Federal Register Vol. 80, No.84,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 84 (May 1, 2015)

Page Range24779-25205
FR Document

80_FR_84
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 24923 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 24846 - Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract ProgramPDF
80 FR 24960 - Extension of Pacific Gas and Electric Safe Harbor Agreement for Interior Dune Species Located in Antioch Dunes in Contra Costa County, CAPDF
80 FR 24958 - Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 24930 - Request for the Technical Review of 14 Draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Value ProfilesPDF
80 FR 25006 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Effective U.S. Control (EUSC)/Parent CompanyPDF
80 FR 25007 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Regulations for Making Excess or Surplus Federal Property Available to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, State Maritime Academies and Non-Profit Maritime Training FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 25006 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VANISHING GIRL; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 25005 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MOKULANI; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 24895 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board MeetingPDF
80 FR 24932 - Request for the Technical Review of 19 Draft Skin Notation Assignments and Skin Notation ProfilesPDF
80 FR 24863 - Safety Zone; POLAR PIONEER, Outer Continental Shelf Drill Unit, Chukchi Sea, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 24999 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 24953 - Accreditation and Approval of Atlantic Product Services, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 24952 - U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2015 West Coast Trade Symposium: “Advancing Trade Through Partnership and Enforcement”PDF
80 FR 24952 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary ImportationPDF
80 FR 24896 - Foreign-Trade Zone 154-Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, LouisianaPDF
80 FR 24896 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
80 FR 24962 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the TransWest Express 600-kV Direct Current Transmission Project in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, and Proposed Land Use Plan AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 24983 - Northern States Power Company; Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 24982 - Northern States Power Company; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 24984 - GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC; GE-Hitachi Morris Operation Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 24900 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewPDF
80 FR 24916 - Proposed Issuance of NPDES General Permit for Tribal Marine Net Pen Enhancement Facilities in Washington State (Permit Number WAG132000)PDF
80 FR 24872 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan; Extension of Comment Period and Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 25001 - Notice of Availability for the Cal Black Memorial Airport Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) and Section 4(f) EvaluationPDF
80 FR 24821 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source PermitsPDF
80 FR 24815 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Manitowoc River, Manitowoc, WIPDF
80 FR 24914 - Notice of Availability for Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0408)PDF
80 FR 25001 - In the Matter of the Designation of Hassan el-Hajj Hassan, Also Known as Hassan El-Hajj Hassan, Also Known as Hassan El Hajj Hassan, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 24869 - Safety Zone-Oil Exploration Staging Area in Goodhope Bay; Kotzebue Sound, AKPDF
80 FR 25001 - In the Matter of the Designation of Meliad Farah Also Known as Hussein Also Known as Hussein Hussein as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 24948 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NIMH)PDF
80 FR 25000 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Highlights of the Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World” and Related Keir Collection ExhibitionsPDF
80 FR 24985 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
80 FR 24830 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 25000 - In the Matter of the Designation of Hussein Atris, Also Known as Atris Hussein as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 24898 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 24979 - Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA); Notice of Incentive Funding Availability Based on Program Year (PY) 2013 PerformancePDF
80 FR 24908 - Roadrunner Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 24911 - Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IV, Limited Partnership; Notice of Application and Applicant-Prepared EA Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, and Soliciting Comments, and Final Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and PrescriptionsPDF
80 FR 24910 - 5440 Hydro Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing With the Commission, Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, and Recommendations, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for ProcessingPDF
80 FR 24909 - Igiugig Village Council; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Draft Application, Request for Waivers of Integrated Licensing Process Regulations Necessary for Expedited Processing of a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Application, and Soliciting CommentsPDF
80 FR 24915 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 24814 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MAPDF
80 FR 24866 - Safety Zone-Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AKPDF
80 FR 24816 - Safety Zone; Floating Construction Platform, Chicago River, Chicago, ILPDF
80 FR 24998 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 24894 - Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for Flathead National Forest and an Amendment of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans To Incorporate Relevant Direction From the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation StrategyPDF
80 FR 24905 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
80 FR 24905 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 25007 - National Express Transit Corporation-Acquisition of Control-Trans Express, Inc., and Rainbow Management Service Inc.PDF
80 FR 24934 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 24935 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 24919 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 24947 - Public Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical IssuesPDF
80 FR 24922 - FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 24936 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
80 FR 25002 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From the Entertainer Motorcoach CouncilPDF
80 FR 24936 - Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental CariesPDF
80 FR 25004 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American Trucking Associations, Inc.PDF
80 FR 24838 - Importation of Citrus From Peru; Expansion of Citrus-Growing AreaPDF
80 FR 24967 - Certain Hemostatic Products and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of Settlement; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
80 FR 24893 - General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement PlanPDF
80 FR 24840 - Petition To Develop Specific Ethologically Appropriate Standards for Nonhuman Primates in ResearchPDF
80 FR 24892 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Domestic Quarantine NoticesPDF
80 FR 24893 - Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Volunteer Service Agreements and Volunteer Service Time and Attendance RecordPDF
80 FR 24907 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; What Works Clearinghouse Formative FeedbackPDF
80 FR 24904 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 24903 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 24904 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 24902 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 24903 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18786PDF
80 FR 24902 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18881PDF
80 FR 24931 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 24981 - Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 24923 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 24989 - Highland Funds I, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 24950 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
80 FR 25166 - Safety and Effectiveness of Health Care Antiseptics; Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Proposed Amendment of the Tentative Final Monograph; Reopening of Administrative RecordPDF
80 FR 24897 - Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC) MeetingPDF
80 FR 24897 - Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity SeminarPDF
80 FR 24895 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Neolpharma, Inc.; Subzone 7O; (Pharmaceutical Products); Caguas, Puerto RicoPDF
80 FR 24836 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacktip Sharks, Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks, and Hammerhead Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico RegionPDF
80 FR 24978 - Comment Request for Information Collection for ETA 9166, Pre-Implementation Planning Checklist Report for State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Information Technology (IT) Modernization Projects; New CollectionPDF
80 FR 24986 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, To Reflect Changes to the Means of Achieving the Investment Objective Applicable to the Guggenheim Enhanced Short Duration ETFPDF
80 FR 24906 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Assurance of Compliance-Civil Rights CertificatePDF
80 FR 24947 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 24948 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 24950 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 24948 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 24923 - Nomi Technologies, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 24819 - Health Care for Homeless Veterans ProgramPDF
80 FR 24824 - Azoxystrobin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 24912 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 24920 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 24918 - Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
80 FR 24980 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 24985 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Accelerated Delivery of Supplement to the Options Disclosure Document Reflecting the Inclusion of Disclosure Regarding Foreign Currency Index Options and Changes to Disclosure Regarding Implied Volatility Index OptionsPDF
80 FR 24961 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 24907 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; An Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B)PDF
80 FR 24981 - Heat Release Rates of Electrical Enclosure Fires (HELEN-FIRE)PDF
80 FR 24915 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP) (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 24917 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, Export, Recycling, Destruction, Transhipment, and Feedstock Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 24923 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN); Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 24970 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 24976 - Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 24973 - Barium Chloride From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 24968 - Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 24832 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management MeasuresPDF
80 FR 24791 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop EnginesPDF
80 FR 24854 - Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft LTD. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 24850 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 24955 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Pacific Gas & Electric Company Eagle Conservation PlanPDF
80 FR 24789 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 24860 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace and Modification of Class D Airspace; Ogden, Hill AFB, UTPDF
80 FR 24874 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 24858 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace; Salem, ORPDF
80 FR 24861 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UTPDF
80 FR 24841 - Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers: Availability of Provisional Analysis ToolsPDF
80 FR 24965 - Notice of Availability of the Final Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 24953 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 24779 - New Debt-Collection RegulationsPDF
80 FR 24794 - Indian Oil Valuation AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 25110 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53PDF
80 FR 25160 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2015; Recreational Management MeasuresPDF
80 FR 25143 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch EntitlementsPDF
80 FR 24852 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CT58 Turboshaft EnginesPDF
80 FR 24856 - Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 24793 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jupiter, FLPDF
80 FR 25012 - Medicare Program; Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System-Update for Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2015 (FY 2016)PDF
80 FR 25068 - General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source CategoriesPDF
80 FR 25009 - Applications of Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. for Certificate AuthorityPDF

