program and receive care closer to home. VA also uses driving distance in the beneficiary travel program authorized by part 70 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This change would make the Program more consistent with another VA program that veterans know and use.

For these reasons, we are revising the method for calculating the 40 mile distance by modifying § 17.1510(e) to use the driving distance between the veteran's residence and the closest VA medical facility, rather than the straight-line distance. VA is also removing a parenthetical exception included in this paragraph that referred to a provision in the regulations pertaining to unusual or excessive burden in traveling to a VA medical facility. VA will calculate a veteran's driving distance using geographic information system (GIS) software.

VA is issuing this interim final rule under the same RIN as the initial rulemaking published on November 5, 2014. We intend to publish a single final rule that responds to the comments received from the November rulemaking and from this rulemaking. This will allow the public a total of 150 days (120 days following publication of the first interim final rule, and 30 days following publication of this interim final rule) to comment on this aspect of the Program.

This change will have residual effects on eligibility under § 17.1510(b)(3) and (b)(4), as these provisions are essentially exceptions that allow veterans who are not eligible under paragraph (b)(2) to be eligible to participate in the Choice Program. However, to the extent a veteran will now be eligible under paragraph (b)(2) when he or she would have qualified under paragraphs (b)(3) or (b)(4), there is no substantive change in that veteran's ability to participate in the Program or the benefits thereof. However, certain veterans who did not currently qualify under (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) may now qualify under (b)(2) as a result of this change.

Administrative Procedure Act

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause that advance notice and opportunity for public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that there is good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. Section 101(n) of the Act authorized VA to implement the Program through an interim final rule and provided a deadline of no later than November 5, 2014, the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of the law. We do not interpret the expiration of the 90 day time period as diminishing or divesting VA of its authority to continue to implement the Program through an interim final rule. Section 101(n) of the Act clearly demonstrates Congress intended that VA act quickly in expanding access to non-VA care options.

This interim final rule changes the manner in which VA will calculate the distance requirement and will likely increase the number of veterans who are eligible for the program. Veterans who did not qualify under the straight-line methodology we previously articulated may qualify under the standard we are now establishing. In order for these veterans to have access to needed health care under the Program, it is essential that the revised driving distance requirement be made effective as soon as possible.

For the above reasons, the Secretary issues this rule as an interim final rule. However, VA will consider and address comments that are received within 30 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the Federal Register. As noted previously, the public has already had 120 days to comment on the methodology for calculating distance following the publication of the November rulemaking, and we believe the additional 30 days provided now will be sufficient to ensure the public has an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Effect of Rulemaking

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this interim 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

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,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, 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 regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined that this is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's regulatory 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 regulatory impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

Congressional Review Act

This regulatory action is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-08, because it may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Although this regulatory action constitutes a major rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), under 5 U.S.C. 808(2) it is not subject to the 60-day delay in effective date applicable to major rules under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) because the Secretary finds for the reasons stated above good cause that advance notice and public procedure for this rule are impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), VA will submit to the Comptroller General and to Congress a copy of this regulatory action and VA's Regulatory Impact Analysis.

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 1 year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim 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. This interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on participating eligible entities and providers who enter into agreements with VA. To the extent there is any such impact, it will result in increased business and revenue for them. We also do not believe there will be a significant economic impact on insurance companies, as claims will only be submitted for care that will otherwise have been received, whether such care was authorized under this Program or not. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are as follows: 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.

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, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 2, 2015, for publication.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17

Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.

Dated: April 17, 2015. Michael Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.

2. Amend § 17.1510 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 17.1510 Eligible veterans.

(e) For purposes of calculating the distance between a veteran's residence and the nearest VA medical facility under this section, VA will use the driving distance between the nearest VA medical facility and a veteran's residence. VA will calculate a veteran's driving distance using geographic information system software.

[FR Doc. 2015-09370 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0158; FRL-9924-80-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference for Montana AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule; administrative change.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format of materials submitted by the state of Montana that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Montana and approved by the EPA.

DATES:

This action is effective April 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0158. SIP Materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays, at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. An electronic copy of the state's SIP compilation is also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. A hard copy of the regulatory and source-specific portions of the compilation will also be maintained at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). If you wish to obtain materials from a docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket at (202) 566-1742. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6142, ayala.k[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Change in IBR Format

This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA Region 8 Office.

A. Description of a SIP

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements (e.g., visibility requirements, prevention of significant deterioration). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network descriptions, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

B. How EPA Enforces the SIP

Each SIP revision submitted by Montana must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.

EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the Federal Register and the approval is then codified at 40 CFR part 52. Once EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by EPA and citizens in federal district court.

We do not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Montana regulations that we have approved. Instead, we incorporate them be reference or IBR. We approve a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see I.F., Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation).

C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP

The SIP is a dynamic document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA announced revised procedures for IBR of federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included: (1) A new process for IBR of material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and, (3) a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.

D. How EPA Compiles the SIP

We have organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. These compilations may be found at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. In addition, we maintain hard copies of the compilation which are updated periodically.

E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation

Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations that have been approved, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains non-regulatory provisions that have been approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations.

F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation

EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Montana. An electronic copy of the compilation is contained at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. SIP Materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are also available for inspection at the following locations: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section

In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP.

The revised Identification of plan section for Montana contains five subsections:

1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.1370(a));

2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.1370(b));

3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.1370(c));

4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.1370(d)); and,

5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 42.1370(e)).

H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable

All revisions to the applicable SIP are federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the Federal Register. In specific cases, a SIP revision action may become effective less than 30 days or greater than 60 days after the Federal Register publication date. In order to determine the effective date of EPA's approval for a specific Montana SIP provision that is listed in 40 CFR 52.1370(c), (d), or (e), consult the volume and page of the Federal Register cited in 40 CFR 52.1370 for that particular provision.

I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals

To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (see 40 CFR 52.1397). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.1370. After an initial two-year period, we will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether to retain the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.1397) for some further period.

II. What EPA is doing in this action?

This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Montana SIP.

III. Good Cause Exemption

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.

Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in previous actions taken on the state's rules.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding and established an effective date of April 24, 2015. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This change to the Identification of plan for Montana is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

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 14, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 BB—Montana
§ 52.1370 [Redesignated as § 52.1397]
2. Section 52.1370 is redesignated as § 52.1397, and in newly redesignated § 52.1397, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 52.1397 Original identification of plan.

(a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Montana” and all revisions submitted by Montana that were federally approved prior to March 1, 2015.

3. Add § 52.1370 to read as follows:
§ 52.1370 Identification of plan.

(a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State Implementation Plan for Montana under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 40 CFR part 51 to meet national ambient air quality standards or other requirements under the Clean Air Act.

(b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to March 1, 2015, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as submitted by the state to EPA, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries for paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section with EPA approval dates after March 1, 2015, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

(2) EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of March 1, 2015.

(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of materials from the docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) at (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. Copies of the Montana regulations we have approved are also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

(c) EPA-approved regulations.

State citation Rule title State
  • effective date
  • EPA final rule date Final rule
  • citation
  • Comments
    (1) Statewide (i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions 17.8.101 Definitions 8/11/2006 1/26/2010 75 FR 3993 17.8.102 Incorporation by Reference 10/24/2008 1/29/2010 75 FR 4698 17.8.103 Incorporation by Reference 10/26/2007 1/26/2010 75 FR 3993 17.8.105 Testing Requirements 7/4/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.106 Source Testing Protocol 10/8/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.110 Malfunctions 4/11/2003 1/24/2006 71 FR 3776 17.8.111 Circumvention 9/13/1985 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.130 Enforcement Procedures—Notice of Violation—Order to Take Corrective Action 4/9/2004 1/24/2006 71 FR 3770 17.8.131 Enforcement Procedures—Appeal to Board 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.132 Credible Evidence 12/8/2000 11/20/2002 67 FR 70009 17.8.140 Rehearing Procedures—Form and Filing of Petition 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.141 Rehearing Procedures—Filing Requirements 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.142 Rehearing Procedures—Board Review 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 (ii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 03, Emission Standards 17.8.301 Definitions 10/24/2008 1/29/2010 75 FR 4698 17.8.302 Incorporation by Reference 10/26/2007 1/26/2010 75 FR 3993 17.8.304 Visible Air Contaminants 8/11/1995 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Excluding (4)(f). 17.8.308 Particulate Matter, Airborne 2/13/2009 1/29/2010 75 FR 4698 17.8.309 Particulate Matter, Fuel Burning Equipment 11/10/1995 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Excluding (5)(b). 17.8.310 Particulate Matter, Industrial Processes 11/10/1995 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Excluding (3)(e). 17.8.316 Incinerators 4/9/2004 7/29/2008 73 FR 43871 17.8.320 Wood-waste Burners 4/9/2004 1/24/2006 71 FR 3770 17.8.321 Sulfur Emissions—Kraft Pulp Mills (16.8.1413) 12/31/1972 7/18/1995 60 FR 36715 * 16.8.1413 is the SIP approved Kraft Pulp Mill Rule. 17.8.321 is not SIP approved. 17.8.322 Sulfur Oxide Emissions—Sulfur in Fuel 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.324 Hydrocarbon Emissions—Petroleum Products 10/29/1993 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Excluding (1)(c) and (2)(d). 17.8.325 Motor Vehicles 12/31/1972 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.326 Prohibited Materials for Wood or Coal Residential Stoves 10/29/1993 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.330 Emission Standards for Existing Aluminum Plants—Definitions 2/10/1989 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.331 Emission Standards for Existing Aluminum Plants—Standards 2/26/1982 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.332 Emission Standards for Existing Aluminum Plants—Standard for Visible Emissions 7/4/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.333 Emission Standards for Existing Aluminum Plants—Monitoring and Reporting 2/26/1982 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.334 Emission Standards for Existing Aluminum Plants—Startup and Shutdown 2/26/1982 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 (iii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 04, Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques 17.8.401 Definitions [16.8.1204] 6/13/1986 7/18/1995 60 FR 36715 * 16.8.1204 is the SIP approved Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques rule. 17.8.401 is not SIP approved. 17.8.402 Requirements [16.8.1205] 6/13/1986 7/18/1995 60 FR 36715 * 16.8.1205 is the SIP approved Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques rule. 17.8.402 is not SIP approved. 17.8.403 Exemptions [16.8.1206] 6/13/1986 7/18/1995 60 FR 36715 * 16.8.1206 is the SIP approved Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques rule. 17.8.403 is not SIP approved. (iv) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 06, Open Burning 17.8.601 Definitions 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.602 Incorporation by Reference 10/26/2007 1/26/2010 75 FR 3993 17.8.604 Prohibited Open Burning—When Permit Required 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 Except (1)(a). 17.8.605 Special Burning Periods 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.606 Minor Open Burning Source Requirements 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.610 Major Open Burning Source Restrictions 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.611 Emergency Open Burning Permits 7/23/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.612 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.613 Christmas Tree Waste Open Burning Permits 7/23/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.614 Commercial Film Production Open Burning Permits 12/27/2002 8/24/2006 71 FR 49999 17.8.615 Firefighter Training 9/9/1994 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 (v) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 07, Permit Construction and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources 17.8.740 Definitions 12/27/2002 11/21/2014 79 FR 69374 17.8.743 Montana Air Quality Permits—When Required 12/27/2002 11/21/2014 79 FR 69374 Approved except the phrase in 17.8.743(1)(b) “asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers, and”. 17.8.744 Montana Air Quality Permits—General Exclusions 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.745 Montana Air Quality Permits—Exclusion for De Minimis Changes 5/28/2010 2/13/2012 77 FR 7531 17.8.748 New or Modified Emitting Units—Permit Application Requirements 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.749 Conditions For Issuance or Denial of Permit 10/17/2003 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (8) approved with state effective date of 12/27/02. (7) approved with state effective date of 10/17/03. 17.8.752 Emission Control Requirements 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.755 Inspection of Permit 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.756 Compliance with Other Requirements 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.759 Review of Permit Applications 12/23/2005 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 (1) through (3) approved with state effective date of 10/17/13. (4) through (6) approved with state effective date of 12/23/05. 17.8.760 Additional Review of Permit Applications 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.762 Duration of Permit 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.763 Revocation of Permit 10/17/2003 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 (1) and (4) approved with state effective date of 12/27/02. (2) and (3) approved with state effective date of 10/17/03. 17.8.764 Administrative Amendment to Permit 12/27/2002 11/21/2014 79 FR 69374 17.8.765 Transfer of Permit 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.767 Incorporation by Reference 6/17/2005 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 (1)(a) through (c) approved with state effective date of 12/27/02. (1)(d) through (g), (2), (3), and (4) approved with state effective date of 6/17/05. (vi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 08, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 17.8.801 Definitions 10/12/2012 1/29/2015 80 FR 4793 17.8.802 Incorporation by Reference 6/17/2005 7/19/2006 71 FR 40922 17.8.804 Ambient Air Increments 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.805 Ambient Air Ceilings 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.806 Restrictions on Area Classifications 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.807 Exclusions from Increment Consumption 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.808 Redesignation 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.809 Stack Heights 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.818 Review of Major Stationary Source and Major Modifications—Source Applicability and Exemptions 10/12/2012 1/29/2015 80 FR 4793 17.8.819 Control Technology Review 4/9/2004 1/24/2006 71 FR 3770 17.8.820 Source Impact Analysis 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.821 Air Quality Models 4/11/2003 1/24/2006 71 FR 3776 17.8.822 Air Quality Analysis 4/9/2004 1/24/2006 71 FR 3770 17.8.823 Source Information 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.824 Additional Impact Analyses 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.825 Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas—Additional Requirements 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.826 Public Participation 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.827 Source Obligation 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.828 Innovative Control Technology 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 (vii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 09, Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Major Modifications Locating Within Nonattainment Areas 17.8.901 Definitions 10/24/2008 1/29/2010 75 FR 4698 17.8.902 Incorporation by Reference 6/17/2005 7/19/2006 71 FR 40922 17.8.904 When Air Quality Preconstruction Permit Required 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.905 Additional Conditions of Air Quality Preconstruction Permit 4/11/2003 1/24/2006 71 FR 3776 17.8.906 Baseline for Determining Credit for Emissions and Air Quality Offsets 12/27/2002 7/7/2011 76 FR 40237 (viii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 10, Preconstruction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Major Modifications Locating Within Attainment or Unclassified Areas 17.8.1001 Definitions 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1002 Incorporation by Reference 6/17/2005 7/19/2006 71 FR 40922 17.8.1004 When Air Quality Preconstruction Permit Required 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.1005 Additional Conditions of Air Quality Pre-construction Permit 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.1006 Review of Specified Sources for Air Quality Impact 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1007 Baseline for Determining Credit for Emissions and Air Quality Offsets 10/24/2008 1/29/2010 75 FR 4698 (ix) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 11, Visibility Impact Assessment 17.8.1101 Definitions 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1102 Incorporation by Reference 10/26/2007 1/26/2010 75 FR 3993 17.8.1103 Applicability—Visibility Requirements 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1106 Visibility Impact Analysis 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.1107 Visibility Models 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1108 Notification of Permit Application 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1109 Adverse Impact and Federal Land Manager 12/27/2002 7/8/2011 76 FR 40237 17.8.1110 Visibility Monitoring 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 17.8.1111 Additional Impact Analysis 8/23/1996 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 (x) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 13, Conformity 17.8.1301 Definitions 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1304 Determining Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects to State or Federal Implementation Plans 8/23/1996 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1305 Consultation Requirements: Applicability 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1306 Consultation Procedures 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1310 Special Issues 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1311 Notice Requirements for Non-FHWA/FTA Projects 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1312 Conflict Resolution 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 17.8.1313 Public Consultation Procedures 6/4/1999 9/21/2001 66 FR 48561 (xi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 14, Conformity of General Federal Actions 17.8.1401 Definitions 6/4/1999 10/7/2002 67 FR 62392 17.8.1402 Incorporation By Reference 6/4/1999 10/7/2002 67 FR 62392 (xii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 16, Emission Control Requirements for Oil and Gas Well Facilities Operating Prior to Issuance of a Montana Air Quality Permit 17.8.1601 Definitions 1/1/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1602 Applicability and Coordination with Montana Air Quality Permit Rules 1/1/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1603 Emission Control Requirements 1/1/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1604 Inspection and Repair Requirements 1/1/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1605 Recordkeeping Requirements 1/1/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1606 Delayed Effective Date 12/23/2005 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 (xiii) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 17, Registration of Air Contaminant Sources 17.8.1701 Definitions 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1702 Applicability 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1703 Registration Process and Information 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1704 Registration Fee 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1705 Operating Requirements: Facility-wide 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1710 Oil or Gas Well Facilities General Requirements 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1711 Oil or Gas Well Facilities Emission Control Requirements 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1712 Oil or Gas Well Facilities Inspection and Repair Requirements 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 17.8.1713 Oil or Gas Well Facilities Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 4/7/2006 11/19/2013 78 FR 69296 (2) County Specific (i) Cascade County 7-01 Definitions 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-02 Prohibited Open Burning—When Permit Required 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-03 Minor Open Burning Source Requirements 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-04 Major Open Burning Source Restrictions 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-05 Special Burning Periods 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-06 Firefighting Training 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-07 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-08 Emergency Open Burning Permits 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-09 Commercial Film Production Open Burning Permits 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 7-10 Fees 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548 (ii) Flathead County Table of Contents, Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program Regulations Appendix A Kalispell Air Pollution Control District Map 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Appendix B Kalispell Air Pollution Control District Description 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 01 Short Title 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 02 Declaration of Policy and Purpose 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 03 Authorities for Program 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 04 Administration 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 05 Control Board, Meetings-Duties-Policies 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 06 Air Quality Staff 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 07 Inspections 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Sub-Chapter 1 General Definitions 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 201 Definitions 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 202 Materials Prohibited 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 203 Minor Open Burning Source Requirements 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 204 Major Open Burning Source Requirements 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 205 Special Open Burning Periods 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 206 Fire Fighter Training 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 207 Open Burning Disposal of Christmas Tree Waste 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 208 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 209 Emergency Open Burning Permits 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 210 Permit Fees 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Sub-Chapter 3 Voluntary Solid Fuel Burning Device Curtailment Program 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 401 Prohibited Materials for Wood or Coal residential (Solid Fuel Burning Device) Stoves 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Sub-Chapter 5 Kalispell Air Pollution Control District, Intent 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 501 Material To Be Used on Roads and Parking Lots-Standards 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 502 Construction and Demolition Activity 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 503 Pavement of Roads Required 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 504 Pavement of Parking Lots Required 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 505 Street Sweeping and Flushing 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 506 Clearing of land greater than 1/4 acre in size 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 507 Contingency Plan 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Sub-Chapter 6 Columbia Falls Air Pollution Control District—Intent 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 601 Material To Be Used on Roads and Parking Lots-Standards 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 602 Construction and Demolition Activity 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08; Sub-Chapter 6, Rule 603 Pavement of Roads Required 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 604 Pavement of Parking Lots Required 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 605 Street Sweeping and Flushing 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 606 Clearing of land greater than 1/4 acre in size 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 08, Rule 607 Contingency Plan 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 09 Enforcement, Judicial Review, and Hearings 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 10 Civil Penalties 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 11 Severability Clause 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Chapter 12 Amendments and Revisions 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 (iii) Lincoln County 75.1.101 Intent 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.102 Definitions 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.103 Selection & Implementation of Contingency Measure Programs 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.201 Intent 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.202 Definitions 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.204 Emission Limits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.205 Issuance of Air Pollution Alert 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.206 Permits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.207 Prohibited Materials 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.209 Enforceability 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.301 Intent: Road Dust Control Regulations: Materials to Be used on Roads and Parking Lots 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.302 Definitions 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.303 Emission Limits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.401 Definitions, Street Sweeping and Flushing 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.402 Emission Limits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.501 Emission Limits, Dust Control for Log Yards 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.601 Intent, Limiting the Application of Sanding Material 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.602 Application Limits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.603 Resolution 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.701 Intent, Open Burning Regulations: Management of Open Burning 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.702 Definitions 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.703 Open Burning Control Areas 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.704 Materials Prohibited 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.705 General Open Burning Regulations 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.706 Minor Open Burning Source Requirements 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.707 Major Open Burning Source Requirements 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.708 Trade Waste Burning Requirements 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.709 Licensed Landfill Requirements 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.710 Firefighter Training 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.711 Special Burning Periods 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.712 Open Burning Permit Requirements & Local Restrictions 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.713 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.714 Emergency Open Burning Permits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.715 Christmas Tree Waste Open Burning Permits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.716 Commercial Film Production Open Burning Permits 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.717 Prohibited Acts 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.718 Penalties 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 75.1.719 Conflict of Ordinances, Effect of Partial Invalidity 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 Ordinances, 1470 Ordinance 3/19/1993 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627 Ordinances, 1507 Ordinance 2/1/96 9/30/96 61 FR 51014 1660 Resolution Lincoln County Health and Environment Regulations 3/23/2006 3/17/2011 76 FR 14584 (iv) Missoula County 1.101 Program Authority and Administration 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.102 Declaration of policy and purpose 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.103 Authorities for program 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.104 Area of jurisdiction 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.105 Air pollution control board 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.106 Air quality staff 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 1.107 Air quality advisory council 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 2.101 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 3.101 Purpose 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 3.102 Particulate matter contingency measures 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 3.103 Carbon monoxide contingency measures 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 3.104 Early implementation of contingency measures 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.101 Purpose 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.102 Applicability 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.103 General provisions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.104 Air pollution control stages 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.105 Emergency operations 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.106 Abatement plan for certain sources 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.107 Enforcement procedure 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.108 Stage I alert control activities 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.109 Stage II warning control activities 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.110 State III emergency control activities 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.111 Stage IV crisis control activities 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 4.112 Contingency measure 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.101 Inspections 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.102 Testing requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.103 Malfunctions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.105 Circumvention 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.106 Public nuisance 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 5.112 Compliance with other statutes and rules 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.101 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.102 Air quality permits required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.103 General conditions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.105 Air quality permit application requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.106 Public review of air quality permit application 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.107 Issuance or denial of an air quality permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.108 Revocation of modification of an air quality permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.109 Transfer of permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.501 Emission control requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.502 Particulate matter from fuel burning equipment 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.503 Particulate matter from industrial processes 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.504 Visible air pollutants 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.601 Minimum standards 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.602 Hours of operation 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.603 Performance tests 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.604 Hazardous waste incinerators 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.701 Opacity limits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.702 Operation 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 6.703 Fuels 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.101 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.102 Outdoor burning permits required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.103 Materials prohibited 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.104 Burning seasons 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.105 Restricted areas 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.106 Minor outdoor burning source requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.107 Major outdoor burning source requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.108 Bonfire permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.109 Fire fighter training permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.110 Conditional outdoor burning permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.111 Christmas tree waste outdoor burning permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.112 Emergency outdoor burning permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.113 Commercial film production outdoor burning permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.114 Public notice 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 7.115 Outdoor burning permitting actions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.101 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.102 General requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.103 Stationary source requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.104 Construction sites 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.105 Agricultural exemption 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.201 Permits required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.202 New roads in the air stagnation zone 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.203 New parking areas in the air stagnation zone 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.204 New driveways in the air stagnation zone 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.205 Unpaved access roads 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.206 Maintenance of pavement required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.207 Paving existing facilities in the air stagnation zone 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.301 Deicer required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.302 Durability requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.303 Street sweeping requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 8.304 Contingency measures 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.101 Intent 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.102 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.103 Applicability 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.104 Fuels 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.105 Non-alert visible emission standards 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.106 Prohibition of visible emissions during air pollution alerts and warnings 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.107 Emissions certification 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.108 New solid fuel burning devices prohibited 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.109 Sale of new solid fuel burning devices 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.110 Installation permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.111 Alert permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.112 Sole source permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.113 Special need permits 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.114 Temporary sole source permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.115 Permit application requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.116 Revocation or modification of permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.117 Transfer of permit 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.118 Removal of solid fuel burning devices upon sale of the property 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 9.119 Contingency measures 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.101 Intent 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.102 Definitions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.103 Oxygenated fuel required 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.104 Labeling gasoline pumps 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.105 Oxygenate blending facility requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.106 Distributor requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.107 Fueling facility operator requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.108 Inability to produce oxygenated fuel in extraordinary circumstances 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.109 Registration fees 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.110 Contingency measure 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.201 Regulation of sulfur in fuel 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.202 Regulation of sulfur in fuel burned within the air stagnation zone 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.203 Labeling requirements 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.301 Containers with more than 65,000 gallon capacity 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.302 Oil-effluent water separators 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.303 Loading gasoline 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 10.304 Exemptions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 11.101 Removal of control devices 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 11.102 Operation of motor vehicles 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 11.103 Four-cycle gasoline powered vehicles 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.101 Notice of violation 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.102 Order to take corrective action 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.103 Appearance before the control board 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.104 Other remedies 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.105 Credible evidence 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.106 Administrative review 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.107 Control board hearings 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 14.108 Judicial review 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 15.101 General provisions 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 15.102 Criminal penalties 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 15.103 Civil penalties 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 15.104 Solid fuel burning device penalties 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 15.105 Non-compliance penalties 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 Appendix A Maps 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 Appendix B Missoula's Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 Appendix D Oxygenated fuels program sampling requirements for blending facilities 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 List of Acronyms List of Acronyms 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391 Missoula City County Air Pollution Control Program Regulations, Table of Contents, Acronyms and Appendices, Table of Contents (v) Yellowstone Regulation 002—Open Burning, A Definitions 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, B Incorporation by Reference 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, C Prohibited Open Burning—When Permit Required 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, D Minor Open Burning Source Restriction 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, E Major Open Burning Source Restriction 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, F Special Burning Periods 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, G Fire Fighter Training 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, H Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 6/7/2002 11/5/2003 68 FR 62529 Regulation 002—Open Burning, I Emergency Open Burning Permits 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, J Commercial Film Production Open Burning 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427 Regulation 002—Open Burning, K Fees 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427

    (d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements.

    Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • Notice of final rule date NFR citation
    (1) Cascade County 1985 December 5 Stipulation and 1985 October 20 Permit for Montana Refining Company. In the matter of the Montana Refining Company, Cascade County; compliance with ARM 16.8.811, ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide 12/5/1985 9/7/1990 55 FR 36812 (2) Deer Lodge County 1978 November 16 Order for Anaconda Copper Smelter. In the Matter of the Petition of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for an Order adopting a Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy for the Anaconda Copper Smelter at Anaconda, Montana, and requiring the Anaconda Company to comply with the Control Strategy 11/16/1978 1/10/1980 45 FR 2034 (3) Flathead County Air Quality Permit #2667-M, Dated 1/24/92. Plum Creek Manufacturing, Inc 1/24/1992 4/14/1994 59 FR 17700 Stipulation—A-1 Paving, In the Matter of Compliance of A-1 Paving, Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Equity Supply Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Equity Supply Company 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Flathead Road Department #1, In the Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road Department, Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Flathead Road Department #2, In the Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road Department, Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153. Stipulation—Klingler Lumber Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Klinger Lumber Company, Inc., Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—McElroy & Wilkens, In the Matter of Compliance of McElroy and Wilkens, Inc., Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Montana Mokko, In the Matter of Compliance of Montana Mokko, Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Pack and Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Pack and Company, Inc., Kalispell, Montana 9/7/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Pack Concrete, In the Matter of Compliance of Pack Concrete, Inc., Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 Stipulation—Plum Creek, In the Matter of Compliance of Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P., Kalispell, Montana 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153 (4) Lewis and Clark County Total Suspended Particulate NAAQS—East Helena, ASARCO Application for Revisions of Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan—Only as it applies to Total Suspended Particulate 4/24/1979 1/10/1980 45 FR 2034 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation—1994 March 15 3/15/1994 1/27/1995 60 FR 5313 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A—Asarco Emission Limitations and Conditions, Asarco Incorporated, East Helena, Montana 3/15/1994 1/27/1995 60 FR 5313 Asarco Board Order—1994 March 18. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from the Lead Smelter Located at East Helena, Montana, owned and operated by Asarco Incorporated 3/18/1994 1/27/1995 60 FR 5313 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet Stipulation—1995 June 30 6/30/1995 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet Board Order—1995 August 4 8/4/1995 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A—American Chemet Emission Limitations and Conditions, American Chemet Corporation, East Helena, Montana 8/4/1995 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation—1996 June 11 6/11/1996 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order—1996 June 26 6/26/1996 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A—Asarco Emission Limitations and Conditions with attachments 1-7, Asarco Lead Smelter, East Helena, Montana 6/26/1996 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation—1998 August 13 8/28/1998 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order—1998 August 28 8/28/1998 6/18/2001 66 FR 32760 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation—2000 July 18 9/15/2000 6/18/2001 66 FR 32767 Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order—2000 September 15 9/15/2000 6/18/2001 66 FR 32767 (5) Lincoln County Board Order—1994 December 16 (Stimson Lumber). In the Matter of Compliance of Stimson Lumber Company, Libby, Montana 12/16/1994 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 Air Quality Permit #2627-M Dated 7/25/91. Stimson Lumber Company (formerly Champion International Corp) 3/19/1993 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627 Stipulation—Stimson Lumber. In the Matter of Compliance of Stimson Lumber Company, Libby, Montana 12/16/1994 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014 (6) Missoula County Air Quality Permit #2303M, Dated 3/20/92. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation 3/20/1992 1/18/1994 59 FR 2537 Air Quality Permit #2589M, Dated 1/23/92. Stone Container Corporation 1/24/1992 1/18/1994 59 FR 2537 (7) Rosebud County 1980 October 22 Permit for Western Energy Company. 10/22/1980 4/26/1985 50 FR 16475 (8) Silver Bow County Air Quality Permit #1636-06 dated 8/22/96. Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company 8/22/1996 12/6/1999 64 FR 68034 Air Quality Permit #1749-05 dated 1/5/94. Montana Resources, Inc 1/5/1994 3/22/1995 60 FR 15056 (9) Yellowstone County Cenex June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Cenex June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 Revisions) Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908 Cenex March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908 Conoco June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Conoco June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Exxon June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Exxon June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 Revisions). Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908 Exxon March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908 Montana Power June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Montana Power June 12, 1998 Exhibit A, Emission Limitations and Conditions 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168. Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168 Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 revisions) Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908 Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area 3/17/2000 5/22/2003 68 FR 27908

    (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions.

    Title/Subject State
  • effective date
  • Notice of final rule date NFR
  • Citation
  • (1) Statewide Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan 6/23/2004 1/3/2006 71 FR 19. Montana State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Air Quality Bureau, Sampling and Analytical Procedures, 12/31/1971 1/16/1986 51 FR 2397. Nonregulatory Provisions, 40 CFR 52.1394, 1997 Ozone Infrastructure Certification 12/22/2009 7/22/2011 76 FR 43918. Nonregulatory Provisions, Interstate Transport, Rule Declaration Satisfying the Requirements of 110(a)(D)(2)(i) of the CAA for 1997 8-hr Ozone and PM2.5 Standards 2/12/2007 2/26/2008 73 FR 10150. Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards N/A 7/30/2013 78 FR 45864. Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS N/A 7/30/2013 78 FR 45869. (2) Cascade County Board Order—2000 October 16, Approval of Amendment for Cascade County's Air Pollution Control Program 10/16/2000 6/12/2001 66 FR 31548. Great Falls Carbon Monoxide (CO)—Maintenance Plan, State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Cascade County Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, Chapter 7, Great Falls Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan 12/19/2000 5/9/2002 67 FR 31143. (3) Flathead County Board Order—1991 November 15. In the Matter of the Application of the Cities of Columbia Falls and Kalispell and the County of Flathead for Approval of a Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 4/14/1994 59 FR 17700. Board Order—1993 September 17. In the Matter of Compliance of Named Stationary Sources 9/17/1993 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153. Board Order—1994 May 20. In the Matter of the Application of the Cities of Columbia Falls and Kalispell and the County of Flathead for Approval of a Local Air Pollution Control Program 5/20/1994 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153. Kalispell Particulate Matter (PM-10) Attainment Plan, PM-10 SIP Commitment, Commitment Letter 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153. Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Columbia Falls Particulate Matter (PM-10) Attainment Plan Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Kalispell Particulate Matter (PM-10) Attainment Plan Resolution 867, Adopting Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 4/14/1994 59 FR 17700. Resolution 867B, Adopting Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program 10/3/1991 3/19/1996 61 FR 11153. Stipulation—1991 November 15, In the Matter of the Application of the Cities of Columbia Falls and Kalispell and the County of Flathead for Approval of Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 4/14/1994 59 FR 17700. (4) Lewis and Clark County Lead NAAQS—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, East Helena Lead Attainment Plan Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, East Helena Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Plan Total Suspended Particulate NAAQS—East Helena, East Helena Section of Chapter 5 of SIP, 4-6-79 1/10/1980 45 FR 2034. (5) Lincoln County Board Orders, Board Order—1991 November 15, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of its Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. Board Orders, Board Order—1993 March 19, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of Amendments to their Local Air Pollution Control Program 3/19/1993 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. Board Orders, Board Order—1994 December 16, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of Amendments to the Local Air Pollution Control Program 12/16/1994 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014. Board Orders, Board Order—1996 February 1, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of Amendments to the Local Air Pollution Control Program 2/1/1996 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014. Board Orders, Board Order; March 23, 2006, In the Matter of the Application of Lincoln County for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 3/23/2006 3/17/2011 76 FR 14584. Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Libby Particulate Matter (PM-10) Attainment Plan 3/17/2011 76 FR 14584. Resolution, 276 3/19/1993 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. Resolution, 377 9/27/1995 9/30/1996 61 FR 51014. Resolution, 725 3/23/2006 3/17/2011 76 FR 14584. State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Lincoln County Air Quality Control Program, Chapter 27, Libby PM-10 SIP Commitments, 27.10.18, 12/21/1992 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. Stipulation—1991 October 7, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of its Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. Stipulation—1993 March 18, In the Matter of the Application of the City of Libby and County of Lincoln for Approval of Amendments to their Local Air Pollution Control Program 3/19/1993 8/30/1994 59 FR 44627. (6) Missoula County Board Order—1991 June 28, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 1/24/1992 1/18/1994 59 FR 2537. Board Orders, Board Order—1992 March 20, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 3/20/1992 1/18/1994 59 FR 2537. Board Order—1992 September 25, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program relating to the adoption of a Carbon Monoxide Control Plan 9/25/1992 11/8/1994 59 FR 55585. Board Order—1993 November 19, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/19/1993 12/13/1994 59 FR 64139. Board Order—1994 September 16, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 9/16/1994 8/30/1995 60 FR 45051. Board Order—1997 October 31, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 10/31/1997 1/3/2000 65 FR 16. Board Order—2000 November 30, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/17/2000 11/15/2001 66 FR 57391. Missoula Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan, State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Chapter 32, The Missoula County Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 3/7/2005 8/17/2007 72 FR 46158. Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Missoula Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Attainment Plan Summary Stipulations, Stipulation—1991 April 29, In the matter of the Application of the City of Missoula and the County of Missoula for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 1/24/1992 1/18/1994 59 FR 2537. (7) Sanders County Board Order, Board Order—1997 June 20, In the Matter of the Application of The Department of Environmental Quality for Inclusion of a Control Plan for PM-10 Emissions in The Thompson Falls Area Into the Montana State Implementation Plan 6/20/1997 1/22/2004 69 FR 3011. Maintenance Agreement, Maintenance Agreement—1997 May, Maintenance Agreement Between The City of Thompson Falls, Department of Transportation, and Department of Environmental Quality for Street Sweeping Responsibilities 6/20/1997 1/22/2004 69 FR 3011. Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Thompson Falls Particulate Matter (PM-10) Control Plan (8) Silver Bow County Board Order—1991 November 15, In the Matter of the Application of Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners for Approval of its Local Air Pollution Control Program 11/15/1991 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. Board Order—1994 May 20, In the Matter of the Application of Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners for Approval of Amendments to its Local Air Pollution Control Program 5/20/1994 3/22/1995 60 FR 15056. Ordinance 330, Establishing Residential Wood Burning and Idling Diesel Vehicle and Locomotive Requirements 11/15/1991 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. Ordinance 468, Contingency Measure Requirements for Liquid De-icers 5/20/1994 3/22/1995 60 FR 15056. Particulate Matter (PM-10)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Butte Particulate Matter (PM-10) Attainment Plan Resolutions, Resolution 1307, Establishing Sanding and Chip Seal Material Standards and Street Sweeping and Flushing Policies 3/6/1991 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Butte/Silver Bow Air Quality Control Program, Chapter 47, Butte PM-10 SIP Commitments, 47.10.18 7/9/1992 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. Stipulation—1991 October 7, In the matter of compliance of the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow and the Montana Department of Transportation 11/15/1991 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. Stipulation—1991 October 8, In the matter of the Application of Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners for Approval of its Local Air Pollution Control Program 3/20/1992 3/11/1994 59 FR 11550. (9) Yellowstone County Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO)—Plan Summary, Plan Summary, Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO)—Maintenance Plan, State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Yellowstone County Air Pollution Control Program, Chapter 56, Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan 12/19/2000 2/21/2002 67 FR 7966. Board Order, Board Order—1999 September 24, Approval of Amendments to Yellowstone County's Air Pollution Control Program 9/24/1999 8/13/2001 66 FR 42427. Sulfur Dioxide—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits and Attachments, 1977 December 1—Stipulation, In the matter of the Proposed Revision of the State Implementation Plan for the Billings Air Quality Maintenance Area 1/25/1978 9/6/1979 44 FR 51977. Sulfur Dioxide—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits and Attachments, 1978 January 25—Board Order, In the matter of the Proposed Revision of the Montana State Implementation Plan for the Billings Air Quality Maintenance Area 1/25/1978 9/6/1979 44 FR 51977. Sulfur Dioxide—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits and Attachments, Montana Power June 12, 1998 Exhibit A, Emission Limitations and Other Conditions 6/12/1998 5/2/2002 67 FR 22168.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09414 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [GN Docket No. 12-268; FCC 14-50] Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved on April 9, 2015, for a period for three years, an information collection for FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, contained in the Report and Order, FCC 14-50. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 73.3700(b)(3) and FCC Form 2100, Schedule F, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, are effective on April 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information contact Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on April 9, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements for FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F and 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(3), published at 79 FR 48442 on August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0928. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0928, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [email protected]

    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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on April 9, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the information collection 3060-0928.

    Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0928. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0928.

    OMB Approval Date: April 9, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2018.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F (Formerly FCC 302-CA); 47 CFR 73.3572(h) and 47 CFR 73.3700.

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule F.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 521 respondents; 521 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; one-time reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309 and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,042 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $148,485.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 12-118, released by the Commission on October 2, 2012, it is proposed that, following the completion of the incentive auction process, all channel sharing Class A stations will need to file FCC Form 302-CA (now renamed FCC Form 2100, Schedule F) for their shared channel facility. The NPRM adopts the following proposed information collection requirements:

    47 CFR 73.3700—Channel sharing Class A stations will need to file FCC Form 302-CA (now renamed FCC Form 2100, Schedule F) for their shared channel facility.

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary. Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09593 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 14-253, RM-11741; DA 15-441] Radio Broadcasting Services; Sagaponack, New York AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    At the request of Red Wolf Broadcasting Corporation, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 233A at Sagaponack, New York, as the community's first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 233A can be allotted to Sagaponack consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with a site restriction located 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) northwest of the community. The reference coordinates are 40-56-01 NL and 72-18-55 WL.

    DATES:

    Effective May 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 14-253, adopted April 9, 2015, and released April 10, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

    Federal Communications Commission. Nazifa Sawez, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    § 73.202 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is amended by adding Sagaponack, Channel 233A.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09568 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 140417346-4575-02] RIN 0648-XD916 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Closure AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this action NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This action is necessary because the adjusted non-tribal directed harvest allocation of approximately 5084 metric tons (mt) for the third harvest allocation period from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015, is projected to be reached by the date of closure. From the effective date of this rule through June 30, 2015, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries; the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine is limited to 45-percent by weight of all fish per trip. Fishing vessels must cease fishing (be at shore and in the process of offloading) at or before the effective date of this closure.

    DATES:

    Effective 12:01 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) April 28, 2015, through 11:59 p.m., June 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that—based on the best available information recently obtained on the status of the fishery and information on past fishing effort—the adjusted non-tribal directed fishing harvest allocation for the third harvest allocation period from January 1, through June 30, 2015, of 5,084 mt will be reached and therefore directed fishing for Pacific sardine is being closed per the final rule establishing the 2014-2015 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 25, 2014, 79 FR 43269). In accordance with that rule, the initial directed harvest allocation for the third period of 6,252 mt was adjusted to 5,084 mt to account for excess harvest in the second harvest allocation period. Fishing vessels must cease fishing (be at shore and in the process of offloading) at or before the effective date of this closure. From the effectiveness of this closure, through June 30, 2015, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries, with the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine limited to 45-percent by weight of all fish caught during a trip.

    NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e. annual catch limit (ACL)/harvest guideline (HG)) for each Pacific sardine fishing season. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, and the fishery is closed, only incidental harvest is allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings will be counted against that period's incidental set aside. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, all fisheries will be closed to the retention of Pacific sardine for the remainder of the period via appropriate rulemaking.

    Under 50 CFR 660.509, if the total allocation or any specific apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, NMFS is required to close the Pacific sardine fishery via appropriate rulemaking and the fishery remains closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. In accordance with § 660.509, the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine.

    The above in-season harvest restrictions are not intended to affect the prosecution of the live bait or tribal portions of the Pacific sardine fishery.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for the closure of the directed harvest of Pacific sardine. For the reasons set forth below, notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. This measure responds to the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. A delay in effectiveness would cause the fishery to exceed the allocation for the directed fishery during the 2014-2015 fishing season, which is an important mechanism to prevent fishing in excess of the 2014-2105 annual catch limit. These seasonal harvest levels are important mechanisms in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. The established directed and incidental harvest allocations are designed to allow fair and equitable opportunity to the resource by all sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery and to allow access to other profitable CPS fisheries, such as squid and Pacific mackerel. Many of the same fishermen who harvest Pacific sardine rely on these other fisheries for a significant portion of their income.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09562 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 79 Friday, April 24, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0085] RIN 0579-AE04 Importation of Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, from a pest free production site within a certified low pest prevalence area for fruit flies, and pest monitoring and trapping. The fruit would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador bearing an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0085.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0085, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0085 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be imported from Ecuador into the continental United States.

    As part of our evaluation of Ecuador's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA), titled “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Andean Blackberry (Rubus glaucus Benth) and Raspberry (Rubus idaeus Linnaeus) into the Continental United States from Ecuador” (June 2012). The PRA evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador. Copies of the PRA may be obtained by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA identified three quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit imported from Ecuador: Anastrepha fraterculus (South American fruit fly), Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly), and Copitarsia decolora, a moth. All of these pests were rated in the PRA as posing a high pest risk potential.

    APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States produced under a systems approach.

    APHIS has also prepared a risk management document for the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador that identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pests identified in the PRA and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of the identified pests into the continental United States. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach requirement to the regulations in a new § 319.56-73. The proposed measures are described below.

    General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56-73 would set out general requirements for the NPPO of Ecuador and for growers and packers producing fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit for export to the continental United States.

    Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-73. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed § 319.56-73 would state that APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.

    Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed § 319.56-73 would state that only commercial consignments of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador would be allowed to be imported into the continental United States. Commercial consignments are less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, may be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

    Production Site Requirements

    Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require certain mitigation measures to be taken under the systems approach at the registered production sites. Paragraph (b)(1) would require the production site to carry out any phytosanitary measures specified in the operational workplan. Examples of measures may include field monitoring, bait spraying, and trapping.

    Both Andean blackberries and raspberries have been established in the scientific literature as poor hosts of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata. Currently, APHIS does not require mitigations for Ceratitis capitata for raspberries imported from countries with this pest, including Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Therefore, mitigations for Ceratitis capitata other than requiring commercial production and inspections are not included in the systems approach. However, there are a few recorded instances of Anastrepha fraterculus infesting Andean blackberries in the field. Because of the slightly stronger host status potential for Anastrepha fraterculus in blackberries and raspberries, we would include in the operational workplan a requirement for field trapping and bait spraying in order to maintain low pest prevalence for this pest.

    Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require that all production sites participating in the Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit export program be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of blackberry and raspberry fruit to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States. APHIS would reserve the right to conduct oversight visits at the production site in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.

    Paragraph (b)(3) would require the NPPO of Ecuador or their designee 1 to conduct a fruit fly trapping program for the detection of Anastrepha fraterculus at each production site. This program would support efforts for pest free production sites within a certified low pest prevalence area for fruit flies. Details of the trapping program and designation, if applicable, would be specified in the operational workplan.

    1 An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    Paragraph (b)(4) would require that the NPPO of Ecuador maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any captures of Anastrepha fraterculus. The trapping records would have to be maintained and available for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.

    Lastly, paragraph (b)(5) would require that the NPPO of Ecuador also maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program, the details of which would be specified in the operational workplan.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    Paragraph (c) of proposed § 319.56-73 would set forth requirements for mitigation and inspection measures specified under the operational workplan that would have to take place at registered packinghouses.

    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that packinghouses be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador and comply with the requirements for inspecting and safeguarding fruit as specified in the operational workplan. If issues should arise, registration would allow for the traceback of a box of fruit to its place of production and packinghouse and would allow APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador to determine what remedial actions are necessary.

    Paragraph (c)(2) would require that while in use for exporting Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept fruit from registered production sites.

    Paragraph (c)(3) would state that if a single Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, or Copitarsia decolora is detected by the NPPO of Ecuador in a consignment, that consignment may not be exported to the continental United States. Furthermore, if a single Anastrepha fraterculus or Ceratitis capitata were detected in a consignment at the port of entry, the consignment would be traced back to the production site and would result in immediate cancellation of exports to the continental United States from that production site. The registered production site would lose its ability to export Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador mutually determine that risk mitigation is achieved.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    The NPPO of Ecuador would be responsible for export certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates. Paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require each consignment of Andean blackberries and/or raspberries to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The proposed rule is in response to a market access request from the Government of Ecuador for APHIS authorization to allow the importation of fresh Andean raspberries (Rubus idaeus) and blackberries (Rubus occidentalis) into the continental United States under a systems approach. The systems approach would integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. Generally, APHIS allows the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables when requested by a foreign government, and when sound science and an analysis of the risks show that it is appropriate to do so.

    U.S. entities that may be impacted by the proposed rule are U.S. producers of fresh raspberries, blackberries, and loganberries, the majority of which are produced in Oregon (98 percent of U.S. blackberries and almost all loganberries), Washington (95 percent of U.S. red raspberries) and California (84 percent of all color raspberries). As a species, Andean raspberries and blackberries are similar to loganberries.

    Impacts of the proposed rule on U.S. entities would be dependent upon the quantity of fresh Andean raspberries and blackberries from Ecuador. In 2005, Ecuador had approximately 10,564 acres of Andean blackberry and raspberry crops with a potential production output of 6,840 metric tons (about 15 million pounds) of fruit. Between 2000 and 2006, Ecuador exported an average of 13 metric tons (about 28,660 pounds) of Andean blackberries and raspberries. In 2007, exports of fresh Andean raspberries and Andean blackberries from Ecuador reached 90 metric tons (about 198,416 pounds). According to an Ecuadorian government estimate, the maximum quantity of fresh Andean raspberries and blackberries that could be exported to the United States is less than 182 metric tons per year or 401.24 thousand pounds.

    On average, between 2008 and 2012 the United States imported 37.22 million pounds of fresh raspberries, and between 2011 and 2013 imported 63 million pounds of fresh blackberries. Compared to the total average U.S. imports of fresh raspberries and blackberries, the Ecuadorian import share would be less than 0.5 percent of the total U.S. imports for these fruits.

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0085. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    Allowing the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador will require an operational workplan, production site registration, packinghouse registration, a quality control program, recordkeeping, and phytosanitary certificates issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignments were produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.833 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO, producers, exporters.

    Estimated number of respondents: 23.

    Estimated number of responses per respondent: 2.608.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 60.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 170 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-73 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-73. Andean blackberries and raspberries from Ecuador.

    Andean blackberries (Rubus glaucus Benth) and raspberries (Rubus idaeus Linnaeus) may be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador under the conditions described in this section and other applicable provisions of this subpart. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, and Copitarsia decolora.

    (a) General requirements. (1) The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the systems approach to pest mitigations and other specific requirements that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section.

    (2) APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.

    (3) Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador may be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.

    (b) Production site requirements. (1) Each production site must carry out the phytosanitary measures specified in the APHIS-approved operational workplan.

    (2) All places of production that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. APHIS reserves the right to conduct oversight visits in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.

    (3) The NPPO of Ecuador or their designee must conduct a fruit fly trapping program for the detection of Anastrepha fraterculus at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan. If a designee conducts the program, the designation must be detailed in the operational workplan. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    (4) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any captures of Anastrepha fraterculus. The trapping records must be maintained for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.

    (5) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) Packinghouses must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador and comply with the requirements as specified in the operational workplan.

    (2) While in use for exporting Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept fruit from registered production sites.

    (3) If a single Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, or Copitarsia decolora is detected by the NPPO in a consignment, the consignment may not be exported to the United States. Furthermore, if a single Anastrepha fraterculus or Ceratitis capitata is detected in a consignment at the port of entry and traced back to a registered production site, that production site will lose its ability to export Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador mutually determine that risk mitigation is achieved.

    (d) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of Andean blackberries and/or raspberries must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador and bear an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09578 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086] RIN 0579-AE07 Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements in the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0086.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0086 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations in order to allow the common bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), locoto pepper (Capsicum baccatum L.), habanero pepper (Capsicum chinense Jacq.), tabasco pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.), and manzano pepper (Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) to be imported into the United States. (Hereafter we refer to these species as “peppers.”)

    As part of our evaluation of Ecuador's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Pepper Fruit—Capsicum annuum L., Capsicum baccatum L., Capsicum chinense Jacq., Capsicum frutescens L., and Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.—from Ecuador into the United States (January 2013),” evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the United States of fresh peppers from Ecuador.

    The PRA identifies eight quarantine pests present in Ecuador that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of fresh peppers:

    Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly.

    Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Mediterranean fruit fly.

    Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée), a fruit-boring moth.

    Puccinia pampeana Speg., a pathogenic fungus that causes pepper and green pepper rust.

    Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), a leaf-eating moth.

    Thrips palmi Karny, an arthropod.

    Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) Povolny, South American tomato moth.

    • Andean potato mottle virus.

    A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Plant pest risk potentials associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of each quarantine pest into the United States and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA rated six of the pests as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of peppers from Ecuador into the United States: The insects Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, Spodoptera litura, Thrips palmi, and Tuta absoluta and the fungus Puccinia pampeana. The PRA rated the insect Neoleucinodes elegantalis and the Andean potato mottle virus with a medium pest risk potential.

    APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh peppers with stems from Ecuador into the United States produced under a systems approach. The RMD prepared for fresh peppers from Ecuador identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pests identified in the PRA and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of those pests into the United States. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach to the regulations in a new § 319.56-73. The proposed measures are described below.

    General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-73. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require fresh peppers from Ecuador to be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

    Production Site Requirements

    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require that the peppers be grown in a pest-free, pest-exclusionary greenhouse or similar structure approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Pest-free production sites have been used successfully to prevent infestation by C. capitata and other quarantine pests for peppers of the species Capsicum annuum, Capsicum baccatum, Capsicum chinense, and Capsicum frutescens in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua since 2005. No pests of quarantine significance have been intercepted by APHIS on fresh peppers grown in such structures and imported into the United States from these regions. The pest-exclusionary structures would have to be equipped with double self-closing doors to prevent inadvertent introduction of pests. In addition, any windows, vents, or openings in the pest-exclusionary structures (other than the double self-closing doors) would have to be covered with 1.6 mm screening (or less) in order to prevent the entry of pests. The 1.6 mm screening size is adequate to exclude A. fraterculus, C. capitata, N. elegantalis, S. litura, and T. absoluta, as these pests are relatively large.

    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require that all production sites participating in the fresh pepper export program be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States. APHIS would reserve the right to conduct audits and inspect the production sites as necessary.

    Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require the production sites to be inspected prior to harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee 1 in accordance with the operational workplan. If, during these inspections, T. palmi, the Lepidoptera N. elegantalis, S. litura, T. absoluta, P. pampeana, the Andean potato mottle virus, or other quarantine pests are found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the NPPO of Ecuador would immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition would remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    1 An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require trapping for the fruit flies A. fraterculus and C. capitata at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan.

    Paragraph (c)(5) would state that, if a single A. fraterculus or C. capitata is detected inside a registered production site or in a consignment, the NPPO of Ecuador would immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition would remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the risk has been mitigated.

    To ensure that the trapping is being properly conducted, paragraph (c)(6) would state that the NPPO of Ecuador would have to maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records would have to be maintained for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.

    Paragraph (c)(7) would state that the NPPO of Ecuador would have to maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-73.

    Paragraph (d)(1) would require that fresh peppers be packed in a packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States.

    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that the peppers be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers would be required to be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the United States. These safeguards would have to remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment would be denied entry.

    Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed § 319.56-73 would require that during the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting fresh peppers to the United States, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept peppers from registered production sites. This requirement would prevent such peppers intended for export to the United States from being exposed to or otherwise mixed with peppers that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    To certify that fresh peppers from Ecuador have been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56-73, proposed paragraph (e) would require each consignment of peppers to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing the additional declaration that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73. The shipping box would have to be labeled with the identity of the production site.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. The systems approach would integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.

    The most recent production data available show that fresh pepper yields in Ecuador have expanded from approximately 12,522 pounds per hectare (pounds/ha) in 1996 to approximately 66,361 pounds/ha in 2006. The total quantity of fresh peppers that were exported from Ecuador in 2006 and 2007 was 96.3 metric tons (MT) and 206.5 MT, respectively. Sea shipping containers that are 40 feet in length hold approximately 20 U.S MT. Considering the total volume exported from Ecuador during these years, APHIS estimates imports of no more than 10 containers (200 MT) of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States annually. This quantity is equivalent to less than 0.02 percent of annual U.S. fresh pepper production. Similarly, the estimated quantity of fresh pepper imports from Ecuador (200 MT annually) is minimal compared to the total quantity of fresh peppers imported by the United States in recent years (800,000 MT annually).

    In the United States, the average value of bell pepper production per farm in 2012 was approximately $52,300, and the average value of chili pepper production per farm was approximately $20,700. Both levels are well below the small-entity standard of $750,000. Establishments classified within NAICS 111219, including pepper farms, are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if annual sales are not more than $750,000. Accordingly, pepper growers are predominantly small entities according to the SBA standard.

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh peppers to be imported into the United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh peppers imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, inspections, production sites, a quality control program, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73.

    This action would allow for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    Allowing the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador will require an operational workplan, registered production sites, trapping records, quality control program, packinghouse registrations, box labeling, and phytosanitary certificates.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .007 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO, producers, exporters.

    Estimated number of respondents: 802.

    Estimated number of responses per respondent: 251.45.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 201,669.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,486 hours. (Due to rounding, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the average reporting burden per response.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-73 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-73 Peppers from Ecuador.

    Fresh peppers (Capsicum annum L., Capsicum baccatum L., Capsicum chinense Jacq., Capsicum frutescens L., and Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) from Ecuador may be imported into the United States only under the conditions described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Andean potato mottle virus; Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly; Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Mediterranean fruit fly; Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée), a fruit boring moth; Puccinia pampeana Speg., a pathogenic fungus that causes pepper and green pepper rust Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), a leaf-eating moth; Thrips palmi Karny, an arthropod; and Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) Povolny, South American tomato moth.

    (a) General requirements. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must include and describe the specific requirements as set forth in this section.

    (b) Commercial consignments. Peppers from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (c) Production site requirements. (1) Pepper production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary structures, which must have double self-closing doors and have all other windows, openings, and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.

    (2) All production sites that participate in the pepper export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

    (3) The production sites must be inspected prior to each harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee in accordance with the operational workplan. If any quarantine pests are found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the NPPO of Ecuador will immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of this action. The prohibition will remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the pest risk has been mitigated. If a designee conducts the program, the designation must be detailed in the operational workplan. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    (4) The registered production sites must conduct trapping for the fruit flies A. fraterculus and C. capitata at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (5) If a single A. fraterculus or C. capitata is detected inside a registered production site or in a consignment, the NPPO of Ecuador must immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition will remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the risk has been mitigated.

    (6) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review for at least 1 year.

    (7) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (d) Packinghouse procedures. (1) All packinghouses that participate in the export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

    (2) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the United States. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment will be denied entry into the United States.

    (3) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept peppers from registered approved production sites.

    (e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing the additional declaration that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-73. The shipping box must be labeled with the identity of the production site.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09581 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0028] RIN 0579-AD97 Importation of Fresh Peppers From Peru Into the Continental United States and the Territories AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Peru with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of untreated fresh peppers from Peru while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States and the Territories.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0028.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0028, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0028 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. George Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh peppers from Peru.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations in order to allow the common chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), aji pepper (Capsicum baccatum L.), habanero chili (Capsicum chinense Jacq.), Thai pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.), and rocoto (Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) to be imported into the continental United States and the Territories (the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and any other territory or possession of the United States). (Hereafter we refer to these species as “peppers.”)

    As part of our evaluation of Peru's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Pepper Fruit—Capsicum annuum L., Capsicum baccatum L., Capsicum chinense Jacq., Capsicum frutescens L., and Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.—from Peru into the Continental United States and Territories,” evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the continental United States and the Territories of fresh peppers from Peru.

    The PRA identifies four quarantine pests present in Peru that could be introduced into the continental United States and the Territories through the importation of peppers:

    Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly.

    Ceratitis capitata (Widemann), Mediterranean fruit fly.

    Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée), a fruit boring moth.

    Puccinia pampeana Speg., a pathogenic fungus that causes pepper and green pepper rust.

    A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Plant pest risk potentials associated with the importation of peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of each quarantine pest into the continental United States and the Territories and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA determined that three of these four pests—A. fraterculus, C. capitata, and P. pampeana—pose a high risk of following the pathway of peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories and having negative effects on U.S. agriculture. The remaining pest—N. elegantalis—was rated as having a medium risk potential.

    Based on the conclusions of the PRA and the RMD, we are proposing to allow the importation of peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories subject to a systems approach. The conditions in the systems approach that we are proposing are described below. These conditions would be added to the regulations in a new § 319.56-73.

    Operational Workplan

    Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56-73 would require the NPPO of Peru to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-73. The operational workplan would have to include and describe in detail the quarantine pest survey intervals and other specific requirements in proposed § 319.56-73.

    An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Commercial Consignments

    Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56-73 would require peppers from Peru to be imported only in commercial consignments. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packing, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.

    Approved Production Sites

    Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56-73 would require that the peppers be grown in a pest-free, pest-exclusionary structure approved by and registered with the Peruvian NPPO. These pest-exclusionary structures would be the only registered production sites for peppers from Peru. APHIS reserves the right to conduct audits and inspect the production sites as needed. The pest-exclusionary structures would have to be equipped with double self-closing doors to prevent inadvertent introduction of pests. In addition, any windows, vents, or openings in the pest-exclusionary structures (other than the double self-closing doors) would have to be covered with 1.6 mm screening in order to prevent the entry of pests. The 1.6 mm screening size is adequate to exclude A. fraterculus, C. capitata, and N. elegantalis, as these three pests are relatively large.

    We would require the production sites to be inspected prior to harvest for N. elegantalis and P. pampeana by the Peruvian NPPO or its approved designee. (An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.) If, during these inspections, either of these quarantine pests or other quarantine pests is found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the Peruvian NPPO would immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the continental United States and the Territories and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition would remain in effect until the Peruvian NPPO and APHIS determine that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    Trapping Requirements

    Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56-73 would also require trapping for A. fraterculus and C. capitata both within and around the production site. Internal trapping would have to be conducted continuously for the duration of the time the production site is used to produce peppers for export to the continental United States and the Territories. External trapping would have to be conducted beginning 2 months before export and continue until the end of harvest.

    Traps with an approved protein bait would have to be placed inside the production sites at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of at least two traps per structure. The traps would have to be serviced at least once every 7 days. If a single A. fraterculus or C. capitata is detected inside a registered production site or in a consignment, the Peruvian NPPO would immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the continental United States and the Territories and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition would remain in effect until the Peruvian NPPO and APHIS agree that the risk has been mitigated.

    Outside the production site, traps with an approved protein bait would have to be placed inside a buffer area 500 meters wide around the structure at a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares, with a minimum of 10 traps. At least one of these traps would have to be placed near the production site. These traps would have to be serviced at least once every 7 days.

    Capture of 0.7 or more A. fraterculus or C. capitata per trap per week would delay or suspend the harvest, depending on whether harvest has begun, for consignments of peppers from that production site. The prohibition would remain in effect until the Peruvian NPPO and APHIS agree that the risk has been mitigated.

    To ensure that the trapping is being properly conducted, the Peruvian NPPO or its approved designee would have to maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures. The Peruvian NPPO would also have to maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS' review.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-73. Peppers would have to be packed for export within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Peru. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the continental United States or the Territories. The peppers would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh, screen, or plastic tarpaulin while in transit from the production site to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers would have to be packed for shipment to the continental United States or the Territories in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin. These safeguards would have to remain intact until the arrival of the peppers in the continental United States or the Territories or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the continental United States or the Territories.

    During the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the continental United States or the Territories, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept peppers from registered production sites. This requirement would prevent peppers intended for export to the continental United States or the Territories from being exposed to or mixed with peppers that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    To certify that peppers from Peru have been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56-73, proposed paragraph (e) would require each consignment of peppers to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the Peruvian NPPO with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the systems approach described in the proposed regulations.

    Definitions

    We are also proposing to add a definition for continental United States to the regulations in § 319.56-2, as it is used throughout the regulations but not defined. This definition would be identical to that used in “Subpart—Regulated Articles from Hawaii and the Territories” found in 7 CFR 318.13-2.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.

    The proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests listed in the PRA. The systems approach would integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.

    Fresh peppers from Peru would compete with U.S. domestic production as well as with imports from other countries. Peru produced an average of about 9,600 metric tons (MT) of fresh peppers annually from 2005 through 2011. Over that same time period, fresh pepper exports from Peru ranged from 226 MT to 567 MT, accounting for between 2.6 and 7.0 percent of annual production.1 Based on production area and yield in Peru, the PRA estimates that no more than 22 containers a year (440 MT) would be imported into the continental United States and the Territories.

    1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Consumers base their fresh produce purchasing decisions on a number of factors besides price, including qualitative attributes such as color, shape, appearance, size, freshness, perceived health benefits, production methods, and product origin. Consumers would benefit from the additional supply of fresh peppers that imports from Peru would provide, and importers and distributors of Peruvian fresh peppers would benefit from new business opportunities. U.S. producers would face increased competition from the additional imports. However, economic effects of the proposed rule for U.S. fresh pepper producers and consumers are likely to be small. The quantity expected to be imported, less than 440 MT, is the equivalent of less than 0.03 percent of annual fresh pepper consumption in the United States.

    We use a non-spatial, net trade, partial equilibrium model to quantitatively assess benefits and costs of the proposed rule. As a measure of the sensitivity of possible impacts, we assume three annual import volumes of fresh peppers from Peru: 220, 440, and 660 MT. In all cases, we find that consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare losses, yielding small positive net welfare impacts. Modeled net economic gains for the United States due to fresh pepper imports from Peru range from $231,000 to $692,000. Actual levels of additional fresh peppers that would be imported from Peru as a result of this rule would depend on relative prices, seasonality, and various qualitative factors as mentioned above.

    We have identified industries that could be affected by the proposed rule based on the North American Industry Classification System. Based on Small Business Administration size standards, small entities are prominent in those industries for which information on business size composition is available.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh peppers to be imported into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh peppers imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0028. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Peru with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach.

    Allowing the importation of untreated fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru will require an operational workplan, registered production sites, trapping records, quality control program, packinghouse registrations, and phytosanitary certificates.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.3 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO, producers, exporters.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 15.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 13.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 197.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 266 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of continental United States as follows:
    § 319.56-2 Definitions.

    Continental United States. The 48 contiguous States, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.

    3. Section 319.56-73 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-73 Peppers from Peru.

    Fresh peppers (Capsicum annum L., Capsicum baccatum L., Capsicum chinense Jacq., Capsicum frutescens L., and Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) may be imported into the continental United States and its Territories only under the conditions described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly; Ceratitis capitata (Widemann), Mediterranean fruit fly; Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée), a fruit boring moth; and Puccinia pampeana Speg., a pathogenic fungus that causes pepper and green pepper rust.

    (a) Operational workplan. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Peru will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must include and describe the quarantine pest survey intervals and other specific requirements as set forth in this section.

    (b) Commercial consignments. Peppers from Peru may be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (c) Production site requirements. (1) Pepper production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary structures, which must have double self-closing doors and have all other windows, openings, and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.

    (2) All production sites that participate in the export program must be registered with the Peruvian NPPO.

    (3) The production sites must be inspected prior to harvest for Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée) and Puccinia pampeana Speg. If either of these pests, or other quarantine pests, are found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the NPPO of Peru will immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the continental United States and its Territories and notify APHIS of this action. The prohibition will remain in effect until the Peruvian NPPO and APHIS determine that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    (4) The production sites must contain traps for the detection of Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) and Ceratitis capitata (Widemann) both within and around the structures. Internal traps must be set for the duration of the time the production site is used to produce peppers for export to the continental United States or the Territories. External traps must be set for at least 2 months before export and trapping must continue to the end of the harvest as follows:

    (i) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside the production site at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of two traps per structure. Traps must be serviced once every 7 days.

    (ii) If a single Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) or Ceratitis capitata (Widemann) is detected inside a registered production site or in a consignment, the registered production site will lose its ability to export peppers to the continental United States or its Territories until APHIS and the Peruvian NPPO mutually determine that risk mitigation is achieved.

    (iii) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside a buffer area 500 meters wide around the registered production site, at a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum of 10 traps. These traps must be checked at least once every 7 days. At least one of these traps must be near the production site.

    (iv) Capture of 0.7 or more Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) or Ceratitis capitata (Widemann) per trap per week will delay or suspend the harvest, depending on whether harvest has begun, for consignments of peppers from that registered production site until APHIS and the Peruvian NPPO can agree that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    (v) The Peruvian NPPO must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures. The Peruvian NPPO must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program. The trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review.

    (d) Packinghouse procedures. (1) All packinghouses that participate in the export program must be registered with the Peruvian NPPO.

    (2) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the continental United States or its Territories. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the continental United States or its Territories or the consignment will be denied entry into the continental United States or its Territories.

    (3) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the continental United States or its Territories, the packinghouse may only accept peppers from registered approved production sites.

    (e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the Peruvian NPPO stating that the fruit in the consignment has been produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach in 7 CFR 319.56-73.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09577 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031] RIN 1904-AC54 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting for Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps. This document corrects the terms in one of the equations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected]

    DATES:

    April 24, 2015.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register published on April 2, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-06947, make the following correction:

    On page 17836: Equation 2 is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:

    η pump,STD = −0.85 * ln(Q 100 %%)2 − 0.38 * ln(Ns) * ln(Q 100 %%) − 11.48 * ln(Ns)2 + 17.80 * ln(Q 100 %%) + 179.80 * ln (Ns) − (C − 555.6) Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09565 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055] RIN 1905-AD50 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting for Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps. This document corrects terms in four equations.

    DATES:

    April 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected]doe.gov.

    Corrections

    In the Federal Register published on April 1, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-06945, make the following corrections:

    1. On page 17604: Equation (6) is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:

    EP24AP15.017 Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431—Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Pumps. [Corrected]

    2. On page 17645: The equation in section II.B.1.1.1 is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:

    η pump,STD = −0.85 * In(Q 100 %%)2 − 0.38 * In(N S) * In(Q 100 %%) − 11.48 * In(N S)2 + 17.80 * In(Q 100 %%) + 179.80 * In(N S) − (C − 555.6)

    3. On page 17646: The equation in section III.D.1.2.1 is corrected by removing “MotorH” and adding in its place “MotorHP”. The corrected equation reads as follows:

    EP24AP15.001

    4. On page 17648: The equation in section V.D.1.2.1 is corrected by removing “MotorHPMotorH” and adding in its place “MotorHP”. The corrected equation reads as follows:

    EP24AP15.002 Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09566 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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 Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a rupture of a main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle. This proposed AD would require an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane; and an inspection of the axle on certain MLG sliding tubes for burned areas, and replacement of the sliding tube if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 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 Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; phone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet: https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.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-2015-0831; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0058, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle rupture occurred in service. Investigation of the affected part showed that this failure was due to an abnormal grinding operation during overhaul by a certain maintenance and repair organisation located in Singapore. A population of MLG sliding tubes was subsequently identified whose axles may have been subject to this grinding operation, which may have resulted in areas of residual stress on the axles on the MLG sliding tubes. In addition, the MSN [manufacturer serial number] of the aeroplanes which are known to have had the affected parts installed have been identified.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of axle and wheel from the sliding tube, possibly resulting in failure of a MLG with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, the MLG gear manufacturer, issued Service Bulletin (SB) 200-32-313 and SB 201-32-62 [both dated February 25, 2013], providing inspection instructions and criteria for removal from service of the affected MLG sliding tubes.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) of the axle on the affected MLG sliding tubes and, depending on findings, replacement of the MLG sliding tube.

    The SDI includes a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plate for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for burned areas. 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-2015-0831. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes). This service bulletin describes procedures for inspection of the MLG sliding tube axles, and replacement if necessary.

    Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued Service Bulletin 200-32-313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); and Service Bulletin 201-32-62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes). These service bulletins describe procedures for inspection of the MLG axles and brake flanges, and replacement 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.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 18 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 $4,590, or $1,530 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 per product. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide part cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 8, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a rupture of a main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) MLG Sliding Tube Part Number and Serial Number Identification

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (h) Identification of Airplanes Not Affected by the Requirements of Paragraph (i) of This AD

    An airplane with a manufacturer serial number (MSN) not listed in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, provided it can be determined that no MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since first flight of the airplane.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD Affected airplanes listed by MSN 0179 0214 0296 0412 0558 0604 0607 0668 0704 0720 0726 0731 0754 0771 0799 0828 0841 0855 0909 0914 0925 0939 0986 1028 1030 1041 1070 1083 1093 1098 1108 1148 1294 1356 2713 2831 Table 1 to Paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of This AD—Affected MLG Sliding Tubes Part No. Serial No. 201160302 78B. 201160302 1016B11. 201160302 1144B. 201371302 B4493. 201371302 B4513. 201371302 SS4359. 201371302 B4530. 201371302 B4517. 201371302 B4568. 201371302 B4498. 201371302 4490B. 201371302 B202-4598. 201371302 B165-4623. 201371302 B244-4766. 201371302 B267-4794. 201371302 B272-4813. 201160302 1108B. 201371304 B041-4871. 201371304 B045-4869. 201371304 B001-4781. 201371304 B051-4892. 201371304 B110-1952. 201371304 B054-4891. 201371304 B063-4921. 201371304 B071-4911. 201371304 B071-4917. 201371304 B080-1933. 201371304 B117-5010. 201371304 B120-4989. 201371304 B132-2023. 201371304 B114-1956. 201371304 B208-2009. 201371304 B133-1947. 201371304 B154-5037. 201371304 B89 4952. 201371304 B129-1964. 201371304 B227-2010. 201371304 B170-5031. 201371304 B182-5047. 201371304 B239-2053. 201371304 B1401-2856. 201371304 B1813-3142. 201371304 B116-5004. 201522353 B011-149. 201522350 B014-25. 201522350 B019-56. 201522350 B019-57. 201522350 B021-69. 201522350 B022-60. 201522353 B03-111. 201522353 B03-110. 201522353 B112-317. 201522353 B174-351. 201522353 B179-392. 201383350 4377B. 201383350 4393B. 201383350 B1831. 201383350 B1832. 201383350 SS4355B. 201383350 SS4400B. (i) Inspections

    For each MLG sliding tube, identified as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each affected MLG axle and brake flange by doing a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plate for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for burned areas, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes).

    (j) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any damage is detected: Before further flight, replace the MLG sliding tube with a serviceable tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes).

    (k) Definition of Serviceable Sliding Tube

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable sliding tube is defined in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number not listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.

    (2) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD that has passed the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (l) Parts Installation Prohibitions

    (1) For airplanes that have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: After an airplane is returned to service following accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, do not have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] 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) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

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

    (n) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the MLG remains extended throughout the flight.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2014-0058, dated March 11, 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-2015-0831.

    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. (3) For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166 8910; phone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet: https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 9, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09288 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-121-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-07-14, for certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231 airplanes. AD 97-07-14 currently requires modification of an area on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings. Since we issued AD 97-07-14, we have determined the need for repetitive inspections on airplanes on which the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section has been done. This proposed AD would continue to require modifying the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings; and would require repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36, a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges, repair if needed, and adding additional airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking on the rib flange area of the front spar of the wing center section, which can reduce the structural integrity of fuselage frame 36 and the wing center section.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0926; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-121-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On March 27, 1997, we issued AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). AD 97-07-14 requires modification of an area on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings on certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211 and -231 airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997), we have determined the need for repetitive inspections on airplanes on which Airbus Modification 20976 (modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section) was done in production, or was done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, dated April 12, 1989; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0053, dated March 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full scale fatigue tests on the Airbus A320 test specimen, cracks were found in the rib flange on the front spar side perpendicular to vertical posts at frame (FR) 36. It was determined that similar cracks could develop on certain in-service aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the wing structural integrity.

    To reduce the risk of crack initiation, two modifications for aeroplanes in production and one modification for in-service aeroplanes were developed by Airbus: Prior to [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0085, the adaptation modification (Mod) 20976 was applied in production, consisting in installing shims under the fasteners linking the rib flange, the lower corner, the front spar and its vertical stiffener; from MSN 0085 onwards, the serial Mod 20908 was applied in production, consisting in installing reinforced lower surface rib flanges at front spar level.

    Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1013 for affected in-service aeroplanes, and [Directorate General for Civil Aviation] DGAC France issued AD 95-098-066 [which corresponds to FAA AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988, (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997)] to require installation of shims under the fasteners linking the rib flange, the lower corner, the front spar and its vertical stiffener.

    Following a recent analysis, Airbus identified the need for repetitive [HFEC and rototest] inspections for aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A320-57-1013 or production Mod 20976 has been embodied.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 95-098-066, which is superseded, and requires repetitive [HFEC and rototest] inspections of the center wing lower ribs at FR 36 and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.

    After EASA issued PAD 14-013, it was discovered that additional work [removal of shims and fasteners on the rib flange on the front spar side and doing an HFEC inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes during each inspection] to be included in Revision 01 of Airbus SB A320-57-1175, is required to accomplish the inspections. This Final [EASA] AD has been amended accordingly.

    Airplanes having MSNs 001, 009, and 015 were not included in the applicability of AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). EASA AD 2014-0053, dated March 7, 2014, expanded the applicability to all airplanes having up to MSN 0084. We included paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to require the modification for the airplanes having MSNs 001, 009, and 015.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-2015-0926.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 28, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36, a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges, and repair. 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.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service information identified previously include procedures and tests that are identified as RC (required for compliance) because these procedures have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests identified as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 28, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA or its delegated agent, or Airbus' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997), and retained in this proposed AD take about 13 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $576 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 97-07-14 is $1,681 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 45 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,600 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $59,675, or $5,425 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-121-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 8, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) up to MSN 0084 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the determination that repetitive inspections are needed on airplanes on which the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section has been done. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking on the rib flange area of the front spar of the wing center section, which can reduce the structural integrity of fuselage frame 36 and the wing center section.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Modification

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). For airplanes with manufacturer serial number (MSN) 005 through 008 inclusive, MSN 010 through 014 inclusive, and MSN 016 through 042 inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings, or within 3 months after May 12, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-07-14), whichever occurs later, modify the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.