Issue

80 84 Friday, May 1, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Imports: Citrus from Peru; Expansion of Citrus-Growing Area, 24838-24840 2015-10199 Petition to Develop Specific Ethologically Appropriate Standards for Nonhuman Primates in Research, 24840-24841 2015-10195 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Domestic Quarantine Notices, 24892-24893 2015-10194 Volunteer Service Agreements and Volunteer Service Time and Attendance Record, 24893 2015-10193 Meetings: General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, 24893-24894 2015-10196 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24931-24932 2015-10183 Technical Reviews of Draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Value Profiles, 24930-24931 2015-10295 Technical Reviews of Draft Skin Notation Assignments and Skin Notation Profiles, 24932-24934 2015-10289 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System, Update for Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2015 (FY 2016), 25012-25065 2015-09880 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24934-24936 2015-10207 2015-10208 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MA, 24814-24815 2015-10217 Manitowoc River, Manitowoc, WI, 24815-24816 2015-10238 Safety Zones: Floating Construction Platform, Chicago River, Chicago, IL, 24816-24819 2015-10215 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK, 24866-24869 2015-10216 Oil Exploration Staging Area in Goodhope Bay, Kotzebue Sound, AK, 24869-24872 2015-10234 Polar Pioneer, Outer Continental Shelf Drill Unit, Chukchi Sea, AK, 24863-24866 2015-10259 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

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, 24905-24906 2015-10210 2015-10211 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: An Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior, 24907 2015-10131 Assurance of Compliance -- Civil Rights Certificate, 24906-24907 2015-10159 What Works Clearinghouse Formative Feedback, 24907-24908 2015-10192 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pre-Implementation Planning Checklist Report for State Unemployment Insurance Information Technology Modernization Projects, 24978-24979 2015-10161 Funding Availability: Workforce Investment Act Performance-Based Awards for Program Year 2013, 24979-24980 2015-10223 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Standards: Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers; Provisional Analysis Tools, 24841-24846 2015-10036
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 24821-24824 2015-10239 General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories, 25068-25108 2015-09739 Pesticide Tolerances: Azoxystrobin, 24824-24830 2015-10149 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, 24872-24873 2015-10241 Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 24874-24891 2015-10049 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, Export, Recycling, Destruction, Transhipment, and Feedstock Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances, 24917-24918 2015-10123 Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership, 24915-24916 2015-10124 Environmental Impact Statements; Weekly Receipts, 24915 2015-10218 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits: Tribal Marine Net Pen Enhancement Facilities in Washington State, 24916-24917 2015-10243 Test Data under the Toxic Substances Control Act; Correction, 24918-24919 2015-10142 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines, 24791-24793 2015-10075 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 24789-24791 2015-10066 Amendments of Class E Airspace: Jupiter, FL, 24793-24794 2015-09881 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines, 24856-24858 2015-09930 General Electric Company CT58 Turboshaft Engines, 24852-24854 2015-09932 PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD. Airplanes, 24854-24856 2015-10073 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 24850-24852 2015-10068 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace: Salem, OR, 24858-24860 2015-10048 Establishment of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, 24861-24863 2015-10044 Establishment of Class E Airspace and Modification of Class D Airspace: Ogden, Hill AFB, UT, 24860-24861 2015-10050 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Cal Black Memorial Airport, 25001-25002 2015-10240 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24919-24922 2015-10143 2015-10206 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Charter Renewals: Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, 24922-24923 2015-10204 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, 24923 2015-10119 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24923 2015-10339 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 24830-24832 2015-10229 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: 5440 Hydro, Inc., 24910-24911 2015-10220 Igiugig Village Council, 24909-24910 2015-10219 Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IV, LP, 24911-24912 2015-10221 Roadrunner Gas Transmission, LLC, 24908-24909 2015-10222 Combined Filings, 24912-24913 2015-10144 Federal Labor Federal Labor Relations Authority RULES Debt-Collection Regulations, 24779-24789 2015-09999 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Exemption Applications: Entertainer Motorcoach Council; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, 25002-25004 2015-10202 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: American Trucking Associations, Inc., 25004-25005 2015-10200 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 24923 2015-10178 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Orders: Nomi Technologies, Inc., 24923-24929 2015-10154 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge, LA, 24958-24960 2015-10298 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Eagle Conservation Plan, 24955-24958 2015-10067 Upper Great Plains Wind Energy, 24914-24915 2015-10237 Permit Applications: Pacific Gas and Electric Safe Harbor Agreement for Interior Dune Species, Antioch Dunes, Contra Costa County, CA, 24960-24961 2015-10299 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Safety and Effectiveness of Health Care Antiseptics: Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Proposed Amendment of the Tentative Final Monograph; Reopening of Administrative Record, 25166-25205 2015-10174 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Neolpharma, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 7, Mayaguez, PR, 24895-24896 2015-10168 Subzone Applications: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 154, Baton Rouge, LA, 24896 2015-10254 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Land and Resource Management Plans: Amendments to Flathead, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans to Incorporate Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, 24894-24895 2015-10213 Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 24895 2015-10290 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 24936 2015-10203 Meetings: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 24947 2015-10205 Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental Caries, 24936-24947 2015-10201
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 24953-24955 2015-10017 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

NOTICES Permit Applications: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 24961-24962 2015-10135
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews, 24898-24900 2015-10225 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 24896 2015-10249 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 24900-24902 2015-10244 Meetings: Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity Seminar, 24897 2015-10172 Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, 24897-24898 2015-10173 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Ironing Tables and Certain Parts thereof from China, 24968-24970 2015-10105 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China; Five-Year Review, 24976-24978 2015-10116 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; Five-Year Reviews, 24970-24973 2015-10117 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Barium Chloride from China, 24973-24975 2015-10108 Certain Hemostatic Products and Components Thereof, 24967-24968 2015-10198 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: TransWest Express 600-kV Direct Current Transmission Project in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, 24962-24965 2015-10248 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Effective U.S. Control/Parent Company, 25006-25007 2015-10294 Regulations for Making Excess or Surplus Federal Property Available to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, etc., 25007 2015-10293 Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MOKULANI, 25005-25006 2015-10291 Vessel VANISHING GIRL, 25006 2015-10292 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee, 24980-24981 2015-10137 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 24948-24950 2015-10232 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 24947-24948 2015-10158 National Cancer Institute, 24948 2015-10157 National Institute on Aging, 24948, 24950 2015-10155 2015-10156 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Commercial Blacktip Sharks, Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks and Hammerhead Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico Region, 24836-24837 2015-10165 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures, 24832-24836 2015-10088 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2015; Recreational Management Measures, 25160-25164 2015-09951 Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 53, 25110-25143 2015-09952 Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2015 and 2016 Sector Operations Plans and 2015 Contracts and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements, 25143-25160 2015-09950 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2015-10190 24903-24905 2015-10191 New England Fishery Management Council, 24904 2015-10189 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 24902-24903 2015-10188 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 18786, 24903-24904 2015-10186 Marine Mammals; File No. 18881, 24902 2015-10185 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education, 24981 2015-10182 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Northern States Power Co., Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 24982-24983 2015-10246 Guidance: Heat Release Rates of Electrical Enclosure Fires, 24981-24982 2015-10128 License Amendment Applications: GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, GE-Hitachi Morris Operation Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 24984-24985 2015-10245 License Amendments: Northern States Power Co., Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 24983-24984 2015-10247 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue RULES Indian Oil Valuation Amendments, 24794-24814 2015-09955 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24985 2015-10230 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Highland Funds I, et al., 24989-24998 2015-10176 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Arca, Inc., 24986-24989 2015-10160 The Options Clearing Corp., 24985-24986 2015-10136 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program, 24846-24850 2015-10331 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24998-25000 2015-10214 2015-10258 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Highlights of the Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World and related Keir Collection Exhibitions, 25000-25001 2015-10231 Designations as Global Terrorists: Hassan el-Hajj Hassan, a.k.a. Hassan El-Hajj Hassan and Hassan El Hajj Hassan, 25001 2015-10236 Hussein Atris, a.k.a. Atris Hussein, 25000 2015-10228 Meliad Farah, a.k.a. Hussein and Hussein Hussein, 25001 2015-10233 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: Facilities Meeting Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 24950-24951 2015-10175 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project, 24965-24967 2015-10020 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisitions of Control: National Express Transit Corp.; Trans Express, Inc., and Rainbow Management Service, Inc., 25007-25008 2015-10209 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Applications for Certificate Authority: Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc., 25009 2015-09683
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES 2015 West Coast Trade Symposium: Advancing Trade Through Partnership and Enforcement, 24952-24953 2015-10256 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation, 24952 2015-10255 Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Atlantic Product Services, Inc., 24953 2015-10257 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Health Care for Homeless Veterans Program, 24819-24821 2015-10150 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: TransWest Express 600-kV Direct Current Transmission Project in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, 24962-24965 2015-10248 Upper Great Plains Wind Energy, 24914-24915 2015-10237 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 25012-25065 2015-09880 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 25068-25108 2015-09739 Part IV Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 25110-25143 2015-09952 Part V Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 25166-25205 2015-10174 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 84 Friday, May 1, 2015 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 5 CFR Part 2418 New Debt-Collection Regulations AGENCY:

Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) is issuing a regulation governing procedures for collecting debts owed to the federal government by present and former FLRA employees. The regulation sets forth the procedures that the FLRA will follow in collecting debts owed to the United States arising from activities under FLRA jurisdiction. These procedures include collection of debts through administrative offset and salary offset. These regulations supersede the FLRA's debt-collection procedures applied under FLRA Internal Regulation 2790, dated December 29, 1986.

DATES:

Effective May 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gina Grippando, Counsel for Regulatory and Public Affairs, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, DC 20424, (202) 218-7776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

This final rule implements the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). The DCIA requires federal agencies to collect debts owed to the United States under regulations prescribed by the head of the agency, and standards prescribed by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury. 31 U.S.C. 3711(d)(2). These standards, known as the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), became effective on December 22, 2000. 31 CFR chapter IX, parts 900 through 904.

The DCIA also requires agencies, prior to collecting debts owed to the United States, to: (1) Adopt, without change, regulations on collecting debts by offset promulgated by the Department of Justice or Department of the Treasury (FCCS); or (2) prescribe agency regulations for collecting such debts by offset, which are consistent with the FCCS. 31 U.S.C. 3716. Agency regulations protect the minimum due-process rights that must be afforded to the debtor when an agency seeks to collect a debt by administrative offset, including the ability to verify, challenge, and compromise claims, and access to administrative-appeals procedures which are both reasonable and protect the interests of the United States. Nothing in this regulation precludes the use of collection remedies not contained in this regulation.

The final rule is consistent with the FCCS, as required by the DCIA. The salary-offset portion of the rule has been submitted to and approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as required by 5 U.S.C. 5514(b)(1).

Section Analysis of the Final Rule A. Subpart A—General Provisions, Definitions, Scope, Applicability

Subpart A of the final rule sets out the definitions, scope, and applicability of the FLRA's debt-collection procedures. The final rule provides procedures for the collection of FLRA debts as well as procedures for collection of other debts owed to the United States when the FLRA receives, from another agency, a request for offset of an FLRA payment. The FLRA shall follow the procedural standards for collecting debts set forth in the FCCS when it determines that it is appropriate to initiate debt collection or seek offset to collect a debt. 31 CFR parts 900 through 904. The rule does not apply to tax debts or to any debt for which there is an indication of fraud or misrepresentation, as described in § 900.3 of the FCCS. Additionally, the final rule does not preclude the FLRA from collecting debts under statutes and regulations other than those described in the final rule.

B. Subpart B—Procedures To Collect FLRA Debts

Subpart B of the final rule provides the procedures that the FLRA will use to collect debts. Among other things, subpart B outlines the due-process procedures that the FLRA is required to follow when using offset (administrative, tax refund, and salary) to collect a debt, when garnishing a debtor's wages, or before reporting a debt to a credit bureau. More specifically, the final rule describes the notice that the FLRA will send to a debtor when collecting the debt, including the FLRA's responsibilities and the debtor's associated rights and obligations related to the notice. The FLRA shall assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs on such debts in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. Subpart B also explains that the FLRA may waive those assessments, and it provides for situations in which the FLRA may accept payments in regular installments, in accordance with 31 CFR 901.8. The subpart also provides that the FLRA may suspend or terminate a debt and when it will transfer an FLRA debt to the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service for collection under 31 U.S.C. 3711(g) and 31 CFR 285.12. This subpart provides that an employee may request a waiver of the debt, if applicable, and references Appendix A of the final rule, which describes “Waiving Claims Against FLRA Employees for Erroneous Payments.”

C. Subpart C—Procedures for Offset of FLRA Payments To Collect Debts Owed to Other Federal Agencies

Subpart C of the final rule authorizes the FLRA to collect debts owed to other federal agencies, and it describes the procedures to be followed when another agency would like to use the offset process to collect a debt from a nontax payment issued by the FLRA, as a payment agency. For example, any federal agency may request that the FLRA collect a debt owed to such agency by offsetting funds payable to a debtor by the FLRA, including salary payments issued to FLRA employees. This subpart describes where to send a request and provides that certification of the debt is required. Subpart C also describes what the FLRA will do upon receipt of a request to offset the salary of an FLRA employee, including, among other things, the notice given to the employee and the limits on the amount that the FLRA will deduct from an employee's salary.

Administrative Procedure Act—Regulatory Analysis

The FLRA has determined that this rule pertains to agency practice and procedure and is interpretative in nature. The procedures contained in the rule for salary offset and administrative offset are mandated by law and by regulations promulgated by OPM, jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, and by the IRS. Notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the rule pertains solely to agency procedure and practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Notice and an opportunity for public comment are not necessary prior to issuance of this final rule because it implements a definitive statutory scheme mandated by the DCIA. Likewise, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the agency finds that good cause exists for not providing a delayed effective date.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. Moreover, the rule will affect only persons who owe delinquent nontax debts to the Treasury Department and other federal agencies. Accordingly, a regulatory-flexibility analysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The final rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501), since it does not contain any new information-collection requirements.

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2418

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Debts, Garnishment of wages, Government employees, Hearing procedures, Pay administration, Salaries, Wages.

By the Federal Labor Relations Authority on April 24, 2015.

Carol Waller Pope, Chairman.
Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FLRA adds 5 CFR part 2418 to read as follows:

PART 2418—FLRA DEBT COLLECTION Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 2418.1 What definitions apply to the regulations in this part? 2418.2 Why is the FLRA issuing these regulations, and what do they cover? 2418.3 Do these regulations adopt the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS)? Subpart B—Procedures to Collect FLRA Debts 2418.4 What notice will the FLRA send to a debtor when collecting an FLRA debt? 2418.5 How will the FLRA add interest, penalty charges, and administrative costs to an FLRA debt? 2418.6 When will the FLRA allow a debtor to pay an FLRA debt in installments instead of one lump sum? 2418.7 When will the FLRA compromise an FLRA debt? 2418.8 When will the FLRA suspend or terminate debt collection on an FLRA debt? 2418.9 When will the FLRA transfer an FLRA debt to the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service for collection? 2418.10 How will the FLRA use administrative offset (offset of non-tax Federal payments) to collect an FLRA debt? 2418.11 How will the FLRA use tax refund offset to collect an FLRA debt? 2418.12 How will the FLRA offset a Federal employee's salary to collect an FLRA debt? 2418.13 How will the FLRA use administrative wage garnishment to collect an FLRA debt from a debtor's wages? 2418.14 How will the FLRA report FLRA debts to credit bureaus? 2418.15 How will the FLRA refer FLRA debts to private collection agencies? 2418.16 When will the FLRA refer FLRA debts to the Department of Justice? 2418.17 How does a debtor request a special review based on a change in circumstances such as catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability? 2418.18 Will the FLRA issue a refund if money is erroneously collected on a debt? Subpart C—Procedures for Offset of FLRA Payments to Collect Debts Owed to Other Federal Agencies 2418.19 How do other Federal agencies use the offset process to collect debts from payments issued by the FLRA? 2418.20 What does the FLRA do upon receipt of a request to offset the salary of an FLRA employee to collect a debt owed by the employee to another Federal agency? Appendix A To Part 2418—Waiving Claims Against Flra Employees For Erroneous Payments Authority:

5 U.S.C. 5514; 5 U.S.C. 5584; 5 U.S.C. 6402; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3711; 3716, 3717, 3718, 3720A, 3720D.

Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 2418.1 What definitions apply to the regulations in this part?

As used in this part:

Administrative offset or offset means withholding funds payable by the United States (including funds payable by the United States on behalf of a State Government) to, or held by the United States for, a person to satisfy a debt owed by the person. The term “administrative offset” includes, but is not limited to, the offset of Federal salary, vendor, retirement, and Social-Security-benefit payments. The terms “centralized administrative offset” and “centralized offset” refer to the process by which the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service offsets Federal payments through the Treasury Offset Program.

Administrative wage garnishment means the process by which a Federal agency orders a non-Federal employer to withhold amounts from a debtor's wages to satisfy a debt, as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3720D, 31 CFR 285.11, and this part.

Agency or federal agency means a department, agency, court, court administrative office, or instrumentality in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the Federal Government, including government corporations.

Chairman means the Chairman of the FLRA or his or her designee.

Creditor agency means any Federal agency that is owed a debt.

Debt means any amount of money, funds, or property that has been determined by an appropriate official of the Federal Government to be owed to the United States by a person. As used in this part, the term “debt” does not include, as described in 31 U.S.C. 3701(d), debts arising under: The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), except to the extent provided under sections 204(f) and 1631(b)(4) of such Act [42 U.S.C. 404(f) and 1383(b)(4)] and section 3716(c) [31 U.S.C. 3716(c)], or the tariff laws of the United States.

Debtor means a person who owes a debt to the United States.

Delinquent debt means a debt that has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial written demand for payment or applicable agreement or instrument (including a post-delinquency payment agreement) unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made.

Delinquent FLRA debt means a delinquent debt owed to the FLRA.

Disposable pay has the same meaning as that term is defined in 5 CFR 550.1103.

Employee or Federal employee means a current employee of the FLRA or other Federal agency, including a current member of the Armed Forces, Reserve of the Armed Forces of the United States, or the National Guard.

Executive Director means the Executive Director of the FLRA or his or her designee.

FCCS means the Federal Claims Collection Standards, which were jointly published by the Departments of the Treasury and Justice and codified at 31 CFR parts 900 through 904.

Financial Management Service means the Financial Management Service, a bureau of the Treasury Department, which is responsible for the centralized collection of delinquent debts through the offset of Federal payments and other means.

FLRA means the Federal Labor Relations Authority and all of its components.

FLRA debt means a debt that a person owes the FLRA.

Payment agency or Federal payment agency means any Federal agency that transmits payment requests in the form of certified payment vouchers, or other similar forms, to a disbursing official for disbursement. The “payment agency” may be the agency that employs the debtor. In some cases, the FLRA may be both the creditor agency and the payment agency.

Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, organization, State or local government, or any other type of entity other than a Federal agency.

Salary offset means a type of administrative offset to collect, from the current pay account of a Federal employee, a debt that the employee owes.

Tax refund offset is defined in 31 CFR 285.2(a).

Treasury Department means the United States Department of the Treasury. Waiver means the cancellation, remission, forgiveness, or non-recovery of a debt allegedly owed by an employee to an agency as permitted or required by 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, 32 U.S.C. 716, 5 U.S.C. 8346(b), 42 U.S.C. 404(b), or any other law.

§ 2418.2 Why is the FLRA issuing these regulations, and what do they cover?

(a) Scope. This part provides procedures for the collection of FLRA debts. This part also provides procedures for collection of other debts owed to the United States when the FLRA receives, from another agency, a request for offset of an FLRA payment (for example, when an FLRA employee owes a debt to the United States Department of Education).

(b) Applicability. (1) This part applies to the FLRA when collecting an FLRA debt, to persons who owe FLRA debts, and to Federal agencies requesting offset of a payment issued by the FLRA as a payment agency (including salary payments to FLRA employees).

(2) This part does not apply to tax debts or to any debt for which there is an indication of fraud or misrepresentation, as described in 31 CFR 900.3 of the FCCS, unless the Department of Justice returns the debt to the FLRA for handling.

(3) Nothing in this part precludes collection or disposition of any debt under statutes and regulations other than those described in this part. See, for example, 5 U.S.C. 5705, Advancements and Deductions, which authorizes agencies to recover travel advances by offset of up to 100% of a Federal employee's accrued pay. See, also, 5 U.S.C. 4108, governing the collection of training expenses. To the extent that the provisions of laws and other regulations differ from the provisions of this part, those provisions of law and other regulations—and not the provisions of this part—apply to the remission or mitigation of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, as well as debts arising under the tariff laws of the United States.

(c) Duplication not required. Nothing in this part requires the FLRA to duplicate notices or administrative proceedings required by contract, this part, or other laws or regulations.

(d) Use of multiple collection remedies allowed. The FLRA and other Federal agencies may simultaneously use multiple collection remedies to collect a debt, except as prohibited by law. This part is intended to promote aggressive debt collection, using for each debt all available collection remedies. These remedies are not listed in any prescribed order, so that the FLRA may have flexibility in determining which remedies will be most efficient in collecting the particular debt.

§ 2418.3 Do these regulations adopt the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS)?

This part adopts and incorporates all provisions of the FCCS. This part also supplements the FCCS by prescribing procedures consistent with the FCCS, as necessary and appropriate for FLRA operations.

Subpart B—Procedures to Collect FLRA Debts
§ 2418.4 What notice will the FLRA send to a debtor when collecting an FLRA debt?

(a) Notice requirements. The FLRA shall aggressively collect FLRA debts. The FLRA shall promptly send at least one written notice to a debtor informing the debtor of the consequences of failing to pay or otherwise resolve an FLRA debt. The notice(s) shall be sent to the debtor at the most current address of the debtor in the FLRA's records. Generally, before starting the collection actions described in §§ 2418.5 and 2418.9 through 2418.16, the FLRA will send no more than two written notices to the debtor. The purpose of the notice(s) is to explain why the debt is owed, the amount of the debt, how a debtor may pay the debt or make alternative payment arrangements, how a debtor may review documents related to the debt, how a debtor may dispute the debt, the collection remedies available to the FLRA if the debtor refuses to pay the debt, and other consequences to the debtor if the debt is not paid. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the written notice(s) shall explain to the debtor:

(1) The nature and amount of the debt, and the facts giving rise to the debt;

(2) How interest, penalties, and administrative costs are added to the debt, the date by which payment should be made to avoid such charges, and that such assessments must be made unless excused in accordance with 31 CFR 901.9 (see § 2418.5);

(3) The date by which payment should be made to avoid the enforced collection actions described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section;

(4) The FLRA's willingness to discuss alternative payment arrangements and how the debtor may enter into a written agreement to repay the debt under terms acceptable to the FLRA (see § 2418.6);

(5) The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person or office within the FLRA;

(6) The FLRA's intention to enforce collection if the debtor fails to pay or otherwise resolve the debt, by taking one or more of the following actions:

(i) Offset. Offset the debtor's Federal payments, including income-tax refunds, salary, certain benefit payments (such as Social Security), retirement, vendor, travel reimbursements and advances, and other Federal payments (see §§ 2418.10 through 2418.12);

(ii) Private collection agency. Refer the debt to a private collection agency (see § 2418.15);

(iii) Credit-bureau reporting. Report the debt to a credit bureau (see § 2418.14);

(iv) Administrative wage garnishment. Garnish the debtor's wages through administrative wage garnishment (see § 2418.13);

(v) Litigation. Refer the debt to the Department of Justice to initiate litigation to collect the debt (see § 2418.16);

(vi) Treasury Department's Financial Management Service. Refer the debt to the Financial Management Service for collection (see § 2418.9);

(7) That Treasury debts over 180 days delinquent must be referred to the Financial Management Service for the collection actions described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section (see § 2418.9);

(8) How the debtor may inspect and copy records related to the debt;

(9) How the debtor may request a review of the FLRA's determination that the debtor owes a debt and present evidence that the debt is not delinquent or legally enforceable (see §§ 2418.10(c) and 2418.11(c));

(10) How a debtor may request a hearing if the FLRA intends to garnish the debtor's private-sector (i.e., non-Federal) wages (see § 2418.13(a)), including:

(i) The method and time period for requesting a hearing;

(ii) That the timely filing of a request for a hearing on or before the 15th business day following the date of the notice will stay the commencement of administrative wage garnishment, but not necessarily other collection procedures; and

(iii) The name and address of the office to which the request for a hearing should be sent.