    (h) Modification for Airplanes With MSNs 001, 009, and 015

    Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings since first flight, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36 and do a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. During each inspection, remove the shims and fasteners on the rib flange on the front spar side and do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes. If no cracking is found, oversize the holes of the rib flange and the holes of the shims, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 32,500 flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (1) For airplanes having Airbus Modification 20976 embodied: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before exceeding 47,800 flight cycles or 95,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the airplane's first flight.

    (ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes on which the modification of the front spar of the wing center section was accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before exceeding 10,700 flight cycles or 21,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section was done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.

    (ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Repair

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of Note 2 of paragraph (g) of AD 97-07-14, Amendment 39-9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997): This paragraph provides credit for the modification of the rib flange required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May 12, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-07-14) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1013, dated April 12, 1989.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if the service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0053, dated March 7, 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-2015-0926.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09549 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0046; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-23] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Headland, AL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Headland, AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-0046; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-23, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0046; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-23) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0046; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Headland Municipal Airport, Headland, AL., providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASO AL E5 Headland, AL [New] Headland Municipal Airport, AL (Lat. 31°21′51″ N., long. 85°18′45″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Headland Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09404 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0723; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-13] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Highmore, SD AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Highmore, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Highmore Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0744/Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0723/Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore Municipal Airport, Highmore, SD, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Highmore Municipal Airport, Highmore, SD.

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AGL SD E5 Highmore, SD [New] Highmore Municipal Airport, SD (Lat. 44°32′40″ N., long. 99°27′04″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 10, 2015. Thomas L. Lattimer, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09390 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4901-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Defuniak Springs, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Defuniak Springs, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Defuniak Springs Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Defuniak Springs Airport., Defuniak Springs, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Defuniak Springs Airport.. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASO FL E5 Defuniak Springs, FL [New] Defuniak Springs Airport, FL (Lat. 30°43′52″ N., long. 86°9′14″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09395 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0458; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-02] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Campbellsville, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Campbellsville, KY as the Taylor County NDB has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Taylor County Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-000; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-0458; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-02, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0458; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-02) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0458; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-02.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Taylor County Airport, Campbellsville, KY. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport, with an extension from the airport to 11.3 miles northeast of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Taylor County NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASO KY E5 Campbellsville, KY [Amended] Taylor County Airport, KY (Lat. 37°21′30″ N., long. 85°18′34″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Taylor County Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 050° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09413 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0044; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-3] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenville, SC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Greenville, SC as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Greenville Downtown Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-0044; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0044; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0044; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greenville Downtown Airport, Greenville, SC. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 9.3-mile radius of the airport is necessary to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Greenville Downtown Airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO SC E5 Greenville, SC [Amended] Greenville Downtown Airport, SC (Lat. 34°50′53″ N.,long.82°21′00 W.) Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, SC (Lat. 34°53′44″ N., long. 82°13′08″ W.) Donaldson Center Airport (Lat. 34°45′30″ N., long. 82°22′35″ W.) DYANA NDB (Lat. 34°41′28″ N., long. 82°26′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Greenville Downtown Airport, and within a 10-mile radius of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Donaldson Center Airport, and within 4 miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of of the 224° bearing from the DYANA NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of Donaldson Center Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 30, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09398 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 314 and 320 [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0830] RIN 0910-AF97 Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register of February 6, 2015. In the proposed rule, FDA requested comments on its proposal to implement portions of Title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), which amended provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) that govern the approval of 505(b)(2) applications and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). FDA also requested comment on its proposal to amend certain regulations regarding 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs to facilitate compliance with and efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. The Agency is taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule published February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6802). Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by June 8, 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 submissions 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-2011-N-0830 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:

    Janice L. Weiner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 6, 2015, FDA published a proposed rule with a 90-day comment period to request comments on its proposal to implement portions of Title XI of the MMA, which amended provisions of the FD&C Act that govern the approval of 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs. FDA also requested comment on its proposal to amend certain regulations regarding 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs to facilitate compliance with and efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. Comments on the proposed rule will inform FDA's rulemaking on ANDAs and 505(b)(2) applications.

    The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. Each request conveyed concern that the current 90-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.

    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 30 days, until June 8, 2015. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important issues.

    II. Request for Comments

    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.

    Dated: April 17, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09523 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-108214-15] RIN 1545-BM69 Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance regarding when a foreign insurance company's income is excluded from the definition of passive income under section 1297(b)(2)(B). The proposed regulations affect the U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations. This document also invites comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rules and provides the opportunity for the public to request a public hearing.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108214-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108214-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-108214-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Josephine Firehock, (202) 317-4932; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Explanation of Provisions

    The Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS are aware of situations in which a hedge fund establishes a purported foreign reinsurance company in order to defer and reduce the tax that otherwise would be due with respect to investment income. Such foreign corporations may be Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs). For a description of the recent trends and legislative proposals to address the issue, see “Background and Data with Respect to Hedge Fund Reinsurance Arrangements,” JCT (July 31, 2014) (2014 JCT Report); see also Notice 2003-34, 2003-23 IRB 990 (May 9, 2003).

    Under section 1297 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), a foreign corporation is a PFIC if either 75 percent or more of its gross income for the taxable year is passive income (“passive income test”), or on average 50 percent or more of its assets produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income (“passive asset test”). Section 1297(b)(1) generally defines the term “passive income” to mean any income of a kind that would be “foreign personal holding company income” as defined in section 954(c). In general, an asset is characterized as passive if it generates (or is reasonably expected to generate in the reasonably foreseeable future) passive income as defined in section 1297(b). Assets that generate both passive and non-passive income in a taxable year are treated as partly passive and partly non-passive assets in proportion to the relative amounts of income generated by those assets in that year. See Notice 88-22, 1988-1 CB 489 (February 26, 1988).

    For purposes of applying the passive income test, section 1297(b)(2)(B) provides that, except as provided in regulations, the term “passive income” does not include any income that is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a corporation which is predominantly engaged in an insurance business and which would be subject to tax under subchapter L as an insurance company if the corporation were a domestic corporation. As the terms “active conduct” and “insurance business” are not defined in section 1297, Treasury and the IRS are proposing regulations to clarify the circumstances under which investment income earned by a foreign insurance company is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business for purposes of determining whether the income is passive income, and thus the extent to which the company's assets are treated as passive assets for purposes of determining whether the company is a PFIC.

    The proposed regulations provide that the term “active conduct” has the same meaning as in § 1.367(a)-2T(b)(3), except that officers and employees are not considered to include the officers and employees of related entities. The proposed regulations define the term “insurance business” to mean the business activity of issuing insurance and annuity contracts and the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies, together with investment activities and administrative services that are required to support or are substantially related to insurance contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign insurance company.1 The regulations also provide that an investment activity is any activity engaged in to produce income of a kind that would be foreign personal holding company income as defined in section 954(c). The proposed regulations further provide that investment activities will be treated as required to support or as substantially related to insurance or annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign corporation to the extent that income from the activities is earned from assets held by the foreign corporation to meet obligations under the contracts.

    1 Cf. Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives, Supplemental Report, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., H.R. Rept. 98-432, part 2, at 531 (Mar. 5, 1984); Committee on Finance United States Senate, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, S. Rept. 98-169, vol. 1, at 1407-08 (April 2, 1984); H.R. Rept. 98-861, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. at 1045 (June 23, 1984) (Conference Report).

    The proposed regulations do not set forth a method to determine the portion of assets held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts. Comments are requested on appropriate methodologies for determining the extent to which assets are held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts.

    The proposed regulations also do not define what it means to be “predominantly engaged” in an insurance business. Prior to 1984, the Code did not define an insurance company. Section 1.801-3(a) of the regulations, however, provides in relevant part that an insurance company is a company whose primary and predominant business activity during the taxable year is the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies.

    In 1984, Congress enacted a definition of an “insurance company” that applied only to life insurance companies, and in 2004, a conforming amendment was made to apply the same definition to non-life insurance companies. See sections 816(a) and 831(c). Under this definition, in order for a corporation to be subject to tax as an insurance company under subchapter L, more than half of its business during the taxable year is required to be the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. By requiring that more than half of the company's business activity, rather than its predominant business activity, be insurance activity, the current subchapter L statutory rules adopt a stricter and more precise standard than the “primary and predominant” regulatory standard under prior law.2 Thus, any company taxable under subchapter L as an insurance company is necessarily predominantly engaged in an insurance business for purposes of section 1297(a)(2)(B).

    2 Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives, Supplemental Report, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., H.R. Rept. 98-432, part 2, at 1402-3 (March 5, 1984); Committee on Finance United States Senate, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., S. Rpt. 98-169, vol. 1, at 525-6 (April 2, 1984); Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives, Supplemental Report, The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., H.R. Rept. 98-432, part 2, at 1042-2 (March 5, 1984) (Conference Report); H.R. Rept. 108-457, Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, 108th Cong. 2d Sess. at 52-53 (April 1, 2004).

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    These regulations are proposed to apply on the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under “Addresses.” Treasury and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. Comments specifically are requested with regard to how to determine the portion of a foreign insurance company's assets that are held to meet obligations under insurance contracts issued or reinsured by the company. For example, assets could be considered as held to meet obligations under insurance or annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the corporation to the extent the corporation's assets in the calendar year do not exceed a specified percentage of the corporation's total insurance liabilities for the year (for example, the sum of the corporation's “total reserves” (as defined in section 816(c)) plus (to the extent not included in total reserves) the items referred to in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of section 807(c)). Comments are requested with regard to what percentage would be appropriate. Also, comments are requested with regard to whether other methods would be more appropriate to determine the portion of assets that are held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts.

    All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Josephine Firehock of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Par. 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.1297-4 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1297(b)(2)(B) and 1298(g).

    Par. 2. Section 1.1297-4 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.1297-4 Exception from the definition of passive income for certain foreign insurance company income.

    (a) Income derived in the active conduct of an insurance business. For purposes of section 1297, the term passive income does not include income earned by a foreign corporation that would be subject to tax under subchapter L if it were a domestic corporation, but only to the extent the income is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business.

    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section—

    (1) Active conduct. The term active conduct has the same meaning as in § 1.367(a)-2T(b)(3), except that officers and employees are not considered to include the officers and employees of related entities as provided in § 1.367(a)-2T(b)(3).

    (2) Insurance business. The term insurance business means the business of issuing insurance and annuity contracts and the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies, together with those investment activities and administrative services that are required to support or are substantially related to insurance and annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign corporation. For purposes of the preceding sentence—

    (i) An investment activity is any activity engaged in by the foreign corporation to produce income of a kind that would be foreign personal holding company income as defined in section 954(c); and

    (ii) Investment activities are required to support or are substantially related to insurance and annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign corporation to the extent that income from the activities is earned from assets held by the foreign corporation to meet obligations under the contracts.

    (c) Effective/applicability date. These regulations apply beginning [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09630 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796; EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0862; FRL-9926-73-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that are intended to ensure that the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs are consistent with the federal PSD and NNSR program requirements. In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) committed to revising its regulations no later than one year from the date when EPA publishes a notice of final conditional approval, and to submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA is also proposing to fully approve a July 1, 2003 SIP revision that clarifies two definitions related to New Hampshire's permitting programs. These actions are being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (617) 918-0653

    4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796”, Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Ida McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0796. 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 through www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's proposed approval and technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brendan McCahill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1652, Fax number (617) 918-0652, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    Table of Contents I. What action is EPA proposing in this document? II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 21, 2015 proposed approval of New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 PSD program SIP submittal? III. What comments did EPA receive during the comment period for New Hampshire's PSD proposed program approval? IV. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's NNSR SIP submittal? A. What is the background for New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 NNSR program SIP submittal? B. What revisions did EPA make in December 31, 2002? C. What revisions did EPA make in May 16, 2008? V. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's proposed NNSR program SIP revisions? A. What requirements did EPA apply in deciding to propose conditional approval of some of New Hampshire's SIP submittal? B. What provisions did New Hampshire include in its November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal? C. How did the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal meet new and existing NNSR program requirements? D. How did New Hampshire demonstrate that the definitions of “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period” are as stringent as the corresponding federal definitions? E. What are the provisions that New Hampshire needs to submit in order for the conditional approval to become a full approval? VI. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's July 21, 2003 SIP submittal to its PART Env-A 101: Permit definitions? VII. Proposed Action VIII. Incorporation by Reference IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?

    EPA is proposing three actions in this document. First, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the New Hampshire PSD program under PART Env-A 619, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration.” EPA originally proposed approval of the State's PSD program revisions on January 21, 2015. See 80 FR 2860. EPA is reproposing to approve the State's PSD program as a conditional approval because subsequent to EPA's January 21, 2015 Federal Register document, EPA concluded that New Hampshire's regulations did not contain a provision, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to state air agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source. In a letter from New Hampshire dated March 20, 2015, the State committed to revise its regulations, no later than one year from EPA's notice of a final conditional approval, to include the additional public notice procedure in its regulations and to submit the revision to EPA for approval into the SIP.

    EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve revisions to New Hampshire's NNSR program SIP submitted on November 15, 2012. The approval is conditioned on New Hampshire submitting in a timely manner two requirements missing from its rules: (1) Provisions that meet the federal regulations for “reasonable possibility,” applicable to projects at major stationary sources that are not major modifications based on the actual-to-projected actual test but have a “reasonable possibility” of resulting in a significant emission increase; and (2) provisions stating that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, state or federal law. In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the NH DES committed to revising its NNSR regulations to include the requirements above and to submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP.

    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's July 1, 2003 SIP revision that modifies two definitions in PART Env-A 101, “Permit definitions:” (1) “minor permit amendment,” and (2) “state permit to operate.” These revisions are intended to clarify the State's definitions relevant to certain permitting transactions and to render them consistent with the requirements in the State's permitting rules.

    II. Why is EPA reproposing its January 21, 2015 proposed approval of New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 PSD program SIP submittal?

    EPA's original proposal to approve the November 15, 2012 revisions to New Hampshire's PSD program is described in detail in the January 21, 2015 Federal Register document. See 80 FR 2860. In the document, EPA noted that public participation requirements for New Hampshire's PSD program were first approved in October 28, 2002. In the November 15, 2012 submittal, New Hampshire renumbered its State citation for the public notice procedures but did not include any substantive revisions to the language. However, after reviewing New Hampshire's rules to determine compliance with the federal infrastructure SIP requirements under CAA section 110, EPA concluded that New Hampshire's regulations did not contain a provision, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to be sent to state air agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source. As noted above, EPA is now proposing to conditionally approve New Hampshire's PSD program based on the State's commitment to revise its regulation and to submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP.

    III. What comments did EPA receive during the comment period for New Hampshire's PSD proposed program approval?

    EPA received one comment from Earthjustice during the comment period for the proposed approval of the PSD program. Earthjustice commented that EPA's January 21, 2015 document proposing approval for the State's PSD program was confusing and should have more clearly stated that New Hampshire did not incorporate by reference the significant impact levels (SILs) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) into its PSD SIP. EPA agrees that its January 21, 2015 document should have been written more clearly on that point. On January 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand the portions of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) addressing the SILs for PM2.5 so that EPA could voluntarily correct an error in these provisions. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-66 (D.C. Cir. 2013). (The court declined to vacate the SILs provision at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) that did not contain that same error. Id.) EPA here confirms that New Hampshire's November 12, 2012 proposed PSD revisions did not incorporate by reference the PM2.5 SIL provision under 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2). EPA is also confirming that we are not approving 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) into the SIP.

    IV. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's NNSR SIP submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal also included revisions to the State's NNSR program at PART Env-A 618, “Nonattainment New Source Review.” The revisions incorporated by reference into the State's regulations, at PART Env-A 618 “Nonattainment New Source Review,” consist of many of the provisions of the federal NNSR program codified in the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165. New Hampshire incorporated those provisions which are appropriate for state implementation (with the exception of certain permit application and public notice requirements for which New Hampshire submitted its own equivalent language and with the exception of two definitions for which New Hampshire established its own language, as described below). EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) sets forth in detail which provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 were incorporated by the State and which were not. EPA's TSD is available as part of the docket and administrative record for this action. The State's NNSR submittal requested that EPA approve the revisions into the State's SIP-approved NNSR program. The State's submitted NNSR program includes provisions that comply with the requirements in EPA's December 31, 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules and EPA's May 16, 2008 Final Rules Governing the Implementation of NSR for Fine Particulate Matter (i.e., particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve PART Env-A 618 because the State's submittal did not include: (1) provisions for “reasonable possibility” established in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7); and (2) provisions required under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) providing that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law. By letter dated March 20, 2015, the State committed to revise its regulations and to submit them to EPA for approval into the SIP no later than one year from the date of EPA's notice of a final conditional approval. We also note that PART Env-A 618, on which EPA is today taking action, will supersede all other versions of the NNSR rules earlier approved by EPA into New Hampshire's SIP.

    A. What is the background for New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 NNSR program SIP submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal adopting provisions from the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165 (with the exceptions mentioned above and described in more detail in EPA's TSD) into the SIP, involves the addition of several major changes to the State's NNSR rules since EPA last approved the State's NNSR program on July 27, 2001. As mentioned earlier, the exact provisions of the federal regulations which are and are not being incorporated by reference into the New Hampshire SIP in this action are contained in EPA's TSD for this rulemaking. The new NNSR provisions, i.e., those that are different than the NNSR provisions earlier approved by EPA into New Hampshire's SIP, are summarized below in the next two sections (IV.B. and IV.C) of this document. The State's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal retains much of the substantive content of the major NNSR rule provisions last approved into the SIP on July 27, 2001 but also incorporates changes to the federal regulations that occurred since that time, i.e. in December 2002. The already existing provisions include, among other things, requirements for major stationary sources to obtain emission reductions (“offsets”) from existing stationary sources to ensure new stationary sources do not interfere with state plans to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and requirements that major stationary sources apply emissions controls that constitute the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) which is derived from the most stringent emission limitation contained in any state implementation plan or achieved in practice for that class or category of stationary source.

    B. What revisions did EPA make in December 31, 2002?

    EPA issued a Final Rule entitled, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects” (67 FR 80185, December 31, 2002). The rule made a number of changes to the applicability requirements of the federal NNSR rule including the following:

    • A new definition of “actual emission baseline” that defines an emission unit's pre-modification actual emissions;

    • New “Applicability Procedures” under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2) that define the test method used to calculate the emission increase from the construction or modification of new or existing emission units;

    • The expansion of the “Actual-to-Projected Actual” applicability test to determine if projects at non-Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (non-EUSGU) are major modifications. (The pre-2002 federal NSR regulations restricted the Actual-to-Projected Actual applicability test to EUSGUs only);

    • New procedures requiring stationary sources to monitor, keep records and report emissions from projects at existing emission units if there is a reasonable possibility (as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi)) that a project that is determined pre-construction not to be a major modification may actually in the future result in a significant emission increase; and

    • The addition of the optional “Plantwide Applicability Test” (PAL) for all source categories.

    The Federal Register document for the December 2002 NSR rule gave state permitting agencies until January 2, 2006 to submit SIP amendments that implemented the new federal revisions or, if a state permitting agency did not submit any SIP amendments or submitted amendments that differed from the federal rules, a demonstration showing that its existing permitting program or amended permitting program is at least as stringent as EPA's revised program. In addition, federal regulations governing SIP-approved NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165 “Permit Requirements” require that all state plans use the specific definitions as promulgated by EPA. Deviations from the federal definitions will be approvable by EPA only if the state specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent than, or at least as stringent in all respects as, the corresponding federal definition.

    The final document for the December 2002 NSR rule at http://www.epa.gov/NSR/fr/20021231_80186.pdf provides a full description of the NSR improvements, the requirements for SIP submittals, and the final amended federal rule for SIP-approved NNSR programs at 40 CFR 51.165 “Permit Requirements.”

    C. What revisions did EPA make in May 16, 2008?

    EPA issued a Final Rule governing the implementation of NSR for PM2.5. (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). The rule includes the new major stationary source applicability threshold level for major stationary sources of PM2.5. A stationary source is defined as a major stationary source and subject to the PM2.5 NNSR requirements if it emits 100 or more tons per year (tpy) of PM2.5.

    The rule also identified the following list of pollutants that contribute to PM2.5 formation and a description of whether the pollutant, as a precursor to PM2.5, is regulated under the NNSR rules.

    • Direct emissions of PM2.5—regulated under the NNSR rule;

    • Sulfur dioxide (SO2)—regulated under the NNSR rule;

    • Nitrogen oxides (NOX)—regulated under the NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that NOX emissions are not a significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the state;

    • Volatile organic compounds (VOC)—not regulated under the NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that VOC emissions are a significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the state; and

    • Ammonia—not regulated under the NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that ammonia emissions are a significant contributor to the formation of PM2.5 for an area(s) in the state.

    The rule also identifies the following significant emission rates used to determine if increases in direct emissions of PM2.5 or increases in PM2.5 precursors from a construction project at an existing facility result in major modifications that are then subject to the NNSR rule:

    • Direct PM2.5 emissions—10 tons per year (tpy)

    • SO2 emissions—40 tpy

    • NOX emissions—40 tpy

    • VOC emissions (if regulated) 40 tpy unless the state demonstrates that a lower rate is appropriate.

    V. What is EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's proposed NNSR program SIP revisions? A. What requirements did EPA apply in deciding to propose conditional approval of New Hampshire's SIP submittal?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA a plan which provides for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS. These plans, generally referred to as the SIP, include numerous air quality monitoring, emission inventory, and emission control requirements designed to obtain and maintain the NAAQS within the state. The CAA requires states to adopt SIP revisions into state regulations and to submit the revisions to EPA for approval into the state's SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA shall not approve a revision to the SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment (of the NAAQS) and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 7501) or any other requirement of the CAA.

    B. What provisions did New Hampshire include in its November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal?

    New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal added or revised the following provisions to its NNSR Program under PART Env-A 618 Nonattainment New Source Review. The provisions include requirements from 40 CFR 51.165 previously incorporated by reference into New Hampshire's SIP on July 27, 2001, additional or amended requirements contained in the July 2011 version of 40 CFR 51.165, and certain new and previously approved state permit program requirements, including permit application and permit issuance procedures and other requirements necessary to implement the NNSR program.

    • PART Env-A 618.01: Purpose • PART Env-A 618.02: Applicability • PART Env-A 618.03: Definitions • PART Env-A 618.04: Owner or Operator Obligations • PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation Plan Requirements • PART Env-A 618.06: Permit Application Requirements • PART Env-A 618.07: Emission Offset Requirements • PART Env-A 618.08: Procedure for acquiring and Implementing Emission Offsets • PART Env-A 618.09: Establishing a PAL • PART Env-A 618.10 Department Review and Public Notice

    The following is a description of each section.

    PART Env-A 618.01 Purpose defines the purpose of the part to implement the NNSR program as set forth in sections 171 through 193 of the CAA and the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165.

    PART Env-A 618.02 Applicability identifies the stationary sources subject to the state NNSR program: New major stationary source or major modifications of a regulated NSR pollutant located in an area designated as nonattainment under 40 CFR 81.330, or new major stationary sources or major modifications for NOX or VOC if the stationary source is located in the Northeast Ozone Transport region (OTR) as defined in PART Env-A 618.03(b)(3).

    The section also requires projects to use emission calculations described in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) to determine if the project is a new major stationary source or new major modification.

    In addition, if a new stationary source or modification is determined to be a major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable limitation established after August 7, 1980 on the capacity of the stationary source or modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then the provisions of this part shall apply to the stationary source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the stationary source or modification.

    PART Env-A 618.03 Definitions adopts the specific definitions contained in the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and (f)(2) with the following clarifications: The NH DES revised the federal definitions of “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period.” An analysis of the State's revisions to the federal definitions of the terms “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period” is found in section V.D of this document. The section also included five additional definitions not specifically defined in the federal NNSR regulations, but relevant to the program: “Emission offset,” “Emission offset ratio,” “Northeast Ozone Transport Region,” “Offset source,” and “Ozone season.”

    PART Env-A 618.04 Owner or Operator Obligations includes the following requirements:

    • The owner or operator of any new major stationary source or major modification subject to this part shall comply with LAER;

    • obtain offsets for the increase in emissions for the project in accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; and

    • obtain a NNSR permit prior to commencement of construction.

    In addition, the owner or operator of an existing major stationary source with a Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) shall comply with the provisions of its PAL.

    PART Env-A 618.05 Implementation Plan Requirements ensures, in accordance with section 173(a)(4) of the CAA, that NH DES will not issue a permit or permits to a stationary source to which the requirements of PART Env-A 618 apply if the EPA Administrator has determined that the applicable implementation plan is not being adequately implemented for the nonattainment area in which the proposed stationary source is to be constructed or modified.