(11) How a debtor who is a Federal employee subject to Federal salary offset may request a hearing (see § 2418.12(e)), including:

(i) The method and time period for requesting a hearing;

(ii) That the timely filing of a request for a hearing on or before the 15th calendar day following receipt of the notice will stay the commencement of salary offset, but not necessarily other collection procedures;

(iii) The name and address of the office to which the request for a hearing should be sent;

(iv) That the FLRA will refer the debt to the debtor's employing agency or to the Financial Management Service to implement salary offset, unless the employee files a timely request for a hearing;

(v) That a final decision on the hearing, if requested, will be issued at the earliest practical date, but not later than 60 days after the filing of the request for a hearing, unless the employee requests and the hearing official grants a delay in the proceedings;

(vi) That any knowingly false or frivolous statements, representations, or evidence may subject the Federal employee to penalties under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3731) or other applicable statutory authority, and criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 1001, and 1002, or other applicable statutory authority;

(vii) That, unless prohibited by contract or statute, amounts paid on or deducted for the debt that are later waived or found not owed to the United States will be promptly refunded to the employee; and

(viii) That 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3716 govern proceedings with respect to such debt.

(12) How the debtor may request a waiver of the debt, if applicable (see Appendix A of this part);

(13) How the debtor's spouse may claim his or her share of a joint-income-tax refund by filing Form 8379 with the Internal Revenue Service (see http://www.irs.gov);

(14) How the debtor may exercise other statutory or regulatory rights and remedies available to the debtor;

(15) That an employee's involuntary payment of all or any portion of a debt being collected will not be construed as a waiver of any rights that the employee may have under any provision of contract or law, unless there are statutory, regulatory, or contractual provisions to the contrary; and

(16) That the debtor should advise the FLRA of a bankruptcy proceeding of the debtor or another person liable for the debt being collected.

(b) Exceptions to notice requirements. The FLRA may omit from a notice to a debtor one or more of the provisions contained in paragraphs (a)(6) through (16) of this section if the FLRA, in consultation with its legal counsel, determines that any provision is not legally required given the collection remedies to be applied to a particular debt.

(c) Respond to debtors; comply with FCCS. The FLRA will respond promptly to communications from debtors and comply with other FCCS provisions applicable to the administrative collection of debts. See 31 CFR part 901.

§ 2418.5 How will the FLRA add interest, penalty charges, and administrative costs to an FLRA debt?

(a) Assessment and notice. The FLRA shall assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs on FLRA debts in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. Interest shall be charged in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3717(a). Penalties shall accrue at the rate of 6% per year, or such other higher rate as authorized by law. The FLRA shall determine administrative costs, that is, the costs of processing and handling a delinquent debt. In the notice to the debtor described in § 2418.4, the FLRA must explain how interest, penalties, costs, and other charges are assessed, unless the requirements are included in a contract or repayment agreement.

(b) Waiver of interest, penalties, and administrative costs. Unless otherwise required by law, the FLRA may not charge interest if the amount due on the debt is paid within 30 days after the date from which the interest accrues. See 31 U.S.C. 3717(d). The FLRA may waive interest, penalties, and administrative costs, or any portion thereof, when it would be against equity and good conscience or not in the FLRA's best interest to collect such charges, in accordance with FLRA guidelines for waiving claims against FLRA employees for erroneous overpayments. See appendix A of this part.

(c) Accrual during suspension of debt collection. In most cases, interest, penalties, and administrative costs will begin and continue to accrue 30 days after notice is given to the employee and during any period when collection has been suspended for any reason (for example, when the debtor has requested a hearing). The FLRA may suspend accrual of any or all of these charges when accrual would be against equity and good conscience or not in the FLRA's best interest, in accordance with FLRA guidelines for waiving claims against FLRA employees for erroneous overpayments. See appendix A of this part.

§ 2418.6 When will the FLRA allow a debtor to pay an FLRA debt in installments instead of one lump sum?

If a debtor is financially unable to pay the debt in one lump sum, then the FLRA may accept payment of an FLRA debt in regular installments, in accordance with 31 CFR 901.8.

§ 2418.7 When will the FLRA compromise an FLRA debt?

If the FLRA cannot collect the full amount of an FLRA debt, then the FLRA may compromise the debt in accordance with 31 CFR part 902.

§ 2418.8 When will the FLRA suspend or terminate debt collection on an FLRA debt?

If, after pursuing all appropriate means of collection, the FLRA determines that an FLRA debt is uncollectible, then the FLRA may suspend or terminate debt-collection activity in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR part 903 and the FLRA's policies and procedures.

§ 2418.9 When will the FLRA transfer an FLRA debt to the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service for collection?

(a) The FLRA will transfer any eligible debt that is more than 180 days delinquent to the Financial Management Service for debt-collection services, a process known as “cross-servicing.” See 31 U.S.C. 3711(g) and 31 CFR 285.12. The FLRA may transfer debts delinquent 180 days or less to the Financial Management Service in accordance with the procedures described in 31 CFR 285.12. The Financial Management Service takes appropriate action to collect or compromise the transferred debt, or to suspend or terminate collection action thereon, in accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements and authorities applicable to the debt and the collection action to be taken. See 31 CFR 285.12(c)(2). Appropriate action includes, but is not limited to: Contact with the debtor; referral of the debt to the Treasury Offset Program, private collection agencies, or the Department of Justice; reporting of the debt to credit bureaus; and administrative wage garnishment.

(b) At least sixty (60) days before transferring an FLRA debt to the Financial Management Service, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor as required by § 2418.4. The FLRA will certify to the Financial Management Service, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection. In addition, the FLRA will certify its compliance with all applicable due-process and other requirements as described in this part and other Federal laws. See 31 CFR 285.12(i) regarding the certification requirement.

(c) As part of its debt-collection process, the Financial Management Service uses the Treasury Offset Program to collect Treasury debts by administrative and tax-refund offset. See 31 CFR 285.12(g). The Treasury Offset Program is a centralized offset program administered by the Financial Management Service to collect delinquent debts owed to Federal agencies and states (including past-due child support). Under the Treasury Offset Program, before a Federal payment is disbursed, the Financial Management Service compares the name and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the payee with the names and TINs of debtors that have been submitted by Federal agencies and states to the Treasury Offset Program database. If there is a match, the Financial Management Service (or, in some cases, another Federal disbursing agency) offsets all or a portion of the Federal payment, disburses any remaining payment to the payee, and pays the offset amount to the creditor agency. Federal payments eligible for offset include, but are not limited to, income-tax refunds, salary, travel advances and reimbursements, retirement and vendor payments, and Social Security and other benefit payments.

§ 2418.10 How will the FLRA use administrative offset (offset of non-tax Federal payments) to collect an FLRA debt?

(a) Centralized administrative offset through the Treasury Offset Program. (1) In most cases, the Financial Management Service uses the Treasury Offset Program to collect Treasury debts by the offset of Federal payments. See § 2418.9(c). If not already transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 2418.9, the FLRA will refer any eligible debt over 180 days delinquent to the Treasury Offset Program for collection by centralized administrative offset. See 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6); 31 CFR part 285, subpart A; and 31 CFR 901.3(b). The FLRA may refer any eligible debt less than 180 days delinquent to the Treasury Offset Program for offset.

(2) At least sixty (60) days prior to referring a debt to the Treasury Offset Program, in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4. The FLRA will certify to the Financial Management Service, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection by offset. In addition, the FLRA will certify its compliance with the requirements described in this part.

(b) Non-centralized administrative offset for FLRA debts. (1) When centralized administrative offset through the Treasury Offset Program is not available or appropriate, the FLRA may collect past-due, legally enforceable FLRA debts through non-centralized administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c). In these cases, the FLRA may offset a payment internally or make an offset request directly to a Federal payment agency.

(2) At least thirty (30) days prior to offsetting a payment internally or requesting a Federal payment agency to offset a payment, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4. (For debts outstanding more than ten (10) years on or before June 11, 2009, the FLRA will comply with the additional notification requirements of 31 CFR 285.7(d).) When referring a debt for offset under this paragraph (b), the FLRA will certify, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection by offset. In addition, the FLRA will certify its compliance with these regulations concerning administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c)(2)(ii).

(c) Administrative review. The notice described in § 2418.4 shall explain to the debtor how to request an administrative review of the FLRA's determination that the debtor owes an FLRA debt and how to present evidence that the debt is not delinquent or legally enforceable. In addition to challenging the existence and amount of the debt, the debtor may seek a review of the terms of repayment. In most cases, the FLRA will provide the debtor with a “paper hearing” based upon a review of the written record, including documentation provided by the debtor. The FLRA shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when the debtor requests reconsideration of the debt and the FLRA determines that the question of the indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence, for example, when the validity of the debt turns on an issue of credibility or veracity. Unless otherwise required by law, an oral hearing under this section is not required to be a formal evidentiary hearing, although the FLRA will carefully document all significant matters discussed at the hearing. The FLRA may suspend collection through administrative offset and/or other collection actions pending the resolution of a debtor's dispute.

(d) Procedures for expedited offset. Under the circumstances described in 31 CFR 901.3(b)(4)(iii), the FLRA may effect an offset against a payment to be made to the debtor prior to sending a notice to the debtor, as described in § 2418.4, or completing the procedures described in paragraph (b)(2) and (c) of this section. The FLRA shall give the debtor notice and an opportunity for review as soon as practicable and promptly refund any money ultimately found not to have been owed to the Government.

§ 2418.11 How will the FLRA use tax-refund offset to collect an FLRA debt?

(a) Tax-refund offset. In most cases, the Financial Management Service uses the Treasury Offset Program to collect FLRA debts by the offset of tax refunds and other Federal payments. See § 2418.9(c). If not already transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 2418.9, the FLRA will refer to the Treasury Offset Program any past-due, legally enforceable debt for collection by tax-refund offset. See 26 U.S.C. 6402(d), 31 U.S.C. 3720A and 31 CFR 285.2.

(b) Notice. At least sixty (60) days before referring a debt to the Treasury Offset Program, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4. The FLRA will certify to the Financial Management Service's Treasury Offset Program, in writing, that the debt is past due and legally enforceable in the amount submitted and that the FLRA has made reasonable efforts to obtain payment of the debt as described in 31 CFR 285.2(d). In addition, the FLRA will certify its compliance with all applicable due-process and other requirements described in this part and other Federal laws. See 31 U.S.C. 3720A(b) and 31 CFR 285.2.

(c) Administrative review. The notice described in § 2418.4 shall provide the debtor with at least 60 days prior to the initiation of tax-refund offset to request an administrative review as described in § 2418.10(c). The FLRA may suspend collection through tax-refund offset and/or other collection actions pending the resolution of the debtor's dispute.

§ 2418.12 How will the FLRA offset a Federal employee's salary to collect an FLRA debt?

(a) Federal salary offset. (1) Salary offset is used to collect debts that FLRA employees and other Federal employees owe to the United States. If a Federal employee owes an FLRA debt, then the FLRA may offset the employee's Federal salary to collect the debt in the manner described in this section. For information on how a Federal agency other than the FLRA may collect debt from the salary of an FLRA employee, see §§ 2418.19 and 2418.20.

(2) Nothing in this part requires the FLRA to collect an FLRA debt in accordance with this section if Federal law allows otherwise. See, for example, 5 U.S.C. 5705 (travel advances not used for allowable travel expenses are recoverable from the employee or his estate by setoff against accrued pay and other means) and 5 U.S.C. 4108 (recovery of training expenses).

(3) The FLRA may use the administrative-wage-garnishment procedure described in § 2418.13 to collect a debt from an individual's non-Federal wages.

(b) Centralized salary offset through the Treasury Offset Program. As described in § 2418.9(a), the FLRA will refer FLRA debts to the Financial Management Service for collection by administrative offset, including salary offset, through the Treasury Offset Program. When possible, the FLRA will attempt salary offset through the Treasury Offset Program before applying the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section. See 5 CFR 550.1109.

(c) Non-centralized salary offset for FLRA debts. When centralized salary offset through the Treasury Offset Program is not available or appropriate, the FLRA may collect delinquent FLRA debts through non-centralized salary offset. See 5 CFR 550.1109. In these cases, the FLRA may offset a payment internally or make a request directly to a Federal payment agency to offset a salary payment to collect a delinquent debt that a Federal employee owes. At least thirty (30) days prior to offsetting internally or requesting a Federal agency to offset a salary payment, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4. (For debts outstanding more than ten (10) years on or before June 11, 2009, the FLRA will comply with the additional notification requirements of 31 CFR 285.7(d).) When referring a debt for offset, the FLRA will certify to the payment agency, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, and legally enforceable in the amount stated, and that there are no legal bars to collection by salary offset. In addition, the FLRA will certify that all due-process and other prerequisites to salary offset have been met. See 5 U.S.C. 5514, 31 U.S.C. 3716(a), and this section for a description of the due-process and other prerequisites for salary offset.

(d) When prior notice not required. The FLRA is not required to provide prior notice to an employee when the FLRA makes the following adjustments to an FLRA employee's pay:

(1) Any adjustment to pay arising out of any employee's election of coverage or a change in coverage under a Federal-benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay, if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less;

(2) A routine intra-agency adjustment of pay that is made to correct an overpayment of pay attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents, if the overpayment occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment, and, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and the amount of the adjustment and the point of contact for contesting such adjustment; or

(3) Any adjustment to collect a debt amounting to $ 50 or less, if, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and the amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting such adjustment.

(e) Hearing procedures—(1) Request for a hearing. A Federal employee who has received a notice that his or her FLRA debt will be collected by means of salary offset may request a hearing concerning the existence or amount of the debt. The Federal employee also may request a hearing concerning the amount proposed to be deducted from the employee's pay each pay period. The employee must send any request for hearing, in writing, to the office designated in the notice described in § 2418.4. See § 2418.4(a)(11). The request must be received by the designated office on or before the 15th calendar day following the employee's receipt of the notice. The employee must sign the request and specify whether an oral or paper hearing is requested. If an oral hearing is requested, then the employee must explain why the matter cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence alone. An oral hearing may, at the debtor's option, be conducted either in-person or by telephone conference. All travel expenses incurred by the Federal employee in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the employee. All telephonic charges incurred during the hearing will be the responsibility of the agency.

(2) Failure to submit timely request for hearing. If the employee fails to submit a request for hearing within the time period described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, then the employee will have waived the right to a hearing, and salary offset may be initiated. However, the FLRA will accept a late request for hearing if the employee can show that the late request was the result of circumstances beyond the employee's control or because of a failure to receive actual notice of the filing deadline.

(3) Hearing official. The FLRA must obtain the services of a hearing official who is not under the supervision or control of the Chairman. The FLRA may contact an agent of any agency designated in appendix A to 5 CFR part 581 (List of Agents Designated to Accept Legal Process) to request a hearing official.

(4) Notice of hearing. After the employee requests a hearing, the designated hearing official shall inform the employee of the form of the hearing to be provided. For oral hearings, the notice shall set forth the date, time, and location of the hearing. For paper hearings, the notice shall notify the employee of the date by which he or she should submit written arguments to the designated hearing official. The hearing official shall give the employee reasonable time to submit documentation in support of the employee's position. The hearing official shall schedule a new hearing date if requested by both parties. The hearing official shall give both parties reasonable notice of the time and place of a rescheduled hearing.