    PART Env-A 618.06 Permit Application Requirements identifies the procedures to file with NH DES, NNSR and PAL permit applications. The section also identifies the items that should be included in an application including: (1) A control technology evaluation to demonstrate that a new major stationary source or major modification will meet LAER; (2) a documented plan to obtain creditable emission reduction offsets in accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; (3) a demonstration showing that all major stationary sources in New Hampshire under common ownership are in compliance; and (4) an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and an environmental control techniques demonstration showing the benefits of the proposed stationary source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification. In addition, a PAL application shall contain information required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(f)(3).

    PART Env-A 618.07 Emission Offset Requirements identifies the requirements for offsets including, but not limited to, defining: (1) the use of actual emissions from the stationary source providing offset credits as the baseline for determining emission offsets; (2) the offset ratio requirements for different ozone nonattainment designations; and (3) the location requirements restricting where a stationary source may obtain offsets. The section includes requirements for a stationary source seeking offsets to demonstrate that the stationary source of the offsets causes or contributes to a violation of a NAAQS in the nonattainment area which the new or modified stationary source is proposed to be located. The section also requires that offsets obtained outside of New Hampshire be subject to a federally enforceable permit or other federally enforceable document approved by the state or governing jurisdiction in which the offset stationary source is located.

    The section also states that offsets shall not include: (1) Any reductions from compliance, or scheduled compliance, with applicable rules in effect prior to the permit application of the new or modified stationary source; (2) Reductions required to meet RACT or acid deposition provisions of the Act, as stipulated in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13553, III.G.2.e; or 3) Reductions required to meet any other provisions of Env-A 100 et seq. and the Act.

    PART Env-A 618.08 Procedures for Acquiring and Implementing Emission Offsets identifies requirements for owners and operators to document the offset pollutant, actual and potential estimates of each new pollutant, the offset stationary source and location, the actual and allowable annual estimate of each pollutant for the offset stationary source prior to the effective date of the offset, potential annual estimates of each pollutant of the new stationary source after the effective date of the offset, and for NOX and VOC emissions, the ozone season annual emissions estimate from the new stationary source.

    The section also requires stationary sources obtaining offsets from outside New Hampshire to file documentation with the NH DES verifying that the offset stationary source has obtained a federally enforceable permit or other federally enforceable documentation for the emission reduction control measures pertaining to the offsets for the new stationary source.

    The section also allows the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs) in accordance to PART Env-A 3006.04 to satisfy NNSR emissions offset requirements. Stationary sources may also use discrete emission reductions (DERs) to meet the offset requirements provided the DERs comply with the requirements of section 173 of the Act, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A 3108.02.

    Env A 618.09 Establishing a PAL identifies the requirements to establish and implement a PAL in accordance with 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1), (4) and (6) through (14) except that public participation procedures identified in PART Env-A 618.10(b) and (c) shall be used.

    PART Env-A 618.10 Department Review and Public Notice requires stationary sources applying for a PAL permit to file an application. The regulation specifies that NH DES will address all material comments received during the comment period before taking a final action on a PAL permit application. Applications to comply with NNSR or to establish a PAL permit shall be subject to the public notice procedures specified in PART Env-A 621.04 including the requirement for a 30-day public notice and comment period and permit appeal procedures under the state judicial review regulations.

    C. How did the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 NNSR SIP submittal meet new and existing NNSR program requirements?

    With the exception of the definitions of the terms “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period,” the NH DES's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal incorporated by reference into the State regulation the definitions for a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and the definitions for PALs under 40 CFR 51.165(f)(2). The submittal also included five additional definitions: “Emission offset,” “Emission offset ratio,” “Northeast Ozone Transport Region,” “Offset source,” and “Ozone season” for the purpose of clarifying the State's NNSR requirements. The definitions for “Emission offset,” “Emission offset ratio” and “Ozone season” were previously approved by EPA into the SIP and clarify the offset requirements under New Hampshire's NNSR program. The definition for the “Northeast Ozone Transport Region” was also previously approved by EPA into the SIP and means the same geographical area as defined under Section 184(a) of the CAA. The definition of “Offset source” replaces the previously approved SIP definition of “Offset donor source” and identifies potential sources of emissions from which a new or modified stationary source may obtain emission offsets. The additional definitions help clarify the offset requirements under New Hampshire's NNSR program and are consistent with all federal requirements under the CAA for approval into the SIP.

    By incorporating by reference the federal provisions under 40 CFR 51.165 (with the exceptions noted earlier and in EPA's TSD) the vast majority of the State's proposed SIP revisions satisfy the existing SIP-approved NNSR program requirements approved on July 27, 2001, the December 31, 2002 NSR Improvement Rule, and the May 16, 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule.1 The two conditional approval issues that are missing from New Hampshire's submittal are described earlier and later in this document.

    1 New Hampshire's few changes to definitions used in the federal regulations and use of several additional clarifying definitions, as explained in this document, are also approvable because they are consistent with all CAA requirements for approval into the SIP.

    The NH DES submittal also expanded upon the emissions offset provisions previously approved into the SIP. As noted, the submittal includes a new definition for “Emission offset” under PART Env-A 618.03 requiring reductions in pollutants achieved at an existing stationary source to meet criteria specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). The NH DES also included two new sections in the NNSR program; Env 618.07, “Emission Offset Requirements” and Section PART Env-A 618.08, “Procedure for Acquiring and Implementing Emissions Offsets.”

    As described above, PART Env-A 618.07 identifies the specific provisions applicable to all offset emissions. These provisions include requirements that offsets: (1) Be surplus; (2) obtained from an area designated with an equal or higher nonattainment classification; (3) obtained in an amount equal to or exceeding a one-to one ratio, or another ratio as required by the nonattainment designation; and, 4) if obtained outside the designated area where the new stationary source or modification is to be constructed, a demonstration that the offsets cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in which the stationary source or modification is to be constructed, as allowed under section 173(c)(1) of the CAA.

    PART Env-A 618.08 identifies the procedures for documenting emission reductions used for offsets. Among other requirements, the section allows stationary sources subject to the offset provisions to use ERCs in accordance with PART Env-A 3006.04. The section also allows DERs to meet the offset requirements, provided the DERs comply with the requirements of section 173 of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A 3108.02. As explained below, EPA previously has allowed the use of DERs to meet a CAA emissions requirement. EPA has determined, given the procedures that will apply to the use of DERs and ERCs to meet the NNSR emissions offset requirements, that it is appropriate and consistent with CAA requirements to approve these provisions into New Hampshire's SIP.

    In EPA's approval of New Hampshire's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (79 FR 49458, August 21 2014), EPA allowed stationary sources subject to the State's RACT rule to comply by the purchase and generation of DER credits pursuant to PART Env-A 3100. The approval further states, since PART Env-A 3100 has not been approved into the SIP, any order issued by New Hampshire that allows the use of PART Env-A 3100 to comply with NOX RACT will need to be approved into New Hampshire's SIP as a source specific SIP revision.

    Similar to the RACT rule, since PART Env-A 3000 and PART Env-A 3100 have not been approved by EPA into the SIP, any NNSR permit issued by New Hampshire that allows for the use of ERCs and/or DERs to meet an offset requirement would first need the ERC or DER offset to be approved by EPA into the SIP before the NNSR permit could be issued. Each individual SIP approval of a stationary source's use of DERs and/or ERCs for the purpose of meeting the NNSR emissions offset requirement, would be required to meet the requirements identified in PART Env-A 618.07 and PART Env-A 618.08 and to satisfy all offset and any other relevant requirements of the CAA before EPA would be able to approve the use of the DERs and/or ERCs into the SIP for a specific proposed new major stationary source or modification.

    D. How did New Hampshire demonstrate that the definitions of “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period” are as stringent as the corresponding federal definitions? 1. “Baseline Actual Emissions” Analysis

    The “Baseline actual emissions” definition is used in all major stationary source applicability tests and defines the actual emissions from a stationary source before the project. The difference between the pre-project “actual emission baseline” and the post-project “projected actual emissions” determines the emission increase from a project.

    The federal definition of “Baseline actual emissions” at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) defines separate baseline emissions calculations for existing electric utility steam generating units (EUSGU) and all other existing emission units other than EUSGU. The key elements of the definition relevant to this document are as follows:

    • Existing EUSGU: The owner/operator may select any consecutive 24-month period for each pollutant, without the need for a demonstration, within the 5-year period immediately preceding when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project. The reviewing authority may allow the use of a different time period upon a determination showing the time period is more representative of normal stationary source operations. A different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated pollutant.

    • All other existing emission units: The owner/operator may select any consecutive 24-month period in the 10-year period immediately preceding either the date the owner/operator begins actual construction or the date a completed permit application is received by the reviewing authority for a permit, whichever is earlier. No other different time period is allowed. A different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated pollutant.

    The NH DES definition tracks the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) except for the following differences:

    • Unlike the federal definitions, the State uses the same definition for EUSGUs and non-EUSGUs.

    • Under the State's definition, in establishing baseline actual emissions for a project, the owner/operator presumptively shall select the same consecutive 24-month period for all pollutants; and the consecutive 24-month period shall be selected from within the 5-year period immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project. However, the NH DES shall allow the use of a different consecutive 24-month time period for all pollutants, up to 10 years immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project, or allow the use of a different consecutive 24-month period for different pollutants within that 10 year period, upon determining (after adequate demonstration by the applicant) that the alternative time period is more representative of normal stationary source operations.

    Forty CFR 51.165(a)(1) requires that all state plans use the specific definitions as promulgated by EPA. Deviations from the federal wording for each definition will be approved only if the state specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent, or at least as stringent in all respects, as the corresponding federal definition.

    As part of the December 2002 NSR final rule, EPA prepared a November 21, 2002, “Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (Supplemental Analysis).” The Supplemental Analysis provided a description of the NSR reform rules and an analysis demonstrating that the reform rule's environmental benefits were equivalent to or more stringent than the existing pre-reform rules. For the addition of the definition of “Baseline actual emissions,” EPA concluded that the use of a 10 year period to select a baseline is a reasonable period considering the variability of different business cycles. EPA believes the effect from the new definition is small and would not alter the baseline for 90% of the stationary sources. For the remaining 10%, EPA cannot draw general conclusions about how many stationary sources would or would not receive an alternative baseline nor estimate what emission consequences would result. EPA's complete analysis of the definition of “Baseline Actual Emissions” can be found at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf.

    The NH DES included as part of its SIP submittal a November 16, 2012 memorandum entitled “Supplemental Information for SIP Revision Request Parts of PART Env-A 600, Statewide Permit System.” Similar to the EPA's study and analysis summarized above in the previous paragraph, the State's memorandum described the differences between the federal and state “Baseline actual emissions” definitions and described an emissions study that compares the effects of the state and federal definition on emission changes to actual stationary sources located in New Hampshire. The NH DES's analysis looked at the federal definition of baseline actual emission, the State's presumptive or default baseline actual emission method (i.e., 24 consecutive months selected from the 5 years preceding actual construction for all regulated pollutants), and the State's allowed alternative emission baseline if the owner/operator could demonstrate normal stationary source operations are better represented by:

    • Use of an alternative 24-consecutive month period selected from the period between 5 to 10 years immediately preceding beginning actual construction, and

    • use of different 24-consecutive month periods for different regulated pollutants, within the period between 5 and 10 years immediately preceding beginning actual construction.

    For the majority of changes occurring at any type of stationary source, the State's presumptive or default baseline actual emissions method (using a 24-consecutive month period during the 5 year period immediately preceding beginning actual construction) resulted in the same or lower baseline emissions as compared to the federal definition. For owner/operators that could demonstrate that normal stationary source operations were better represented by 24 consecutive months selected from the 5 to 10 year period preceding beginning actual construction or that different consecutive 24-month periods for different regulated pollutants better represent normal stationary source operations, the analysis showed that the State's definition resulted in baseline emissions that were at least as stringent in all cases to the federal definition.

    EPA therefore concludes that the NH DES's definition of “Baseline actual emissions” is as stringent in all respects as the federal definition. The State's definition results in the same emission baseline for new emission units, changes to existing EUSGUs, and changes at existing units that emit one pollutant and with high utilization rates within the last 5 years. For all other changes, the State's definition allows the use of baselines selected outside of 5 years (but before 10 years) and baselines for each regulated pollutant where appropriately demonstrated to be as stringent. As a result, any difference in the application of the state and federal definitions on the selection of baseline actual emissions would be insignificant at worst and would therefore result in permit applicability decisions, emissions limitations or emissions control requirements that are equally stringent.

    2. Reasonable Period Analysis

    The NH DES's submittal also revised the definition for “Reasonable period.” The term “Reasonable period” is used in the definition for “Net emissions increase” and defines the contemporaneous period for the emission increases and decreases that are used in the calculation determining applicability of the NNSR regulations to a particular project. Under § 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(1), the reviewing authority is authorized to specify the applicable “Reasonable period.” Reviewing authorities typically use the period defined in the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. That period begins five years before the date construction of the project commences and ends when the emissions increase from the project actually occurs.

    The NH DES's definition for “reasonable period” uses a period that begins five years from the date the NH DES receives a complete permit application for a project and ends upon the “expiration date” of the pre-construction permit issued for the project (at which time a NH DES-issued state operating permit for the project becomes effective). A “Reasonable period” based on a fixed date (i.e., the receipt of a complete permit application) ensures the stationary source, the permitting authority and the public that the NNSR applicability determination for a stationary source or modification will not change after the state has reviewed a permit application and made a permit decision. Since the 5 year period will not change after the complete permit application is received, all contemporaneous emission increases and decreases used by the stationary source and state to determine NSR applicability will remain in effect.

    Under the federal definition, the 5-year period is based on the date construction commences, a date that may change significantly based on the many factors that could delay construction. As a result, the five year contemporaneous period would also be delayed. Emission increases previously within the contemporaneous period could fall outside the contemporaneous period and change the applicability of the stationary source or modification. In addition, the NH DES version of “Reasonable period” extends out to the expiration date of the “temporary” or preconstruction air permit issued for the project, a date compatible with the NH DES's air permitting program. Under the NH DES's permit program, the initial preconstruction permit required before construction begins is referred to as a temporary permit. Temporary permits expire after 18 months. Before expiration, stationary sources must complete construction and begin operational testing or, if construction has not commenced with the 18 months, reapply for a new temporary permit. For those cases where a stationary source has completed construction and has begun to operate, the state and federal terms provide equivalent results. However, for stationary sources and permitting agencies that may have difficulty determining when a new stationary source has begun operating due to various stationary source startup issues, defining the end date of reasonable period in relation to a fixed permit expiration date (and corresponding permit to operate issuance date) ensures the state agency and the stationary source that NNSR program applicability will not change after initial permit decisions have been reviewed and approved. Considering the benefits of the NH DES's version of “Reasonable period” noted above, EPA concludes the State's term for “reasonable period” is approvable and is as stringent as the federal definition.

    E. What are the provisions that New Hampshire needs to submit in order for the conditional approval to become a full approval?

    The State's proposed SIP revision did not include two provisions that preclude EPA from fully approving the State's proposed NNSR SIP revisions. The first missing provision applies to any regulated NSR pollutant emitted from projects at existing emission units at a major stationary source (other than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility, within the meaning of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi), that a project not a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase of such pollutant, and the owner or operator elects to use the projected actual method specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(1) through (3) for calculating projected actual emissions. These specific procedures include additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for those projects that exceed 50% of the significant emission increase and significant net emission increase for the applicable pollutant. The NH DES has committed by letter dated March 20, 2015 to submit for EPA approval into the SIP in a timely manner provisions that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) so that EPA may at that time fully approve the NH DES's NNSR program.

    The second missing provision from NH DES's submittal is the requirement at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) that a State approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law. This provision, originally part of the SIP and unintentionally left out of the November 15, 2012 SIP submittal, affirms that sources subject to the NNSR program must continue to comply with all other applicable state and federal requirements. The NH DES has committed by letter dated March 20, 2015 to submit for EPA approval into the SIP in a timely manner provisions that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) so that EPA may at that time fully approve the NH DES's NNSR program.

    VI. What action is EPA proposing for New Hampshire's s July 21, 2003 SIP submittal to its PART Env-A 101: Permit definitions?

    New Hampshire July 23, 2003 SIP submittal clarifies how the State addresses minor changes to the permit terms contained in “Temporary Permits” (i.e., preconstruction air quality permits) and “State Permits to Operate” issued under the State's PART Env-A 600, Statewide Permit System. The current SIP-approved rules do not have definitions sufficient to address minor changes to existing permit terms or conditions for stationary sources, where the changes would not: (a) result in an increase in the amount of a specific air pollutant emitted by the source or device; (b) result in the emission of any additional air pollutant; or (c) necessitate the use of permit notice and hearing procedures.

    To address such minor changes to existing permit terms, the SIP submittal included definitions for the terms for “minor permit amendment” and “state permit to operate.” The term “minor permit amendment” provides for minor changes to conditions in permits other than Title V permits (which are not issued pursuant to SIP regulations). The term “state permit to operate” means a non-Title V operating permit issued prior to operation or material modification of a stationary source, area stationary source or device. Both definitions are consistent with all federal requirements under the CAA for approval into the SIP.

    VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the NH DES's November 15, 2012 PSD Program submittal originally proposed to be fully approved by EPA on January 21, 2015. The reproposed, conditional approval of the PSD program is conditioned on the State submitting in a timely manner a SIP revision that adds a provision, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring notice of a draft PSD permit to state air agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from the permitted source.

    EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve PART Env-A 618 “Nonattainment New Source Review,” because the NH DES must submit to EPA in a timely manner additional provisions that comply with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i), i.e., 1) provisions for “reasonable possibility” established in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7); and 2) provisions required under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) providing that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law.

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a State's plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of final conditional approval. By letter dated March 20, 2015 New Hampshire has committed to revising its regulations to be consistent with EPA's regulations not later than one year after EPA's publication of a notice of final conditional approval. If the State fails to do so in a timely manner, this conditional approval will, by operation of law, become a disapproval one year from publication of that notice of final conditional approval. At that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of New Hampshire's approved SIP. If that were to occur, EPA would then also notify the State by letter. EPA subsequently would publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If the State meets its commitment within the applicable time frame, however, EPA would subsequently publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that EPA intends to take final action to approve or disapprove the State's revised regulations. If EPA were to approve the revised regulations, the regulations would be fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditionally approved provisions of the State's SIP regulations. Finally, EPA is proposing to fully approve the definitions at PART Env-A 101.174 “Minor permit amendment” and PART Env-A 101.262 “State permit to operate” submitted to EPA on July 21, 2003.

    VIII. 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following NH DES rules: the PSD rules at PART Env-A 619, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (originally proposed on January 21, 2015) as discussed in Section IV of the preamble; the NNSR rules at PART Env-A 618, “Nonattainment New Source Review” discussed in Section V of the preamble; and the definitions for “minor permit amendment” and “state permit to operate” under PART Env-A 101, “Permit Definitions” as discussed in section VI of the preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912

    IX. 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 proposed 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

    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.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 8, 2015. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09372 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 192 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788; FRL-9926-76-OAR] RIN 2060-AP43 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting public comment and information on revisions to the EPA's “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” The EPA published the NPRM on January 26, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR 4156), which included a request for comments on or before April 27, 2015. The purpose of this action is to extend this comment period an additional 30 days.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 566-9744.

    Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.

    Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; telephone number: (202) 343-9286; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number, subject heading, Federal Register date and page number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.

    • Illustrate your concerns with specific examples and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    B. How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule, and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the NPRM at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/40CFR192.html. Please refer to the original Federal Register document on the NPRM for detailed information on accessing information related to the document.

    In response to requests for an extension, we are extending the public comment period for this NPRM through May 27, 2015. This extension will provide the public additional time to provide comment on updating this standard.

    Dated: April 17, 2015. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09624 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15 [ET Docket No. 03-201; Report 3019] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Warren Havens, on behalf of Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC., and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau, (202) 418-0688, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3019, released April 16, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3019 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subjects: In the Matter of Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and equipment approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, published at 79 FR 40678, July 14, 2014, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e) of the Commission's rules. See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09490 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 20 [PS Docket No. 07-114; Report No. 3020] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Joseph P. Benkert, P.C., on behalf of the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dana Zelman, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-0546, [email protected].gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3020, released April 21, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3020 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: In the Matter of Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, published at 80 FR 11805, March 4, 2015 in PS Docket No. 07-114, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e) of the Commission's rules. See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

    Number Of Petitions Filed: 1

    Federal Communications Commission. Sheryl D. Todd, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09594 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 15-98, RM-11748; DA 15-481] Television Broadcasting Services; Providence, Rhode Island AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by WJAR Licensee, LLC (the Licensee), the licensee of WJAR(TV), channel 51, Providence, Rhode Island, requesting the substitution of channel 50 for channel 51 at Providence. While the Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, it subsequently announced that it would lift the freeze to accept such petitions for rulemaking seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. The Licensee has entered into such a voluntary relocation agreement with T-Mobile USA, Inc. and states that operation on channel 50 would remove any potential interference with authorized wireless operations in the adjacent Lower 700 MHZ A Block.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before May 11, 2015, and reply comments on or before May 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Clifford M. Harrington, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Miller, [email protected], Media Bureau, (202) 418-1507.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 15-98, adopted April 21, 2015, and released April 21, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.). To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

    Federal Communications Commission. Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Proposed rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    § 73.622 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Rhode Island, is amended by adding channel 50 at Providence and removing channel 51 at Providence.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09728 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 79 Friday, April 24, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 21, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by May 26, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Feral Swine Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: On February 3, 1999, Executive Order 13112 was signed by President Clinton establishing the National Invasive Species Council. The Executive Order requires that a Council of Departments dealing with invasive species be created. Currently there are 13 Departments and Agencies on the Council. A benchmark survey will be conducted in 2015 in the 11 States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas) that have high feral swine densities and a significant presence of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, grain sorghum (Texas) and peanuts. Authority to collect these data is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276.

    Need And Use of the Information: The purpose of the proposed survey is to develop a national estimate of the benefits and costs of feral swine damage and risks to agriculture, animal health, human health, and property. The initial survey will be used to create a benchmark for the monetary loss for all crops, livestock, and property caused by feral swine for producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, grain sorghum (TX only) and peanuts in each of the survey states. Information on feral swine control costs including hunting, trapping, use of fencing, or the use of repellents and the total net income for allowing the hunting of feral swine on their operations will also be collected. Without this survey, it would be impossible to measure the current level of feral swine damage to American agriculture.

    Description of Respondents: Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 10,800.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Other (8 off qtr. months).

    Total Burden Hours: 5,500.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09569 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-10:45 a.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its February 18, 2015 meeting. The Board will receive a report from the Interim Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG. The Board will also receive a review of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

    This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public Web site.

    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at http://bbgboardmeetingapril2015.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on April 28. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at [email protected]

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Director of Board Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09724 Filed 4-22-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Friday, May 8, 2015, at the Lone Star Legal Aid, 1415 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002.

    The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is for the members of the Committee to receive an orientation regarding state advisory committee procedures and to plan future activities.

    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by June 8, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angelica Trevino, Civil Rights Analyst, Western Regional Office, at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information should contact the Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to [email protected] Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09494 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Joint Millennium Challenge Corporation and Department of Commerce Energy Sector Business Development Mission to Tanzania, May 31-June 2, 2015 AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA) are organizing the Joint Millennium Challenge Corporation and Department of Commerce Energy Sector Business Development Mission to Tanzania, to be held May 31- June 2, 2015, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. This mission is a component of the Administration's Doing Business in Africa (DBIA) campaign and was proposed by MCC during the Africa Leaders' Summit in Washington, DC on August 5, 2014.

    SCHEDULE:

    Saturday, May 30 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Mission Participants arrive. Sunday, May 31 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania U.S. Industry Delegation Welcome Reception and Program Orientation Tanzania Energy Sector Overview. Monday, June 1 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Official Welcome, Industry Briefings/Roundtable Discussions. Luncheon. Government Meetings. Networking Dinner or Reception. Tuesday, June 2 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Government Meetings. Site Visit. Reception. Mission Officially Ends.

    Target Sectors: The mission will focus on U.S. firms in the energy sector, including oil, gas, and renewables that can help Tanzania and neighboring countries develop and manage energy resources and systems and build out their power generation, transmission, and distribution systems. Mission participants will range from fully integrated energy solutions companies to equipment, technology and ancillary service providers. In addition, organizations such as project developers and those seeking to supply complementary services are eligible for participation.

    Web site: Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on MCC's Web site (http://www.mcc.gov/investmentmission), posting on ITA's business trade mission calendar(http://export.gov/trademissions) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows

    Fees: After an applicant has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.

    The fee to participate on the mission is $3,000 for the first representative and $1,000 for one additional representative. For small or medium-sized enterprises (SME) 1 the fee to participate on the mission is $2,590 for the first representative and $1,000 for one additional representative. In the event that the mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a trade mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled trade mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.

    1 An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size. The dual pricing reflects the Commercial Service's user fee schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (see http://www.export.gov/newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html for additional information).

    Exclusions: The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as air transport, lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings), unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms.

    Business or entry visas may be required to participate on the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

    Application: https://emenuapps.ita.doc.gov/ePublic/TM/5R1L.

    Application Deadline: The Department of Commerce (with input from MCC) will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum number of participants has been selected.

    The application deadline is Friday, April 17, 2015. Applications received after the April 17th deadline, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. The Department of Commerce (with input from the Millennium Challenge Corporation) will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions by April 24, 2015.

    Conditions for Participation: An applicant must submit a completed mission application, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on its products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicants must satisfy all of the conditions of participation in order to be eligible for consideration. Applications will be evaluated on the applicant's ability to best satisfy the participation criteria below. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.