(5) Oral hearing. The hearing official will conduct an oral hearing if he or she determines that the matter cannot be resolved by review of documentary evidence alone (for example, when an issue of credibility or veracity is involved). The hearing need not take the form of an evidentiary hearing, but may be conducted in a manner determined by the hearing official, including but not limited to:

(i) Informal conferences with the hearing official, in which the employee and agency representative will be given full opportunity to present evidence, witnesses, and argument;

(ii) Informal meetings with an interview of the employee by the hearing official; or

(iii) Formal written submissions, with an opportunity for oral presentation.

(6) Paper hearing. If the hearing official determines that an oral hearing is not necessary, then he or she will make the determination based upon a review of the available written record, including any documentation submitted by the employee in support of his or her position.

(7) Failure to appear or submit documentary evidence. In the absence of good cause shown (for example, excused illness), if the employee fails to appear at an oral hearing or fails to submit documentary evidence as required for a paper hearing, then the employee will have waived the right to a hearing, and salary offset shall be initiated. If the FLRA representative fails to appear at an oral hearing, then the hearing official shall proceed with the hearing as scheduled, and make his or her determination based upon the oral testimony presented and the documentary evidence submitted by both parties.

(8) Burden of proof. The FLRA will have the initial burden to prove the existence and amount of the debt. Thereafter, if the employee disputes the existence or amount of the debt, then the employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no debt exists or that the amount of the debt is incorrect. In addition, the employee may present evidence that the proposed terms of the repayment schedule are unlawful, would cause a financial hardship to the employee, or that collection of the debt may not be pursued due to operation of law.

(9) Record. The hearing official shall maintain a summary record of any hearing provided by this part. Witnesses will testify under oath or affirmation in oral hearings.

(10) Date of decision. The hearing official shall issue a written opinion stating his or her decision, based upon documentary evidence and information developed at the hearing, as soon as practicable after the hearing, but not later than 60 days after the date on which the FLRA received the request for hearing. If the employee requests a delay in the proceedings, then the deadline for the decision may be postponed by the number of days by which the hearing was postponed. When a decision is not timely rendered, the FLRA shall waive penalties applied to the debt for the period beginning with the date the decision is due and ending on the date the decision is issued.

(11) Content of decision. The written decision shall include:

(i) A statement of the facts presented to support the origin, nature, and amount of the debt;

(ii) The hearing official's findings, analysis, and conclusions; and

(iii) The terms of any repayment schedules, if applicable.

(12) Final agency action. The hearing official's decision shall be final.

(f) Waiver not precluded. Nothing in this part precludes an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584 or 8346(b), 10 U.S.C. 2774, 32 U.S.C. 716, or other statutory authority.

(g) Salary-offset process—(1) Determination of disposable pay. The FLRA's Office of the Executive Director will determine the amount of an FLRA employee's disposable pay (as defined in § 2418.1) and will implement salary offset when requested to do so by the FLRA, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, or another agency, as described in § 2418.19. If the debtor is not employed by the FLRA, then the agency employing the debtor will determine the amount of the employee's disposable pay and will implement salary offset upon request.

(2) When salary offset begins. Deductions shall normally begin within three official pay periods following receipt of the creditor agency's request for offset.

(3) Amount of salary offset. The amount to be offset from each salary payment will be up to 15 percent of a debtor's disposable pay, as follows:

(i) If the amount of the debt is equal to or less than 15 percent of the disposable pay, then such debt generally will be collected in one lump-sum payment;

(ii) Installment deductions will be made over a period of no greater than the anticipated period of employment. An installment deduction will not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount, or a higher deduction has been ordered by a court under section 124 of Public Law 97-276 (96 Stat. 1195), or the creditor agency has determined that smaller deductions are appropriate based on the employee's ability to pay.

(4) Final salary payment. After the employee has separated either voluntarily or involuntarily from the payment agency, the payment agency may make a lump-sum deduction exceeding 15 percent of disposable pay from any final salary or other payments pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3716 in order to satisfy a debt.

(h) Payment agency's responsibilities. (1) As required by 5 CFR 550.1109, if the employee separates from the payment agency from which the FLRA has requested salary offset, then the payment agency must certify the total amount of its collection and notify the FLRA and the employee of the amounts collected. If the payment agency is aware that the employee is entitled to payments from the Civil Service Retirement Fund and Disability Fund, the Federal Employee Retirement System, or other similar payments, then it must provide written notification to the payment agency responsible for making such payments that the debtor owes a debt, the amount of the debt, and that the FLRA has complied with the provisions of this section. The FLRA must submit a properly certified claim to the new payment agency before the collection can be made.

(2) If the employee is already separated from employment and all payments due from his or her former payment agency have been made, then the FLRA may request that money due and payable to the employee from the Civil Service Retirement Fund and Disability Fund, the Federal Employee Retirement System, or other similar funds, be administratively offset to collect the debt. Generally, the FLRA will collect such monies through the Treasury Offset Program as described in § 2418.9(c).

(3) When an employee transfers to another agency, the FLRA should resume collection with the employee's new payment agency in order to continue salary offset.

§ 2418.13 How will the FLRA use administrative wage garnishment to collect an FLRA debt from a debtor's wages?

(a) The FLRA is authorized to collect debts from a debtor's wages by means of administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11. This part adopts and incorporates all of the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11 concerning administrative wage garnishment, including the hearing procedures described in 31 CFR 285.11(f). The FLRA may use administrative wage garnishment to collect a delinquent FLRA debt unless the debtor is making timely payments under an agreement to pay the debt in installments (see § 2418.6). At least thirty (30) days before initiating an administrative wage garnishment, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4 of this part, including the requirements of § 2418.4(a)(10). (For debts outstanding more than ten (10) years on or before June 11, 2009, the FLRA will comply with the additional notification requirements of 31 CFR 285.7(d).) For FLRA debts referred to the Financial Management Service under § 2418.9, the FLRA may authorize the Financial Management Service to send a notice informing the debtor that administrative wage garnishment will be initiated and how the debtor may request a hearing as described in § 2418.4(a)(10). If a debtor makes a timely request for a hearing, administrative wage garnishment will not begin until a hearing is held and a decision is sent to the debtor. See 31 CFR 285.11(f)(4). If a debtor's hearing request is not timely, then the FLRA may suspend collection by administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11(f)(5). All travel expenses incurred by the debtor in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the debtor. If a hearing is conducted telephonically, all telephonic charges incurred during the hearing will be the responsibility of the agency.

(b) This section does not apply to Federal salary offset, the process by which the FLRA collects debts from the salaries of Federal employees (see § 2418.12).

§ 2418.14 How will the FLRA report FLRA debts to credit bureaus?

The FLRA shall report delinquent FLRA debts to credit bureaus in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), 31 CFR 901.4, and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-129, “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Nontax Receivables.” For additional information, see Financial Management Service's “Guide to the Federal Credit Bureau Program,” which may be found at http://www.fms.treas.gov/debt. At least sixty (60) days prior to reporting a delinquent debt to a consumer-reporting agency, the FLRA will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 2418.4. Before disclosing information to a consumer-reporting agency, the FLRA shall provide, on request of a person alleged to be responsible for the delinquent debt, for a review of the obligation of the debtor, including an opportunity for reconsideration of the initial decision on the debt. The FLRA may authorize the Financial Management Service to report to credit bureaus those delinquent FLRA debts that have been transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 2418.9.

§ 2418.15 How will the FLRA refer FLRA debts to private collection agencies?

The FLRA will transfer delinquent FLRA debts to the Financial Management Service to obtain debt-collection services provided by private collection agencies. See § 2418.9.

§ 2418.16 When will the FLRA refer FLRA debts to the Department of Justice?

(a) Compromise or suspension or termination of collection activity. The FLRA shall refer FLRA debts having a principal balance over $ 100,000, or such higher amount as authorized by the Attorney General, to the Department of Justice for approval of any compromise of a debt or suspension or termination of collection activity. See §§ 2418.7 and 2418.8; 31 CFR 902.1; 31 CFR 903.1.