    Each applicant must certify that the products or services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.

    Each applicant must also certify that:

    • The export of its goods, software, technology, and services would be in compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations, including those administered by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security;

    • It has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office of the Department of Commerce;

    • It has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce;

    • It and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with its involvement in this Mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and

    • It meets the minimum requirements as stated in the Recruitment Announcement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Millennium Challenge Corporation, 875 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-2221,Tel: 202-521-7234, Email: [email protected], Malcolm Burke, Senior Policy Advisor.

    Frank Spector, Trade Programs & Strategic Partnership Spector.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09544 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Scope Rulings AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 24, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, inclusive. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis.1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on December 11, 2014.2 This current notice covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made by Enforcement and Compliance between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, inclusive. Subsequent lists will follow after the close of each calendar quarter.

    1See 19 CFR 351.225(o).

    2See Notice of Scope Rulings, 79 FR 73552 (December 11, 2014).

    Scope Rulings Made Between October 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014

    Mexico.

    A-201-504: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico

    Requestor: Productos Laminados, S.A. de C.V.; Certain types of black tubing manufactured by Productos Laminados to American Society of Testing and Materials standard A-513 are “mechanical tubing,” which is outside the scope of the order; December 3, 2014 (Preliminary).

    People's Republic of China A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi); The products at issue were four models of core tubes used for automotive heating and cooling systems (also referred to as HVAC systems). The four models are distinguished only by their length and profile. All four models are comprised of extruded hollow, tubular aluminum articles that are bent and end-formed based on customer designs. Delphi imports the core tubes for use in automotive HVAC systems for specific brands of vehicles. The Department found the core tubes inside the scope of the order because they comprised entirely of extruded aluminum and, thus, do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion; October 14, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Core Industries LLC (dba Star Trac) (hereinafter referred to as Star Trac); The products at issue were an E-TRx treadmill base kit, E-RB recumbent bike base kit, E-UB upright bike base kit, and eSpinner bike universal base kit. All four models at issue were mainly comprised of non-aluminum materials along with some extruded aluminum components. The Department found that the eSpinner bike universal base kit met the exclusion for a finished goods kit because it contained, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good (e.g., a fully functioning exercise bike). Concerning the E-TRx treadmill base kit, E-RB recumbent bike base kit, and E-UB upright bike base kit, the Department found that the products constituted finished subassemblies that require no further finishing or fabrication after importation. On this basis, the Department found that the three kits constituted excluded finished goods kits; October 23, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Core Industries LLC (dba Star Trac) (hereinafter referred to as Star Trac); The product at issue was a max rack kit which, when assembled, is designed to be used for a variety of strength exercises, including pull-ups, squats, and bench presses. The max rack kit is mainly comprised of non-aluminum materials as well as extruded aluminum parts. The Department found the product met the exclusion criteria for a finished goods kit because it contained non-extruded aluminum parts that went beyond mere fasteners and screws and because the kit contained, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good; October 27, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: KIK Custom Products (“KIK”); KIK's telescoping poles, which are composed of aluminum extrusion poles (Aluminum Association alloy series 6063), a plastic handle, a plastic cap, a plastic connector(s) and a plastic peg(s) to hold the telescoping poles in place when extended, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished goods containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry; November 3, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Danfoss LLC; Danfoss LLC's micro channel heat exchangers, consisting of connections, headers or baffles, tubes with micro channels, and fins, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they consist of both extruded aluminum and non-extruded aluminum components (other than fasteners). Danfoss LLC's micro channel heat exchangers are fully assembled finished goods that are permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry and are ready for installation into a downstream product with no further finishing or fabrication subsequent to importation; November 3, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Unger Enterprises, Inc. (Unger). The products at issue were eight models of grabbers designed to allow users to grasp objects in difficult to reach places. Each model of grabber was comprised of extruded aluminum and non-aluminum materials. The Department found that each model of grabber met the exclusion criteria for finished merchandise because they contained extruded aluminum as well as non-extruded aluminum materials and because they enter the United States as grabbers that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, and are ready for use as imported; November 4, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Pacific Product Solutions (“Pacific Product”); Pacific Product's motorized arm sets, which are composed of two motorized arms and all hardware necessary for installation of the arms to the RV or Trailer (not imported with the awning or roller bar) and contain non-extruded aluminum components beyond fasteners, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished good kits containing all of the components needed to fully assemble a final finished good, requiring no further finishing or fabrication prior to installation in the ultimate downstream product; November 4, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Clik-Clik Systems Inc.; Clik-Clik Systems Inc.'s MagPoles, which are telescoping extension poles consisting of aluminum extrusion tubes, fiberglass tubes, plastic handles, plastic/copper buttons, steel springs, steel rolling pins, zinc end pieces, aluminum rivets, rubber bumpers, and paper labels, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished goods containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry; November 19, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: JED Pool Tools, Inc. (JED); The products at issue were eight models of telescopic pool poles; two models of detachable skimmer poles; three models of leak skimmers; and six models of leaf rakes. The products are used in the cleaning of swimming pools. The telescopic pool poles vary in size but all consist of separate hollow pieces of extruded aluminum tubes that are connected by a plastic threaded locking mechanism and plastic handle. The detachable skimmer poles are telescopic extruded aluminum poles with plastic locking mechanism and plastic handle. The leaf skimmers and rakes consist of a plastic frame, extruded aluminum handle, and nylon net. The Department found that the products at issue met the exclusion criteria for finished merchandise. The Department found that the leaf skimmers and rakes are permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry and are ready for use as hand held cleaning tools at the time of importation, and therefore constitute excluded finished merchandise. Concerning the telescopic pool poles and detachable skimmer poles, the Department found that the products constitute excluded finished merchandise because they are permanently assembled and completed merchandise that are designed to work with removable/interchangeable attachments; November 24, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: ECCO Group (“ECCO”); ECCO's heat sinks for light-emitting-diode (“LED”) light bars are within the scope of the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because ECCO failed to demonstrate that its heat sinks for LED light bars, which are solid profiles of series 6063 extruded aluminum, meet the two criteria to qualify for the finished heat sink exclusion in the scope, i.e., that: (1) the design and production of the imported heat sinks for LED light bars are organized around meeting specified thermal performance requirements; and, (2) the imported heat sinks for LED light bars are fully, albeit not necessarily individually, tested to comply with the specified thermal performance requirements; November 24, 2014.

    A-570-967 and C-570-968: Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Circle Glass Co.; Circle Glass Co.'s screen and storm door grille, consisting of an extruded aluminum frame that has been permanently combined with a non-extruded aluminum mesh grille made of aluminum wire, with extruded aluminum mounting brackets riveted to the frame (and screws), is outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because it is a fully assembled subassembly that is completed at the time of entry and is ready for immediate installation in a larger system. Circle Glass Co.'s patio door kits without the screen are within the scope of the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because Circle Glass Co.'s patio door kits consist of an extruded aluminum door frame, a plastic handle, a steel latch, a strike, rivets, screws, and four steel door roller/corner combination units, but do not contain a screen. Thus, they do not qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion, which only applies to kits containing, at the time of importation, all the parts necessary to construct a complete finished good; December 5, 2014.

    A-570-899: Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Alex Toys, Inc.; Alex Toys, Inc.'s “Paint A Canvas”/“Color A Canvas” preprinted, paint-it-yourself artist canvases (whether or not imported as part of kits) are outside the scope of the order because the canvases are pre-printed paint-it-yourself canvases with copyrighted designs, that fall within the exclusion for “paint-by-number” or “paint-it-yourself” artist canvases with a copyrighted preprinted outline; November 18, 2014.

    A-570-827: Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind; West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind's orange flexible pencils made of polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) with a black carbon material writing core are outside the scope of the order because the outside sheath of the flexible pencils is not rigid; October 27, 2014.

    A-570-901: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Banker's Pen (1991) Inc. (“Bankers Pen”); Bankers Pen's notebook, style number ST4191, is comprised of black polyurethane cover and measures 8 inches by 11 inches. The notebook meets the exclusion criteria for case bound books and, thus is outside the scope of the order; December 11, 2014.

    A-570-506: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: The Companion Group; The Companion Group's rectangular and round drip pans are within the scope of the antidumping duty Order because the products: (1) Are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses; (2) do not have self-contained electric heating elements; and (3) are used as cooking ware; December 10, 2014.

    A-570-894: Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Lamrite West Inc. dba Darice Inc. (Darice); Darices's DTP908 David Tutera Tissue Tassels and POM100 Tissue Poms are within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the physical characteristics of these (e.g., basis weight, width, shape, color, and packaging) satisfy the physical criteria of the merchandise enumerated in the scope, and these products do not meet the criteria of any of the tissue paper products excluded from the scope; October 20, 2014.

    A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: KidKraft, LP; Austin and Raleigh model toy boxes are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because the Austin model meets the scope exclusion for toy boxes and the Raleigh model has nearly all of the physical characteristics of excluded toy boxes and has characteristics consistent with excluded benches/seating furniture; November 21, 2014.

    A-570-890: Wooden Bedroom From the People's Republic of China

    Requestor: Maxim Company Taiwan, Ltd.; construction vehicle toddler beds resembling a toy front-end loader are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because they are designed to use a standard crib mattress and they conform to ASTM F 1821-13; November 19, 2014.

    Taiwan A-583-843: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan

    Requestor: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corp.; Certain unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags from Taiwan that appear ready to undergo the final processing of cutting the unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bag to length, sealing the bottoms, and die-cutting the unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags to create the handles of the finished polyethylene retail carrier bags are circumventing the antidumping duty order. The unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags subject to this determination may or may not have printing and may be of different dimensions as long as they meet the description of the scope of the order; October 9, 2014.

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230.

    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09583 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-836] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 19, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).1 For these final results, we continue to find that subject merchandise has been sold at less than normal value.

    1See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 79 FR 75791 (December 19, 2014) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 19, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review. The period of review is February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results and received case and rebuttal briefs from interested parties. The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain CTL plate. Imports of CTL plate are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2

    2See the memorandum from Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary Gary Taverman to Assistant Secretary Paul Piquado entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the Republic of Korea for the Period of Review February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The comments received in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at https://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 on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    We made no changes from the Preliminary Results.

    Final Results of Review

    For the final results of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.

    Manufacturer/
  • exporter
  • Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Bookuk Steel Co., Ltd. 0.56 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 0.56 SM Solution Co. Ltd. 0.56
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., which we selected for individual examination, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).3

    3 In these final results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.4

    4 For a full discussion, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (May 2003 Clarification).

    Consistent with the May 2003 Clarification, for Hyosung Corporation, Samsung C&T Corporation, and TCC Steel Corporation, which had no reviewable entries of subject merchandise to the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any applicable entries of subject merchandise at the all-others rate.

    For the companies not selected for individual examination, Bookuk Steel Co., Ltd., and SM Solution Co. Ltd., we have based their weighted-average dumping margins on the margin established for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. We will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by those firms.

    We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    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 CTL plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins determined in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 0.98 percent,5 the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation, adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    5See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 54264, 54265 (September 11, 2014).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the 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.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Summary Background Company Abbreviations Other Abbreviations Scope of the Order Final Determination of No Reviewable Entries Changes Since the Preliminary Results Discussion of the Issues Differential Pricing Major Input Adjustments Minor Input General and Administrative Expenses Interest Expense Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-09582 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD891 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 42 assessment process webinars for Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 42 assessment of Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper will consist of a series of webinars. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Assessment portion of the SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The final assessment webinar for SEDAR 42 will be held on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; and (2) a series of assessment webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Webinar Process is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses; and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09584 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD852 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of public comment period; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 26, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the availability for public review of a proposed evaluation of three Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) submitted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), with the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribes, and the Tulalip Tribes pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The HGMPs specify the propagation of early-returning (“early”) winter steelhead in the Dungeness, Nooksack, and Stillaguamish River watersheds of Washington State. The availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA), evaluating the anticipated effects of NMFS' proposed determination on those HGMPs pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was included in the announcement. The announcement opened a 30-day public comment period. Due to an issue with one of the email addresses provided for receipt of comments, comments submitted to [email protected] prior to April 14, 2015, may not have been received. Therefore, NMFS requests that any such comments be re-submitted. NMFS is extending the comment period to May 4, 2015, to facilitate this re-submittal.

    DATES:

    Comment period of the notice published at 80 FR 15984, March 26, 2015, is extended. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific time on May 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the proposed evaluation and draft EA should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 510 Desmond Dr., Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503, or faxed to (360) 753-9517. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following identifier: Comments on Early Winter Steelhead Hatchery Programs. When commenting on the draft environmental assessment, please refer to the specific page number and line number of the subject of your comment. The Secretary's proposed evaluation of effects on listed steelhead and salmon and the draft EA are also available on the Internet at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Comments received will also be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by calling (503) 230-5418.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Tynan at (360) 753-9579 or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Species Covered in This Notice ESA-Listed Species Covered in This Notice

    Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

    Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha): threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Puget Sound.

    Chum salmon (O. keta): threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Hood Canal summer-run.

    Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus): threatened Puget Sound/Washington Coast.

    The WDFW, with the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribes, and the Tulalip Tribes as the U.S. v. Washington salmon resource co-managers, has submitted to NMFS plans for three jointly operated hatchery programs in the Dungeness, Nooksack, and Stillaguamish River basins. The plans were submitted in July 2014, pursuant to limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule for the listed Puget Sound Steelhead distinct population segment (DPS), and the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and listed Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESU). The hatchery programs would release early winter steelhead that are not included as part of the ESA-listed Puget Sound Steelhead Distinct Population Segment into the Dungeness River, Nooksack River, and Stillaguamish River watersheds. All three programs would release fish that are not native to the watersheds.

    Consideration of these three HGMPs, particularly pursuant to NEPA, is not being conducted as a substitute for the withdrawn Puget Sound Draft Environmental Impact Statement (80 FR 15986, March 26, 2015).

    As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an HGMP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)(i)(A) through (K). Prior to final approval of an HGMP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.

    Authority

    Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 6 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with a joint state/tribal artificial propagation plan provided that the joint plan has been determined by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).

    We also issue this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA as amended (42 U.S.C 4371 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1500 and 1506.6), and other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NMFS for compliance with those regulations.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09499 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD905 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Pelagics Plan Team (PPT) and a joint meeting of the Hawaii Members of the PPT, Advisory Panel (AP), Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee (NCFAC) and Fishing Industry Advisory Panel (FIAP), in Honolulu, HI, to discuss fishery issues and develop recommendations for future management.

    DATES:

    The meeting of the PPT will be held May 12-13 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The joint meeting of the Hawaii Members of the PPT, AP, NCFAC and FIAP will be held on May 14, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Schedule and Agenda for the PPT Meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2015, 8:30 a.m. 1. Introduction 2. Annual Report Review A. Review 2014 Annual Report Modules and Recommendations i. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ii. American Samoa iii. Guam iv. Hawaii v. International B. 2014 Annual Report Region Wide Recommendations Thursday, May 13, 2015, 8:30 a.m. 3. Skipjack Range Contraction 4. Update on Council Actions 5. Purse Seine and Longline Meetings 6. Stock Status Determination Criteria 7. Other Business 8. Public Comment 9. Pelagic Plan Team Recommendations Schedule and Agenda for the Joint Meeting of the Hawaii Members of the PPT, AP, NCFAC and FIAP Thursday, May 14, 2015, 9 a.m. 1. Introduction and Welcome 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Minimum Size for Hawaii Yellowfin Tuna A. Yield per Recruit B. Socio-economic Studies C. Discussion 4. Cross Seamount Fishery A. Contemporary Synopsis of the Cross Seamount Area Fishery B. Discussion 5. Marine Mammal Depredation A. Marine Mammal Depredation Reports in the Hawaii Commercial Catch Reports B. Discussion 6. Other Updates A. Update on the Hawaii Electronic Logbook Report Project B. Hawaii Green Turtle Delisting Petition Response and Proposed Rule C. Humpback Whale Delisting Petition Response D. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan E. Discussion 7. Other Issues 8. Public Comment 9. Discussion and Recommendations

    The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09586 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD912 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Plan Development Team and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 55 Jefferson Park Road, Warwick, RI 02888; telephone: (401) 467-6900; fax: (401) 467-2666.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Recipients of recent Scallop RSA awards will provide a status update and summary of preliminary findings to the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and Advisory Panel (AP). Presentations will include RSA projects that have not yet been used directly in the scallop management process. This meeting is not a formal review of the methods or results of these projects. Instead, this meeting is only an overview to better inform the PDT and AP of current research status and help identify future research priority recommendations. Other issues may be discussed, time permitting.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09587 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD904 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 13 to Friday, May 15, 2015. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on each day. On Wednesday and Thursday, the meeting will end at 5 p.m. or when business for the day is concluded. On Friday, the meeting will end at midday.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Pacific Room, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to review analyses and prepare a report to the Council on its Swordfish Fishery Management and Monitoring Plan. The Plan contains options for managing and monitoring the California large mesh drift gillnet (DGN) fishery including high priority protected species hard caps, fishery performance objectives, and monitoring goals. If available, the Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) may review preliminary exempted fishing permit applications that would be submitted or resubmitted to the Council at its June meeting. The HMSMT will also review updates to the Highly Migratory Species Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. The HMSMT may also plan reports for other HMS items on the Council's June agenda, including international issues and the planned management strategy evaluation for North Pacific albacore tuna to be conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09585 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions

    On 3/13/2015 (80 FR 13351-13352), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:

    Product: Product Name/NSN(s): Padfolio with Pen, Department of State Logo, 81/2″ x 11″ 7510-01-NIB-1015 Mandatory Purchase by: Department of State Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Department of State, DS Office of Acquisition Management, Arlington, VA Distribution: C-List Services: Service Type: Janitorial Service Service Mandatory For: USDA, Agricultural Research Service Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 808 East Blackland Road, Temple, TX Mandatory Source of Supply: Rising Star Resource Development Corporation, Dallas, TX Contracting Activity: USDA ARS SPA 7MN1, East College Station, TX Service Type: Mail Service Service Mandatory For: U.S. Air Force, Dyess Air Force Base, TX Mandatory Source of Supply: Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: Department of the Air Force, FA4661 7 CONS CD, Dyess AFB, TX Deletions

    On March 20, (80 FR 14973), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products: Product Name/NSN(s): Bag, Trash, Cloth/2090-01-478-3561 Mandatory Source of Supply: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, San Angelo, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Product Name/NSN(s): Urinal, Incontinent, 6530-01-081-5303, 6530-01-081-5304, 6530-01-451-8065, 6530-01-451-8066, 6530-01-451-8068, 6530-01-451-8069, 6530-01-451-8070, 6530-01-451-8071, 6530-01-451-8072, 6530-01-451-8073 Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, MO Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Product Name/NSN(s): Cleaning Compound/7930-01-398-0942 Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, MO Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Product Name/NSN: Stapler, Spring-powered, Pliers Style 7520-01-598-4239 Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Product Name/NSN(s): Ballpoint Pen, Round, Stick Type, “Alpha Basic”, 7520-01-557-3166—Red Ink, 7520-01-557-3163—Red Ink w/Grip Mandatory Source of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Product Name/NSN: Highlighter Set, Dry Transfer/7520-01-504-8939 Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Service: Service Type: Laundry Service Service Mandatory For: U.S. Naval Hospital & Naval Dental Clinic Base, Farenholt Road, Agana Heights, GU Mandatory Source of Supply: ICAN Resources, Inc., Dededo, GU Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, NAVSUP FLT LOG CTR, Pearl Harbor, HI Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09596 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service previously furnished by such agency.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: May 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Products Product Name/NSN(s): File Folder, Single Tab, 1/3 Cut 7530-00-NIB-1105—Letter, Position 2 7530-00-NIB-1106—Letter, Position 3 Distribution: A-List 7530-00-NIB-1107—Legal, Position 1 7530-00-NIB-1108—Legal, Position 2 7530-00-NIB-1109—Legal, Position 3 Distribution: B-List Mandatory Purchase By: Total and Broad Government Requirements Mandatory Source of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Deletion

    The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Shelf Stocking, Custodial & Warehousing Service Service is Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base, Travis AFB, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09595 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Activities and Operations at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for Activities and Operations at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). This document analyzes and evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with short-term and long-term proposed construction projects and proposed changes to YPG's testing and training mission. The potential for environmental impacts is greatest for the following resource areas: Soils, air quality, solid and hazardous materials/waste, vegetation, and wildlife. Best management practices and other mitigation measures were identified in the FPEIS.

    DATES:

    The waiting period will end 30 days after publication of the NOA in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    For questions concerning the FPEIS, please contact Mr. Sergio Obregon, U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground, National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, IMYM-PWE, Yuma, AZ 85365-9498. Questions may be mailed to that address or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Chuck Wullenjohn, Yuma Proving Ground Public Affairs Office, at (928) 328-6189, Monday through Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    YPG consists of approximately 840,000 acres of DoD-managed land in the Sonoran Desert in southwestern Arizona. The Department of the Army prepared a FPEIS to analyze potential impacts from new construction, changes in testing and training, and activities conducted under private industry partnerships.

    Two alternatives were analyzed in the FPEIS: (1) No Action, which describes the resulting conditions if there were no changes in testing and training activities conducted at YPG and (2) the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, which includes new construction and associated demolition, testing and training activities occurring on YPG, and new testing and training proposed by tenants to meet anticipated testing or training needs. The Preferred Alternative was determined after consideration of Native American concerns and feedback from agencies and resulted in reduction of the proposed impact areas for four projects.

    The FPEIS addressed the following types of activities:

    • Short-term, well-defined activities at known locations that could be implemented without additional NEPA analysis once a decision is made.

    • Short-term, less well-defined activities for which locations are not known or for which additional information regarding site-specific implementation must be developed that would receive additional site-specific NEPA analysis prior to project implementation.

    • Long-term, less well-defined activities that would occur later in time and would receive additional site-specific NEPA analysis prior to project implementation.

    The FPEIS provided thorough analysis under NEPA for the short-term well-defined projects and allows less well-defined projects to be implemented following a focused, site-specific NEPA analysis that would tier from this analysis.

    The Army is not seeking to expand the boundaries of YPG and all proposed activities would be conducted within the boundaries of the installation or its currently authorized airspace. No changes were proposed to ongoing military activities conducted at off-post areas in Arizona and California that are used for specific military testing activities under conditions not found at YPG. Therefore, activities conducted in these areas were not included in the analysis in the FPEIS.

    The potential for environmental impacts is greatest for the following resource areas: soils, air quality, solid and hazardous materials/waste, vegetation, and wildlife. Impacts to these resources may occur as a result of converting existing land use to support military testing and training or from increasing the scope or magnitude of testing activities. Best management practices and other mitigation measures were identified in the FPEIS.

    The Army will observe a waiting period of 30 days following the publication of the Notice of Availability for the FPEIS in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before making a decision. Copies of the FPEIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, to federally recognized Native American tribes, and to other stakeholders. Copies of the FPEIS are available for public inspection at the Yuma County Library, Main Branch, 2951 S. 21st Drive and the Yuma Proving Ground Post Library. The FPEIS can also be viewed at the following Web sites: http://www.yuma.army.mil/Documents.aspx, and http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09519 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Schofield Generating Station Project, United States Army Garrison, Hawaii AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed lease of land and granting of easements on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable power generation plant, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the DEIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Schofield Generating Station and associated infrastructure. The Army has determined that there are historic properties nearby, but that the undertaking will have no effect upon them as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(i). The Draft EIS documents this finding and it is now being made available for public review. The Draft EIS comment process is also an opportunity for public to provide input about the effects of the proposed actions on historic property, for consideration in Army decision making.

    DATES:

    The public comment period will end 45 days after publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send written comments by mail to the Department of the Army, Directorate of Public Works, United States Army Garrison, Hawaii, ATTN: IMHW-PWE (L. Graham), 947 Wright Avenue, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013; or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information please contact Ms. Lisa Graham, NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii. Ms. Graham can be reached by phone at (808) 656-3075, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Proposed Action, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station Project (SGSP), consists of:

    (1) The Army's lease of 8.13 acres of land and the related granting of a 2.5-acre interconnection easement on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric to construct, operate, and maintain a 50-MW capacity renewable energy power plant to include associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities.

    (2) The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources granting of a 1.28-acre easement and a 0.7-acre conservation district authorization to Hawaiian Electric allowing for the construction of a 46 kilovolt (kV) electrical power transmission line between the SGSP site and the existing Wahiawa Substation.

    (3) Hawaiian Electric's construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50 MW capacity, biofuel-capable power generation plant and 46 kV sub-transmission line required to connect the Schofield Generating Station to the Hawaiian Electric grid.

    The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is two-fold: to provide improved energy security to the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia and to provide new secure, firm, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii.

    The need for the Proposed Action are to increase energy security for the Army and Oahu; assist the Army in supporting renewable energy-related laws and Executive Orders and meeting its renewable energy goals; assist Hawaiian Electric in meeting the Hawaii Renewable Portfolio Standard goals; and improve future electrical generation on Oahu.

    The electricity produced by the SGSP would normally supply power to all Hawaiian Electric customers through the island-wide electrical grid. During outages that meet the criteria specified in the Operating Agreement, SGSP output would first be provided to Army facilities at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia up to their peak demand of 32 MW, to meet their missions, and would additionally support the grid up to the station's full capacity. If there were a full island outage, the power plant could be used to restart other plants on the island.

    Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not lease the property or grant the easement and Hawaiian Electric would not construct and operate the SGSP.

    The DEIS evaluates the impacts on land use; airspace use; visual resources; air quality, including climate and greenhouse gasses; noise; traffic and transportation; water resources; geology and soils; biological resources; cultural resources; hazardous and toxic substances; socioeconomics, including environmental justice; and utilities and infrastructure.

    Impacts were assessed assuming full-time operation of the generating facility (24 hours a day, 365 days a year). Under normal conditions, the facility would likely operate less than full-time, so projected impacts could be less.

    Anticipated impacts would be less than significant for all resources. All activities would fall within existing regulations, permits, and plans. Best management practices and design measures that would avoid or minimize adverse effects would be implemented for these resources: visual, air quality, noise, traffic and transportation, water, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous and toxic substances.

    All government agencies, special interest groups, and individuals are invited to attend the public meetings and/or submit their comments in writing. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the public meetings will be published locally.

    The DEIS is available for review at the Sergeant Rodney J. Yano Main Library (on Schofield Barracks); Fort Shafter Library; Wahiawa Public Library; Mililani Public Library; Waialua Public Library; University of Hawaii libraries including Thomas H. Hamilton Library, Edwin H. Mookini Library, Maui College Library, and Kauai Community College Library; Hawaii State libraries including Kaimuki Regional Library, Kaneohe Regional Library, Pearl City Regional Library, Hawaii Kai Regional Library, Hilo Regional Library, Kahului Regional Library, and Lihue Regional Library, and the Hawaii State Library Documents Center; the Legislative Reference Bureau Library; and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services Municipal Library. The DEIS can also be viewed at the following Web site: http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/schofieldplant.

    Brenda S Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09518 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Army Education Advisory Subcommittee Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Subcommittee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center Board of Visitors, a subcommittee of the Army Education Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) Board of Visitors Subcommittee will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 10 and 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Building 326, Weckerling Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Robert Savukinas, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittee, in writing at Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, ATFL-APAS-AA, Bldg. 634, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (831) 242-5828.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subcommittee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide the subcommittee with briefings and information focusing on the Institute's goal for its students to achieve 2+/2+ scores on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). The subcommittee will also receive an update on the Institute's accreditation and will address administrative matters.

    Proposed Agenda: June 10—The subcommittee will receive briefings associated with the 2+/2+ DLPT goal and the Institute's actions in supporting the 2+/2+ goal. The subcommittee will be updated on the Institute's accreditation. The subcommittee will complete administrative procedures and appointment requirements. June 11—The subcommittee will have time to discuss and compile observations pertaining to agenda items. General deliberations leading to provisional findings will be referred to the Army Education Advisory Committee for deliberation by the Committee under the open-meeting rules.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Dr. Savukinas, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Because the meeting of the subcommittee will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military base, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter base. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. Weckerling Center is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available on the right side of the main entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Dr. Savukinas, the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Dr. Savukinas, the subcommittee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the subcommittee for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven business days in advance to the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Subcommittee Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Subcommittee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three minutes during the period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09520 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. (Open Session) 12:15 p.m.-1:35 p.m. (Administrative Working Meeting) 1:35 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (Open Session) ADDRESSES:

    The Lewis and Clark Center, Arnold Conference Room, Room 3501, 100 Stimson Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539, [email protected] For meeting information, please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6670, Fax: (703) 681-9539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site, http://health.mil/About-MHS/Other-MHS-Organizations/Defense-Health-Board/Meetings.

    Purpose of the Meeting

    The purpose of the meeting is to conduct decision briefings for deliberation and provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military operational programs, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and healthcare delivery.

    Agenda

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting is open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and 1:35 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on May 12, 2015. The DHB anticipates deliberating a decision briefing from the subgroup on Continuing Health Education for Military and Civilian Health Professionals. The DHB also anticipates receiving a progress update from the Neuro/Behavioral Health Subcommittee on Population Normative Values for Post-Concussive Computerized Neurocognitive Assessments. In addition, U.S. Army briefings on the Combined Arms Center, the Human Dimension, and the Army University will be provided to the Board.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 to register.

    Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements

    Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.

    Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written statements should not be longer than two type-written pages and address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

    If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

    The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09512 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-03] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-03 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN24AP15.000 Transmittal No. 15-03 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Arab Republic of Egypt

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    $ Millions Major Defense Equipment * 54 Other 3 TOTAL 57 * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: 356 AGM-114K/R3 Hellfire II Air-to-Ground missiles with containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (VFX)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS case ULB-$450M-22Aug90 FMS case URC-$12M-9Feb96 FMS case URB-$47M-18Jun96 FMS case UVO-$38M-6Dec02

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 07 April 2015

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Egypt—AGM-114K/R3 Hellfire II Missiles

    The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale of 356 AGM-114K/R3 Hellfire II Air-to-Ground missiles with containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $57 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    Egypt will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. While this potential sale would be the first transfer of the R variant of this missile to Egypt, Egypt already has the F and K variants in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, Florida. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of the proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Egypt.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-03 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AGM-114K/R Hellfire II is an air-to-ground missile used against heavy and light armored targets, thin skinned vehicles, urban structures, bunkers, caves and personnel. The new AGM-114R missile is Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) based, with a variable delay fuse and improved safety and reliability.

    2. The highest level for release of the AGM-114K/R Hellfire II is Secret, based upon the software. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified up to Secret.

    3. If a technologically advance adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent system with might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the Government of Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.

    [FR Doc. 2015-09550 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice; Correction AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published a document in the Federal Register on April 2, 2015, (80 FR 17735), concerning notice of a public meeting and hearing on April 29, 2015, regarding the underground recovery of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and safe resumption of waste operations. That notice stated that the Board would be setting aside time for three public comment periods: (1) At the conclusion of Sessions II; (2) at the conclusion of Session III; and (3) just prior to the Board beginning deliberations in Session IV. The Board wishes to correct that statement to indicate that opportunity for public comment is limited to just two comment periods: (1) At the conclusion of Session II; and (2) just prior to the Board's deliberations in Session IV.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 2, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-07648, on page 17736, under the “Supplementary Information” caption, first column, lines 62—68, correct the statement to read:

    The Board is setting aside time at the end of Session II for presentations and comments from the public. The public will be given one final opportunity for comment before the Board begins deliberations in Session IV.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Jessie H. Roberson, Vice-Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09706 Filed 4-22-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information: Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.116G DATES:

    Applications Available: April 24, 2015. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2015. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 24, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to encourage institutions of higher education (IHEs) to develop model programs to support veteran student success in postsecondary education by coordinating services to address the academic, financial, physical, and social needs of veteran students.

    Background: We encourage applicants to read carefully the Selection Criteria section of this notice. Consistent with the Department's increasing emphasis in recent years on promoting evidence-based practices through our grant competitions, the Secretary will evaluate applications on the extent to which the proposed project is supported by a logic model that meets the evidence standard of “strong theory” (as defined in this notice). Resources to assist applicants in creating a logic model can be found here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014007.pdf.

    Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority and one invitational priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), the absolute priority is from section 873 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1161t).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Projects that include the following required activities:

    (a) Establishing a Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on the campus of the institution to provide a single point of contact to coordinate comprehensive support services for veteran students;

    (b) Establishing a veteran student support team, including representatives from the offices of the institution responsible for admissions, registration, financial aid, veterans benefits, academic advising, student health, personal or mental health counseling, career advising, disabilities services, and any other office of the institution that provides support to veteran students on campus;

    (c) Providing a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program;

    (d) Monitoring the rates of veteran student enrollment, persistence, and completion; and

    (e) Developing a plan to sustain the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success after the grant period.

    Invitational Priority: Under this competition we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority. For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Projects that detail specific steps that will be taken to recruit, retain, and graduate veterans from groups with college completion rates that are below the national average—such as English language learners and homeless veterans—as well as veterans who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in postsecondary education based on race, color, national origin, gender, or disability.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1161t.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $4,950,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $250,000 to $500,000 for 36 months.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $330,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 15.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: 36 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: IHEs.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Limit on Grant Awards: Previously funded Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success grantees are not eligible for an award. No applicant will receive more than one award in this FY 2015 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success competition.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.116G.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in Section VIII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria, the absolute priority and the invitational priority that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established mandatory page limits. You must limit the section of the application narrative that addresses:

    • The selection criteria to no more than 25 pages.

    • The absolute priority to no more than 5 pages.

    • The invitational priority to no more than 5 pages, if you address it.

    Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 35 pages.

    Please include separate headings for the absolute priority and, if you choose to address it, the invitational priority.

    For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, endnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative may be singles spaced.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF 424 Form; the one-page Abstract; Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); or Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a Table of Contents, if you include one. However, the page limit does apply to all of the project narrative section in Part III.

    If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the application narrative.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: April 24, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 24, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, CFDA number 84.116G, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.116, not 84.116G).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at http://www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Harris, Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006-8544. FAX: (202) 502-7877.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.116G), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.116G), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The following selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

    a. Need for the project. (10 points) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.

    2. The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.

    b. Significance. (10 points) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.

    2. The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

    c. Quality of the project design. (30 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

    2. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

    3. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

    4. The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

    d. Quality of project personnel. (15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

    1. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    2. In addition, the Secretary considers:

    (a) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

    (b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

    Note:

    As stated in the absolute priority for this competition, a proposed Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success must have a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program. In response to this selection criterion, the application must describe the qualifications of this individual, the members of the veteran student support team described in the absolute priority, and any other individuals who will help carry out the proposed project. The grant project director may or may not be the coordinator of the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success.

    e. Adequacy of resources. (20 points) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    1. The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.

    2. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

    3. The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.

    Note:

    A budget summary and budget narrative attached to your proposal should itemize the support you are requesting through the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success Program.

    f. Quality of project evaluation. (15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers:

    1. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

    2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.

    3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: Under 34 CFR 75.110, the Secretary has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance measures for the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success: (1) The extent to which the project is institutionalized at the end of the project period; and (2) The extent to which funded projects increase enrollment, persistence, and completion rates of veteran students at their institutions.

    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.

    If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Harris, Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone: (202) 219-7083 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

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

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

    Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09608 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission To Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces an open meeting of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (Commission). The Commission was created pursuant section 319 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113-76, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton at Mark Center, Walnut Conference Room, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Gibson, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-3787; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Commission was established to provide advice to the Secretary on the Department's national laboratories. The Commission will review the DOE national laboratories for alignment with the Department's strategic priorities, clear and balanced missions, unique capabilities to meet current energy and national security challenges, appropriate size to meet the Department's energy and national security missions, and support of other Federal agencies. The Commission will also look for opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories and review the use of laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) to meet the Department's science, energy, and national security goals.

    Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is the eighth meeting of the Commission.

    Tentative Agenda: The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. on April 22. The tentative meeting agenda includes a look at cost considerations and the budget approval process for the national laboratories. Key presenters will address and discuss these topics with comments from the public. The meeting will conclude at 3:30 p.m. The agenda along with possible schedule adjustments will be posted when finalized and in advance of the meeting on the Lab Commission Web site (http://energy.gov/labcommission/commission-review-effectiveness-national-energy-laboratories).

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who would like to attend must RSVP to Karen Gibson at email: [email protected] Please provide your name, organization, and contact information. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so at the end of the meeting. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 5 minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should register to do so beginning at 10:00 a.m. on April 22. This notice was published less than 15 days due to a programmatic issue. Meeting information is available on the Commission's Web site.

    Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Karen Gibson, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, or to email [email protected]

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the Commission Web site at: http://energy.gov/labcommission

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09564 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-126-000.

    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC.

    Description: Application of Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, Shortened Comment Period.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1013-001.

    Applicants: WSPP Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance filing to be effective 4/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1534-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-20_SA 2772 ATC-Madison Gas and Electric Co. CFA to be effective 6/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1535-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-20_SA 6507_White Pine 1 SSR Renewal Agreement to be effective 4/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1536-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-04-20_Schedule 43H_Renewal White Pine 1 SSR to be effective 4/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1537-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Notice of Sucession to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1538-000.

    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: SHWPC Notice of Cancellation to be effective 4/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1539-000.

    Applicants: Constellation Energy Services of New York, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Notice of Succession to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09552 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-885-000.

    Applicants: Total Peaking Services, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: TPS Order No. 801 Map Compliance Filing to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150414-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-886-000.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Conversion of Premier to DART to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150414-5194.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-887-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Negotiated Rate Agreement Amendment (Conoco) to be effective 4/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150414-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-888-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 04/14/15 Negotiated Rates—Exelon Generation Company, LLC (HUB) 1985-89 to be effective 4/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150414-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1088-001.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Non-Conforming Agreement Compliance (TGS) to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150414-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 15, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09553 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-889-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 04/15/15 Negotiated Rates—Trafigura Trading LLC (HUB) 7445-89 to be effective 4/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150415-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-890-000.

    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Tariff Sheet Update Filing to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150415-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-891-000.

    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.

    Description: Petition for Approval of Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement of Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 4/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150415-5319.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-532-001.

    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-532-000 to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150415-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 16, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09554 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-104-000.

    Applicants: Tilton Energy, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to March 27, 2015 Application for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA of Tilton Energy LLC and Rocky Road Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5386.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-125-000.

    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of Blue Sky West, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5358.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-960-000.

    Applicants: CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Second Supplement to February 2, 2015 CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-994-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Compliance Report Regarding Operating Penalties of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5387.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1530-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amendment to REMVEC II Agreement and Request for Waiver of Notice Requirement to be effective 4/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5343.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1531-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Distribution of Penalty Revenues for Non-Firm PTP to be effective 4/17/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1532-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notices of Cancellation SGIA and Distribution Serv Agmt Greenpower Williams LLC to be effective 6/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150420-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1533-000.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 23 of DTE Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5355.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-17-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Settlement, Inc.

    Description: Application of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and PJM Settlement, Inc. Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an Order Authorizing Issuances of Securities and Approving Guranty.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5356.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-18-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application to issue securities and authorization to engage in methods of issuance other than competitive bidding and negotiated offers for 401(k) retirement plan of MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150417-5388.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09551 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0066; FRL-9925-54-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX)(Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1831.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0391) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April, 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0066, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The NESHAP applies to ferroalloy production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and silicomanganese that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or are co-located at major sources of HAPs. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Respondents that are not required to conduct an initial performance test are required to notify the EPA Administrator of the initial compliance status of the source. Sources are also required to monitor and maintain records of its operations including: (1) Process or control device parameters; (2) bag leak detention systems; (3) maintenance plan for air pollution control devices (e.g., capture system and venturi scrubbers); (4) certification that monitoring devices are accurate; and (5) the implementation and corrective actions taken related to the startup, shutdown and malfunction plan and the fugitive dust control plan. The types of periodic reports required by this regulation include: Opacity-related reports; performance test results reports; immediate and periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports; quarterly emissions reports; capture hood inspection reports; fugitive dust operations reports; and annual compliance status reports. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP standards. This information is collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Ferroalloy production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 600 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $57,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a slight increase of 16 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to the rounding of estimates.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09507 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9020-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 04/13/2015 Through 04/17/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20150107, Draft EIS, BLM, OR, Western Oregon Draft Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/15, Contact: Mark Brown, 503-808-6233. EIS No. 20150108, Draft EIS, USA, HI, Schofield Generating Station Project at United States Army Garrison, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2015, Contact: Lisa Graham 808-656-3109. EIS No. 20150109, Draft EIS, STB, MT, Tongue River Railroad, Comment Period Ends: 06/23/2015, Contact: Ken Blodgett 1-866-622-4355. EIS No. 20150110, Final EIS, USFS, OR, Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment, Review Period Ends: 06/08/2015, Contact: Joseph Rausch 541-575-3141. EIS No. 20150111, Draft EIS, NRC, PA, Combined License (COL) for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, Comment Period Ends: 07/07/2015, Contact: Tomeka Terry 301-415-1488. EIS No. 20150112, Final EIS, GSA, VA, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Security Training Center, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Abby Low 215-446-4585. EIS No. 20150113, Final EIS, USA, AZ, PROGRAMMATIC—Yuma Proving Ground Activities and Operations, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Sergio Obregon 928-328-2015. EIS No. 20150114, Final EIS, FHWA, CA, Mid County Parkway, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: Tay Dam 213-894-5918. EIS No. 20150115, Final EIS, FAA, 00, ADOPTION—Powder River Training Complex, Ellsworth Air Force Base, Contact: William Burris 202-267-8656.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation's, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted the U.S. Air Force's FEIS #20140334, filed with the USEPA on 11/19/2014. FAA was a cooperating agency on the project and recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.

    EIS No. 20150116, Final EIS, DOE, TX, ADOPTION—Corpus Christi Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project, Contact: John Anderson 202-586-0521.

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's FEIS #20140302, filed with the U.S. EPA on 10/08/2014. DOE was a cooperating agency on the project and recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.

    Dated: April 21, 2015. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09611 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0034; FRL 9925-38-OEI ] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1055.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register(79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0034, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the general provisions of the New Service Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the general provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required, at a minimum, semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of kraft pulp mills.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 112 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 16,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $6,001,000 (per year), includes $4,327,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 618 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The increase is due to an industry growth since the last ICR renewal, resulting in an increased number of respondents subject to the standard.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09506 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-82-OA] Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Review Panel to peer review EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Second External Review Draft—January 2015) and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document.

    DATES:

    The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel meeting will be on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and on Wednesday, June 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

    Location: The public meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Raleigh-Brownstone-University, 1707 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2050 or at [email protected] General information about the CASAC, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice, may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and of adverse effects which may result from various strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen. EPA is currently reviewing the primary (health-based) NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as an indicator for health effects caused by the presence of oxides of nitrogen in the ambient air.

    Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel will hold a public meeting to peer review EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Second External Review Draft—January 2015) and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document. The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel and the CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

    The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel previously peer reviewed EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (External Review Draft—November 2013) as reported in a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated June 10, 2014 (EPA-CASAC-14-002).

    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Second External Review Draft—January 2015) should be directed to Dr. Molini Patel ([email protected]), EPA Office of Research and Development, and technical questions concerning the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document should be directed to Dr. Scott Jenkins ([email protected]), EPA Office of Air and Radiation.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by May 26, 2015 to be placed on the list of public speakers.

    Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by May 26, 2015 so that the information may be made available to the Panel members for their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: April 16, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09631 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0239; FRL-9926-78-ORD] Human Studies Review Board Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for nominations to the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates with expertise in the area of human health risk assessment (hygienist) or in environmental epidemiology with expertise in exposure analysis to be considered for appointment to its Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) advisory committee. The anticipated vacancy will be filled by September 1, 2015. Sources in addition to this Federal Register document may also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    DATES:

    Submit nominations by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your nominations by May 15, 2015, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0239, by any of the following methods:

    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    USPS Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand or Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3304, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0239. Deliveries are accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Downing, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2468, fax number: (202) 564-2070, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 6, 2006, the Agency published a final rule for the protection of human subjects in research (71 FR 24 6138) that called for creating a new, independent human studies review board (i.e., HSRB). The HSRB is a federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 9 (Public Law 92-463). The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols that include human subjects; (2) reports of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research. Typically, the HSRB reviews protocols and completed studies involving pesticide studies, such as worker exposure studies with agricultural handlers applying pesticides in field conditions; janitorial maintenance personnel applying antimicrobial pesticides in commercial settings; and field efficacy studies for skin applied insect repellent products. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's Science Advisor. General information concerning the HSRB, including its charter, current membership, and activities can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.

    HSRB members serve as special government employees or regular government employees. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for either two or three year terms with the possibility of reappointment for additional terms, with a maximum of six years of service. The HSRB typically meets up to four times a year and the average workload for HSRB members is approximately 25 to 30 hours per meeting, including the time spent at the meeting. Responsibilities of HSRB members include reviewing extensive background materials prior to meetings of the Board, preparing draft responses to Agency charge questions, attending Board meetings, participating in the discussion and deliberations at these meetings, drafting assigned sections of meeting reports, and assisting finalization of Board reports. EPA compensates special government employees for their time and provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    The qualifications of nominees for membership on the HSRB will be assessed in terms of the specific expertise sought for the HSRB. Qualified nominees who agree to be considered further will be included in a “Short List”. The Short List of nominee names and biographical sketches will be posted for 14 calendar days for public comment on the HSRB Web site: http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/index.htm. The public will be encouraged to provide additional information about the nominees that EPA should consider. At the completion of the comment period, EPA will select new Board members from the Short List. Candidates not selected for HSRB membership at this time may be considered for HSRB membership as vacancies arise in the future or for service as consultants to the HSRB. The Agency estimates that the names of Short List candidates will be posted in June 2015. However, please be advised that this is an approximate time frame and the date is subject to change. If you have any questions concerning posting of Short List candidates on the HSRB Web site, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Members of the HSRB are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, each nominee will be asked to submit confidential financial information that fully discloses, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The information provided is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to the public. Before a candidate is considered further for service on the HSRB, EPA will evaluate each candidate to assess whether there is any conflict of financial interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or prior involvement with matters likely to be reviewed by the Board.

    Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including: the professional background, expertise and experience that would contribute to the diversity of perspectives of the committee; interpersonal, verbal and written communication skills and other attributes that would contribute to the HSRB's collaborative process; consensus building skills; absence of any financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, or lack of independence, or bias; and the availability to participate in meetings and administrative sessions, participate in teleconferences, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare recommendations and advice in reports.

    Nominations should include a resume or curriculum vitae providing the nominee's educational background, qualifications, leadership positions in national associations or professional societies, relevant research experience and publications along with a short (one page) biography describing how the nominee meets the above criteria and other information that may be helpful in evaluating the nomination, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.

    To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, nominees are requested to inform the Agency of how you learned of this opportunity.

    Final selection of HSRB members is a discretionary function of the Agency and will be announced on the HSRB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/index.htm as soon as selections are made.

    Dated: April 13, 2015. Thomas Burke, EPA Science Advisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09620 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0057; FRL-9925-84] Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16675), concerning the opening for public comment period for several registration reviews. This document corrects the listing of registration review docket openings to include forchlorfenuron (case 7057), docket identification (ID) number to be EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0641, and chemical review manager contact information. It also clarifies that there is no combined work plan, summary document, and proposed interim registration review decision for forchlorfenuron.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janeese Hackley, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-1523; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Agency included in the Federal Register notice of March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16675) (FRL-9922-79) a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0057, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What does this correction do?

    FR Doc. 2015-07200 published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16675) (FRL-9922-79) is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Registration review case name and No.” is corrected to include in a new line to read: Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057).

    2. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Pesticide docket ID No.”, is corrected to include in the new line for forchlorfenuron to read: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0641.

    3. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Chemical review manager, telephone number, email address” is corrected to include in a new line for forchlorfenuron to read: Wilhelmena Livingston, (703) 308-8025, [email protected].

    4. On page 16676, in the first column, Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, paragraph 2, line 5, to delete the sentence “For Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057), EPA is seeking comment on the Combined Work Plan, Summary Document, and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, which includes the human health and ecological risk assessments.”

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 10, 2015. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09525 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093-; FRL-9926-80-OAR] Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and transport of Brassica carinata (carinata) oil feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, and jet fuel. This notice explains EPA's analysis of the production and transport components of the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel made from carinata oil, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the future to determine whether biofuels produced from carinata oil meet the necessary GHG reductions required for qualification as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate that biofuels produced from carinata oil could qualify as advanced biofuel if typical fuel production process technology conditions are used.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected], Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093.

    Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Air and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-XXXX-XXXX. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Shell, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: 202-564-8479; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is organized as follows:

    I. Introduction II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated with use of Carinata Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock A. Feedstock Production 1. Background 2. Volume Potential 3. Indirect Impacts 4. Crop Inputs 5. Potential Invasiveness 6. Crushing and Oil Extraction B. Feedstock Distribution C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions D. Fuel Production and Distribution III. Summary I. Introduction

    As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations published on March 26, 2010 1 (the “March 2010 rule”), EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of an approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific combination of the three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in the Table as eligible for purposes of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to qualify as renewable fuel or one of three subsets of renewable fuel (biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, or advanced biofuel). EPA may also independently approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, or a third-party may petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway in accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416.

    1 See 75 FR 14670.

    EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of three subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions such as indirect emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel production.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels produced using Brassica carinata (carinata) oil,2 and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible. As an initial step in this process, EPA has conducted an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation.

    2 For purposes of this notice, the term “carinata” refers to the species Brassica Carinata.

    EPA expects to consider comments received and then use the information to evaluate petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use carinata oil as a feedstock for the production of biofuel, and that seek an EPA determination regarding whether such biofuels qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel, in addition to the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata feedstock in determining whether petitioners' proposed biofuel production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.

    II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Carinata Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the petition and other data gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we used a similar approach to that used for camelina oil in a rule published on March 5, 2013 (the “March 2013 rule”).3 In that rulemaking, EPA determined that several renewable fuel pathways using camelina oil feedstock meet the required 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel because the GHG emissions performance of camelina-based fuels is at least as good as that modeled for fuels made from soybean oil.

    3 78 FR 14190.

    EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock for purposes of making GHG reduction threshold determinations for the RFS program. This is in part because of the similarities of carinata oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because carinata is not expected to have significant land use change impacts. Instead of performing new agricultural sector modeling, EPA relied upon the soybean oil analysis conducted for the March 2010 rule to assess the relative GHG impacts of growing and transporting carinata oil for use as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the agricultural sector GHG emissions from carinata oil production, including land use change, crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, and feedstock distribution. For each component, we believe that the GHG emissions are less than or comparable to the emissions from the equivalent component of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis (described below), we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts of using carinata oil in responding to petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by assuming that GHG emissions are similar to those associated with the use of soybean oil for biofuel production. We invite comment on this proposed approach.

    A. Feedstock Production 1. Background

    Brassica carinata (carinata), commonly known as “Ethiopian mustard” or “Ethiopian rapeseed”, is an oilseed crop within the flowering plant family Brassicaceae and is native to the Ethiopian highlands.

    Carinata oil has high concentrations of erucic acid which make it less suitable for food uses but potentially attractive for biolubricants and polymers, and other industrial applications.4 5 It is not used for food in the United States where more desireable substitutes are readily available, though there is a limited amount of use for dietary purposes in Africa and western and southern Asia.6 The vast majority of carinata currently grown in the United States is in limited field trials to evaluate its qualities as a feedstock to produce biofuels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not track the production or end-uses of carinata but the petitioner believes 95% of current carinata research has been for biofuels with some limited research on enhanced oil recovery applications.7 Compared to other oilseeds, carinata seed contains a high oil content (44%) which means a greater portion of the feedstock can be converted to biofuel.8 Carinata oil contains longer carbon chains than other oilseeds, making it more suited to be broken down for industrial uses, and long chain fatty acids make it ideal for biodiesel production. When grown, carinata provides multiple benefits as a biofumigant, serving to suppress disease and insects,9 while also controlling weeds and other soil-borne pests.10

    4 Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 4.5: 538-561.

    5 Fahd, S. et. al (2010) Energy, Environmental and Economic Assessment of Non-Food Use of Brassica Carinata http://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_files/POSTERS/P_138_Sandra_Fahd.pdf.

    6 Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA). PROTA 14: Vegatable Oils Record Display, Brassica Carinata http://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/Brassica%20carinata_En.htm.

    7 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to the EPA, August 2013.

    8 Earlier strains of Brassica carinata have contained various, lesser oil contents. However, selective breeding and developments through transgenics have produced strains with high oil contents. Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 4.5: 538-561. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.231/epdf.

    9 Warwick (2011) at 49 (citations omitted); see also I.A. Zasada and H. Ferris (2004), Nematode suppression with brassicaceous amendments: application based upon glucosinolate profiles, Soil Biology & Biochemistry 36:1017-1024.

    10 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005), available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The Efficacy of Biofumigant Meals and Plants to Control Wireworm Populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-254.

    2. Volume Potential

    Carinata will most likely be grown in the U.S. and Canada in semi-arid, marginal land, as an off-season winter cover crop in the southeastern U.S., or on dryland wheat acres during the period that they would otherwise be left fallow. In areas with lower precipitation, dryland wheat farmers currently leave acres fallow once every three to four years to allow additional moisture and nutrients to accumulate and control pests. Current research indicates that carinata could be introduced into this rotation in certain areas in lieu of fallowing without adversely impacting moisture or nutrient accumulation. Land featuring a carinata rotation can be returned to wheat cultivation the following year with moisture and soil nutrients quantitatively similar to a fallow year.11 Table V.D.-2 illustrates example wheat and carinata rotations, which are expected to be very similar to current wheat/camelina rotation systems.

    11 See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009 Long-Term Tillage and Cropping Sequence Effects on Dryland Residue and Soil Carbon Fractions.

    EN24AP15.003 EN24AP15.004

    As we expect that carinata will primarily be grown in rotation with wheat, we based land availability and projected volumes on estimated wheat acres. USDA does not systematically collect carinata production information; therefore data on historical acreage is limited. The latest USDA estimates (December 2014) report approximately 57 million acres of wheat in the U.S.12 USDA and wheat state cooperative extension reports through 2008 indicated that 83% of domestic wheat production was under non-irrigated, dryland conditions, and that at least 45% of those acres were estimated to follow a wheat/fallow rotation. Thus, approximately 21 million acres are potentially suitable for carinata production. However, according to an industry projection 13 based on an estimate for camelina, only about nine million of these wheat/fallow acres have the appropriate climate, soil profile, and market access for carinata production.14 Further, the petitioner projects another three million acres of fallow land in wheat rotation are potentially available for carinata production in Canada. Based on our calculations of the potential biodiesel production from carinata, as described below, we do not anticipate demand for carinata oil to be greater than can be satisfied by available fallow acres.

    12U.S. Wheat Supply and Use. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate (WASDE), December 2014. USDA http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/wasde-12-10-2014.pdf.

    13 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., petition to EPA, August 2013.

    14 Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an Annual Cover Crop Under 40 CFR part 80 Subpart M, Memorandum, dated November 5, 2010.

    According to an industry estimate, commercial production of carinata in 2012 occurred at over 40 locations across Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada.15 The first commercial cultivation of carinata in the United States occurred in Montana in 2013, and estimates from the original petition indicated that 100,000 acres would be planted in 2014.16 Based on a three year rotation cycle in which only one third of the 12 million combined U.S. and Canada wheat acres is typically fallow in any given year, EPA estimates that at current average yields (1,865 pounds of seed per acre, or 820 pounds of oil per acre), approximately 400 million gallons (MG) of carinata-based biodiesel could be produced with carinata grown in rotation with existing crop acres (assuming 7.6 pounds of oil produces 1 gallon of biodiesel).17 However, as there is no commercial market for carinata at present, when planted, actual acres are expected to be much smaller and dedicated to test plots in the near term. Carinata may expand to other regions and growing methods in the longer term.

    15 In the United States, field trials have occurred or are occurring with the University of Florida, Colorado State University, Montana State University, South Dakota University, and North Dakota State University.

    16 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Petition to EPA, August 2013.

    17 For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6 pounds of oil are also needed for one gallon of biodiesel.

    Research is ongoing to improve carinata oil yields, which can be expected to increase as experience with growing carinata improves cultivation practices and the application of existing technologies are more widely adopted. For example, yields of over 1,600 pounds of oil per acre have been achieved on test plots. For the purposes of this lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is assuming the intermediate current yield of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a biofuel production volume of 400 MG of carinata as representing a reasonable projection of production in 2022.

    3. Indirect Impacts

    Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, carinata does not have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be significantly affected by an increase in carinata-based biofuels. Based on the information provided in the petition, returns on carinata are approximately $107 per acre, given average yields of approximately 1,865 pounds per acre and the current contract price of $0.14 per pound (See Table 2). For comparison purposes, the USDA estimates of corn and soybean returns, including operating costs but not overhead costs such as hired labor, were between $206 and $440 per acre in 2013.18 Over time, advancements in seed technology, improvements in planting and harvesting techniques, and changes in input usage could significantly increase future carinata yields and returns, but it is unlikely the returns to farmers from carinata will ever compete with the returns from corn, soybeans or other widely traded commodity crops. In addition, because carinata is expected to be grown on fallow land, it will not impact other commodities through land competition. For these reasons, EPA has determined that, unlike a crop such as soybean, production of carinata-based biofuels is not expected to have a significant impact on other agricultural commodity markets and consequently would not result in significant indirect impacts including indirect land use changes.

    18 USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs and Returns. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx.

    Table 2—Carinata Costs and Returns, per acre 19 Inputs Rates 2022 Carinata Herbicides: Glysophate (Fall) 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) $7.00. Glysophate (Spring) 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) $7.00. Post 12 oz ( $0.67/oz) $8.00. Seed: Carinata seed $.44/lb $7.20 (5 lbs/acre). Fertilizer: Nitrogen Fertilizer $1/lb $60.00 (60 lb/acre). Phosphate Fertilizer $1/lb $30.00 (30 lb/acre). Sub-Total: $ 119.20. Logistics: Planting Trip $10.00. Harvest & Hauling $25.00. Total Cost $154.20. Yields lbs/ac 1865. Price $/lb $0.14. Total Revenue $261.10. Returns $106.90.

    Although we expect most carinata used as a renewable fuel feedstock for the RFS program would be grown in the U.S. and Canada, we expect that carinata grown in other countries would also not have a significant impact on other agricultural commodity markets and would therefore not result in significant indirect GHG emissions.

    19 Nitrogen and Phosphate inputs here are based on application rates from test plots. Different combinations of the range of fertilizer inputs we considered may results in higher or lower estimates. Data provided by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to EPA, August 2013.

    4. Crop Inputs

    As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing carinata, we compared crop inputs for carinata to those for soybeans. Inputs compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, herbicide, diesel, and gasoline.20 We also looked at the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from both the nitrogen fertilizer inputs and the crop residues associated with carinata.21

    20 Diesel and gasoline used for planting and harvesting. These values assume that no irrigation is needed.

    21 The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were updated since our earlier analysis of soybeans. We use the updated equations for our calculations.

    Current literature suggests a range of fertilizer inputs are considered appropriate for growing carinata. The petitioner provided guidance of 60 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs per acre of phosphorus fertilizer based on application rates for test plots featuring continuous cropping systems, which require more intensive fertilizing.22 We expect that carinata will be grown in fallow rotation with other crops, which will require lesser fertilizer amounts, comparable to those for camelina.23 Those amounts for camelina are 40 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 15 lbs per acre of phosphorous fertilizer.24 Other research has shown higher carinata growth rates with higher rates of nitrogen applications, but there is not consensus on an optimal rate. Therefore, as a conservative estimate we provide a high-end estimate of 80 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer. Further, the petitioner did not recommend potassium fertilizer for carinata production as they assume that the land carinata would be grown on has high potassium levels that would not require augmentation. As a conservative estimate, we assume potassium application rates assumed for camelina as a high input (10 lbs per acre). Given the range of estimates, Table 3 shows a range of input assumptions for carinata production, compared to the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) agricultural input assumptions for soybeans, which were used in our assessment of soybeans for the March 2010 rule. From the March 2010 rule, we used soybean projected yields for 2022 of 1,500 to 3,000 lbs of seed per acre. For carinata, we used projected 2022 yields of 1,865 lbs of seed per acre.25

    22 Petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. to EPA, August 2013.

    23 Cover crops, such as carinata and camelina, require less fertilizer input in a fallow rotation than they might if they were in a dedicated system as there is residual soil nutrients from the primary crop.

    24 78 FR 14190. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, available at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR_2013_03_05/pdf/2013_04929.pdf.

    25 Average yield from a series of research plots explored by the petitioner. Other studies show a range of yields with various nitrogen and seed spacing applications. One such study showed a yield from ranging from 552 to 2434 lbs of seed/acre. We believe an assumed yield of 1,865 lbs of seed per acre is appropriate.

    Pan, X. et al (2012) The effect of cultivar, seeding rate and applied nitrogen on Brassica carinata seed yield and quality in contrasting environments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 92: 961-971, available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps2011_169.

    Carinata has a higher percentage of oil per pound of seed than soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by mass, therefore crushing one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In comparison, carinata seeds can contain up to 44% oil.26 The difference in oil yield was taken into account when calculating the emissions per ton of feedstock oil included in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, lifecycle GHG emissions from feedstock production for carinata and soybeans are relatively similar when factoring in variations in oil yields per acre and fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum use.27

    26 Getinet, A. et al (1996) Agronomic performance and seed quality of Ethiopian mustard in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 76. 387-392, available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps96_069.

    27 For more details on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural inputs, see “Carinata data and calculations—for docket” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093.

    Table 3—Inputs for Carinata and Soybean Production for Projected 2022 Yields 28 Carinata Inputs
  • (per acre)
  • Emissions
  • (per ton carinata oil)
  • Soybeans (varies by region) Inputs
  • (per acre)
  • Emissions
  • (per ton soybean oil)
  • N20 N/A 584-869 kg CO2eq N/A 449.0-661.1 kg CO2eq. Nitrogen Fertilizer 40-80 lbs 160-321 kg CO2eq 3.5-8.2 lbs 23.2-79.1 kg CO2eq. Phosphorus Fertilizer 15-30 lbs 21-41 kg CO2eq 5.4-21.4 lbs 13.5-64.8 kg CO2eq. Potassium Fertilizer 0-10 lbs 0-9 kg CO2eq 3.1-24.3 lbs 5.3-48.5 kg CO2eq. Herbicide 2.75-2.75 lbs 79-79 kg CO2eq 0.0-1.3 lbs 2.4-69.6 kg CO2eq. Pesticide 0-0 lbs 0-0 kg CO2eq 0.1-0.8 lbs 12.4-50.2 kg CO2eq. Diesel 3.5-3.5 gal 107-107.1 kg CO2eq 3.8-8.9 gal 227.9-622.3 kg CO2eq. Gasoline 0-0 gal 0-0 kg CO2eq 1.6-3.0 gal 93-151.4 kg CO2eq Total 950-1426 kg CO2eq 961-1443 kg CO2eq.
    5. Potential Invasiveness

    Carinata is not listed on the Federal noxious weed list.29 In a USDA document listing state noxious-weed seed requirements, twenty states include restrictions for unspecified species of the Brassica genus, indicating limitations on the use of the plant. Although other species of Brassica are specified in some states, the carinata species is not explicitly identified.30 Regarding invasiveness, an evaluation of carinata in Canada by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels concluded that invasiveness potential is deemed to be low and not difficult to remedy, if remedy is needed.31 A weed risk assessment by USDA found that carinata poses a moderate weed risk potential and concluded that carinata should undergo further evaluation.32 Unlike some other biofuel feedstocks evaluated under the RFS program for invasiveness, USDA did not find strong evidence of carinata causing impacts in anthropogenic (e.g., cities, suburbs, roadways), production (e.g., agriculture, nurseries, forest plantations, orchards), or natural systems. However, there is a high level of uncertainty regarding carinata's spread and impact potential due to incomplete knowledge about its traits. This uncertainty raises concerns about the threat of invasiveness and may require remediation activities that would cause additional GHG emissions. Because carinata does not pose as great an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, EPA believes that monitoring and reporting requirements similar to those for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum would be appropriate, but does not expect to apply all of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements that exist for those feedstocks. We would expect to impose monitoring and reporting requirements similar to 40 CFR 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v) and 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(3), (4), (5), and (7). In addition, a letter documenting the feedstock grower's compliance with all of the relevant federal, state, regional, and local requirements related to invasive species would be required. With these requirements in place, we would assume that there are no GHG emissions associated with potential invasiveness when carinata is used as a biofuel feedstock. EPA is taking comment on the invasiveness concerns of carinata and the appropriateness of the referenced requirements in mitigating those concerns.

    28 Based on communication with USDA, sulfur can also be a beneficial fertilizer component for oilseeds such as carinata and soybeans, dependent on local soil characteristics, at application rates of up to 10-20 lbs/acre. There are multiple options for sulfur application as part of a liquid or dry granular mixture that also contain phosphorous and nitrogen. The emissions for fertilizer rates provided in Table 3 capture the likely range of impacts associated with the variety of application options, including ones containing sulfur.

    29 USDA, Federal Noxious Weed List, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.

    30 USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service State Noxious-Weed Seed Requirements Recognized in the Administration of the Federal Seed Act, 2014, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172.

    31 SCS Global Services, Certification Evaluation Report, Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass, http://rsb.org/pdfs/reports/RSB_PGF-Biofuel_SummaryRPT_InitialEvaluation111513.pdf.

    32 USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae) -Ethiopian mustard, 2014.

    6. Crushing and Oil Extraction

    EPA evaluated the seed crushing and oil extraction process and compared the lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil and carinata oil. EPA assumed the processing of carinata would be similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because carinata seeds produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for carinata than soybeans per pound of feedstock oil produced.

    There is not a significant amount of industry data on energy used for crushing and oil extraction of carinata. Based on data provided in the petition submitted, and EPA's standard emissions factors for electricity and natural gas, we estimate that the GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction are 92 kgCO2e/ton carinata oil. For comparison, in the analysis for the March 2010 final rule, the GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction were estimated to be 426 kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a conservative estimate, we propose to assume that the GHG emissions related to crushing and oil extraction are the same for carinata as for soybeans.

    Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when carinata is crushed and the oil is extracted. Little is known at this time about the possible beneficial use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake contains glucosinolates, which may be toxic to animals in large concentrations.33 However, the heat produced from crushing carinata seeds may reduce the toxicity of the press cake, or carinata press cake could be mixed in low amounts with other seed meal for use as animal feed.34 Alternatively, carinata press cake could be used as a biofumigant.35 In our modeling of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS rule, the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models included the use of the soy meal (sometimes referred to as press cake) co-product as livestock feed. In our modeling, the use of soy meal as livestock feed displaced the need for other similar feed products and therefore impacted the relative prices and production of crop and livestock products. These crop and livestock impacts were reflected in the land use change, livestock, and agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts estimated for biofuels produced from soybean oil. Although EPA modeling results did not isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal co-product, we believe that overall the soy meal co-product lowered the GHG emissions associated with soybean oil-based biofuels. Similarly, we believe that any use of the carinata press cake would provide an additional benefit (i.e., lower GHG emissions) not reflected in our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of carinata oil. Based on our analysis of carinata oil, which does not consider use of the press cake, we have found that the agricultural, livestock, and land use change emissions associated with producing carinata oil are less than or equal to the corresponding emissions associated with producing soybean oil. Therefore, any beneficial use of the carinata press cake (e.g., as livestock feed or boiler fuel) would only serve to lower the GHG emissions associated with carinata oil relative to the corresponding emissions for soybean oil.

    33 USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae)—Ethiopian mustard. 2014.

    34 Carinata meal (solvent extracted) is approved for feed use at quantities up to 10% of total diet dry matter in Canada by the Candian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Letter from W. Gwayumba, Ph.D. sent to EPA in email from Sandra Franco on July 9, 2014. The Brassica genus (not carinata explicitly) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Memorandum of Understanding Between The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and The Association of American Feed Control Officials (MOU 225-07-7001) http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/DomesticMOUs/ucm115778.htm. It is important to note that all animal feed products must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be sold in the United States. Nothing in EPA's analysis should be construed as an official federal government position regarding the approval or disapproval of carinata press cake as an animal feed. Only FDA is authorized to make that determination.

    35 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005), available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The efficacy of biofumigant meals and plants to control wireworm populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-254.

    B. Feedstock Distribution

    EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for carinata as such emissions for soybeans. Because carinata contains more oil per pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the carinata before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per gallon of oil produced. To the extent that carinata is grown on more disperse fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported further, the energy needed to move the carinata could be higher than soybeans. Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG emissions assessment that the GHG emissions associated with transporting carinata and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the same. Carinata and soybean oils are similar in terms of density and energy content; therefore, we also assumed that the GHG emissions from transporting the oil from a crushing facility to a biofuel production facility would be the same for the two different feedstocks.

    C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions

    Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil has comparable GHG emissions per ton of oil from crop inputs and crushing and oil extraction, and lower GHG emissions per ton of oil from direct and indirect land use change. Carinata and soybean oils are also likely to have similar GHG emissions from feedstock distribution. Therefore, we believe that the feedstock production and transport portion of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with carinata are likely to be similar to or less than the GHG emissions for the corresponding portion of the lifecycle analysis for soybean oil. EPA's purpose in evaluating petitions under 40 CFR 80.1416 is not to prepare a precise lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of every fuel type, but to gather sufficient information on which to inform its decision of whether proposed biofuels qualify under the program in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. Based on our comparison of carinata oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its future evaluations of petitions seeking to use carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and transport of carinata oil that is the same as that which we have used for soybean oil, on a per ton of oil basis. Although EPA could conduct a more detailed analysis, we do not belive it is necessary for purposes of the determinations EPA must make in responding to petitions. EPA solicits comment on this proposed approach.

    D. Fuel Production and Distribution

    Carinata oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean and camelina oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as these feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to be the same for each of these feedstocks. After reviewing comments received in response to this Notice, we will combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use of carinata oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether the proposed pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of carinata oil feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or advanced (D-code 5) RINs.36 However, EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock on a case-by-case basis.

    36 The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-10-006). The hydrotreating process that EPA evaluated for the March 2013 rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in section II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 14190).

    III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel production pathways described in petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 which use carinata oil as a feedstock.

    Dated: April 17, 2015. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09618 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 11, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. R. Dean Phillips, Las Vegas, Nevada; to acquire voting shares of West Point Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of F & M Bank, both in West Point, Nebraska; and Town & Country Bank, Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 21, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09561 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-PM-2015-02; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence No. 6] Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Nottoway County, Virginia AGENCY:

    General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, GSA has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed development of a U.S. Department of State (DOS), Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) in Nottoway County, Virginia. GSA is the lead agency; cooperating agencies are DOS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and National Guard Bureau. The Final EIS also documents compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.

    DATES:

    The Final EIS is now available for review. The GSA Record of Decision will be released no sooner than 30 days after EPA publishes its Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Final EIS may be viewed online at http://www.state.gov/recovery/fastc. Paper copies may be viewed at the repositories listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abigail Low, GSA Project Manager; 20 N 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107; 215-446-4815; or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The purpose of the proposed FASTC site in Nottoway County is to consolidate existing dispersed “hard skills” security training functions to provide effective, efficient training specifically designed to enable foreign affairs personnel to operate in today's perilous and dangerous overseas environment. Hard skills training is practical, hands-on training in firearms, explosives, anti-terrorism driving techniques, defensive tactics, and security operations. Such training improves security and life safety for the protection of U.S. personnel operating abroad. The proposed FASTC would fill a critical need, identified in the 2008 report to the U.S. Congress, for a consolidated training facility. A central facility would improve training efficiency and provide priority access to training venues from which DS may effectively conduct hard skills training to meet the increased demand for well-trained personnel. The proposed FASTC would train 8,000 to 10,000 students annually.

    The Final EIS was prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of site acquisition and development of FASTC on three adjacent land parcels at the Virginia Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort Pickett) and Nottoway County's Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) area in Nottoway County, Virginia.

    The proposed site is 1,350 acres with an additional 12 acres for relocation of an existing tank trail and scheduled use of a 19 acre Fort Pickett range. The site is surrounded by compatible land uses within Fort Pickett. The total area of disturbance for construction of driving tracks, mock urban environments, explosives and firearms ranges, and administrative and service areas would be 407 acres. Utilities would be installed or relocated along existing roadways or within areas planned for development.

    GSA published its Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register at 76 FR 61360 on October 4, 2011. A public scoping meeting was held in October 2011 during the 30 day public scoping period. The Draft EIS was released on October 26, 2012, and a public information meeting was held on November 7, 2012 during the 45-day public comment period. The Draft EIS evaluated Build Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Action Alternative.

    In early 2013, all efforts and work on the proposed site at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County's LRA area were put on hold pending additional due diligence and reviews at an existing federal training site in Georgia. As part of this due diligence effort, DOS conducted site visits to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. During this time period, DOS also assessed the scope and size of the FASTC project and determined a smaller platform was more fiscally prudent. In April 2014, the earlier DOS selection of the proposed site for FASTC at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County was reaffirmed by the Administration. A Master Plan Update was prepared in 2014 to incorporate the adjustments in the FASTC program.

    A Supplemental Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8311 on January 9, 2015, and a public information meeting was held January 26, 2015, during the 45-day public comment period. The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated Build Alternative 3 and the No Action Alternative, and provided responses to public comments on the 2012 Draft EIS. Build Alternative 3 was developed based on the 2014 Master Plan Update. Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were no longer feasible because of changes in the program and were eliminated from further evaluation.

    Current Efforts: The Final EIS designates Build Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. Build Alternative 3 would have direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, but the impacts are reduced as compared with the 2012 build alternatives. Changes between the Supplemental Draft EIS and Final EIS include the results of consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer as required by Section 106 of the NHPA, and updates on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to effects on northern long-eared bats under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7 consultation will be concluded prior to the Record of Decision. The Final EIS also updates the proposed action to support emerging advanced tactical training needs and a change in the availability of existing facilities. The proposed action includes limited use of helicopters in training to approximately one or two days per month and the addition of an Ammunition Supply Point on the proposed site. The Final EIS addresses and responds to agency and public comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS.

    The Final EIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, and interested individuals. The Final EIS is available for review on the project Web site http://www.state.gov/recovery/fastc. Printed copies are available for viewing at the following libraries:

    • Nottoway County Library—Louis Spencer Epes Memorial Library, 415 South Main St., Blackstone, VA.

    • Amelia County—James L. Hamner Public Library, 16351 Dunn St., Amelia, VA.

    • Brunswick County—Brunswick County Library, 133 W. Hicks St., Lawrenceville, VA.

    • Dinwiddie County—Dinwiddie Library, 14103 Boydton Plank Road, Dinwiddie, VA.

    • Lunenburg County—Ripberger Library, 117 South Broad St., Kenbridge, VA.

    • Prince Edward County—Prince Edward Community Library, 1303 West 3rd St., Farmville, VA.

    • Chesterfield County—Central Library, 9501 Lori Road, Chesterfield, VA.

    • Mecklenburg County—Southside Regional Library, 1294 Jefferson St., Boydton, VA.

    Dated: April 15, 2015. Toby Tobin, Director, Facilities Management & Services Programs Division, U.S. GSA, Mid-Atlantic Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09461 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15ZI; Docket No. CDC-2015-0024] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection entitled Metal and Nonmetal Miner Health Program (MNMHP). The MNMHP proposes to gather health data on metal and nonmetal miners to identify opportunities for reducing the incidence and severity of disease.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0024 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Off