(b) Litigation. The FLRA shall promptly refer to the Department of Justice for litigation delinquent FLRA debts on which aggressive collection activity has been taken in accordance with this part and that should not be compromised, and on which collection activity should not be suspended or terminated. See 31 CFR part 904. The FLRA may authorize the Financial Management Service to refer to the Department of Justice for litigation those delinquent FLRA debts that have been transferred to the Financial Management Service under § 2418.9.

§ 2418.17 How does a debtor request a special review based on a change in circumstances such as catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability?

(a) Material change in circumstances. A debtor who owes an FLRA debt may, at any time, request a special review by the FLRA of the amount of any offset, administrative wage garnishment, or voluntary payment, based on materially changed circumstances beyond the control of the debtor such as, but not limited to, catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability.

(b) Inability to pay. For purposes of this section, in determining whether an involuntary or voluntary payment would prevent the debtor from meeting essential subsistence expenses (costs incurred for food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical care), the debtor shall submit a detailed statement and supporting documents for the debtor, his or her spouse, and dependents, indicating:

(1) Income from all sources;

(2) Assets;

(3) Liabilities;

(4) Number of dependents;

(5) Expenses for food, housing, clothing, and transportation;

(6) Child-care or elder-care expenses;

(7) Medical expenses; and

(8) Exceptional expenses, if any.

(c) Alternative payment arrangement. If the debtor requests a special review under this section, the debtor shall submit an alternative proposed payment schedule and a statement to the FLRA, with supporting documents, showing why the current offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule imposes an extreme financial hardship on the debtor. The FLRA will evaluate the statement and documentation and determine whether the current offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule imposes extreme financial hardship on the debtor. The FLRA shall notify the debtor in writing of such determination, including, if appropriate, a revised offset, garnishment, or payment schedule. If the special review results in a revised offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule, then the FLRA will notify the appropriate agency or other persons about the new terms.

§ 2418.18 Will the FLRA issue a refund if money is erroneously collected on a debt?

The FLRA shall promptly refund to a debtor any amount collected on an FLRA debt when the debt is waived or otherwise found not to be owed to the United States, or as otherwise required by law. Refunds under this part shall not bear interest unless required by law.

Subpart C—Procedures for Offset of FLRA Payments to Collect Debts Owed to Other Federal Agencies
§ 2418.19 How do other Federal agencies use the offset process to collect debts from payments issued by the FLRA?

(a) Offset of FLRA payments to collect debts owed to other Federal agencies. (1) In most cases, Federal agencies submit eligible debts to the Treasury Offset Program to collect delinquent debts from payments issued by the FLRA and other Federal agencies, a process known as “centralized offset.” When centralized offset is not available or appropriate, any Federal agency may ask the FLRA (when acting as a “payment agency”) to collect a debt owed to such agency by offsetting funds payable to a debtor by the FLRA, including salary payments issued to FLRA employees. This section and § 2418.20 apply when a Federal agency asks the FLRA to offset a payment issued by the FLRA to a person who owes a debt to the United States.

(2) This subpart does not apply to FLRA debts. See §§ 2418.10 through 2418.12 for offset procedures applicable to FLRA debts.

(3) This subpart does not apply to the collection of non-FLRA debts through tax refund offset. See 31 CFR 285.2 for tax-refund-offset procedures.

(b) Administrative offset (including salary offset); certification. The FLRA will initiate a requested offset only upon receipt of written certification from the creditor agency that the debtor owes the past-due, legally enforceable debt in the amount stated, and that the creditor agency has fully complied with all applicable due-process and other requirements contained in 31 U.S.C. 3716, 5 U.S.C. 5514, and the creditor agency's regulations, as applicable. Offsets will continue until the debt is paid in full or otherwise resolved to the satisfaction of the creditor agency.

(c) Where a creditor agency makes requests for offset. Requests for offset under this section shall be sent to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, ATTN: Office of the Executive Director, 1400 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20424.

(d) Incomplete certification. The FLRA will return an incomplete debt certification to the creditor agency with notice that the creditor agency must comply with paragraph (b) of this section before action will be taken to collect a debt from a payment issued by the FLRA.

(e) Review. The FLRA is not authorized to review the merits of the creditor agency's determination with respect to the amount or validity of the debt certified by the creditor agency.

(f) When the FLRA will not comply with offset request. The FLRA will comply with the offset request of another agency unless the FLRA determines that the offset would not be in the best interests of the United States, or would otherwise be contrary to law.

(g) Multiple debts. When two or more creditor agencies are seeking offsets from payments made to the same person, or when two or more debts are owed to a single creditor agency, the FLRA may determine the order in which the debts will be collected or whether one or more debts should be collected by offset simultaneously.

(h) Priority of debts owed to FLRA. For purposes of this section, debts owed to the FLRA generally take precedence over debts owed to other agencies. The FLRA may determine whether to pay debts owed to other agencies before paying a debt owed to the FLRA. The FLRA will determine the order in which the debts will be collected based on the best interests of the United States.

§ 2418.20 What does the FLRA do upon receipt of a request to offset the salary of an FLRA employee to collect a debt owed by the employee to another Federal agency?

(a) Notice to the FLRA employee. When the FLRA receives proper certification of a debt owed by one of its employees, the FLRA will begin deductions from the employee's pay at the next officially established pay period. The FLRA will send a written notice to the employee indicating that a certified debt claim has been received from the creditor agency, the amount of the debt that the creditor agency claims is owed, the date deductions from salary will begin, and the amount of such deductions.

(b) Amount of deductions from FLRA employee's salary. The amount deducted under § 2418.19(b) will be the lesser of the amount of the debt certified by the creditor agency or an amount up to 15% of the debtor's disposable pay. Deductions shall continue until the FLRA knows that the debt is paid in full or until otherwise instructed by the creditor agency. Alternatively, the amount offset may be an amount that the debtor and the creditor agency agree upon in writing. See § 2418.12(g) (salary-offset process).

(c) When the debtor is no longer employed by the FLRA—(1) Offset of final and subsequent payments. If an FLRA employee retires or resigns or if his or her employment otherwise ends before collection of the debt is complete, then the FLRA will continue to offset, under 31 U.S.C. 3716, up to 100% of an employee's subsequent payments until the debt is paid or otherwise resolved. Such payments include a debtor's final salary payment, lump-sum leave payment, and other payments payable to the debtor by the FLRA. See 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 5 CFR 550.1104(l) and 550.1104(m).

(2) Notice to the creditor agency. If the employee is separated from the FLRA before the debt is paid in full, then the FLRA will certify to the creditor agency the total amount of its collection. If the FLRA is aware that the employee is entitled to payments from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, Federal Employee Retirement System, or other similar payments, then the FLRA will provide written notice to the agency making such payments that the debtor owes a debt (including the amount) and that the provisions of 5 CFR 550.1109 have been fully complied with. The creditor agency is responsible for submitting a certified claim to the agency responsible for making such payments before collection may begin. Generally, creditor agencies will collect such monies through the Treasury Offset Program as described in § 2418.9(c).

(3) Notice to the debtor. The FLRA will provide to the debtor a copy of any notices sent to the creditor agency under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(d) When the debtor transfers to another Federal agency—(1) Notice to the creditor agency. If the debtor transfers to another Federal agency before the debt is paid in full, then the FLRA will notify the creditor agency and will certify the total amount of its collection on the debt. The FLRA will provide a copy of the certification to the creditor agency. The creditor agency is responsible for submitting a certified claim to the debtor's new employing agency before collection may begin.

(2) Notice to the debtor. The FLRA will provide to the debtor a copy of any notices and certifications sent to the creditor agency under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(e) Request for hearing official. The FLRA will provide a hearing official upon the creditor agency's request with respect to an FLRA employee. See 5 CFR 550.1107(a).

Appendix A to Part 2418—Waiving Claims Against FLRA Employees for Erroneous Payments Date: May 1, 2015. Subject: Waiving Claims Against FLRA Employees for Erroneous Payments. 1. Purpose

This appendix establishes the FLRA's policies and procedures for waiving claims by the Government against an employee for erroneous payments of: (1) Pay and allowances (e.g., health and life insurance) and (2) travel, transportation, and relocation expenses and allowances.

2. Background

a. 5 U.S.C. 5584 authorizes the waiver of claims by the United States in whole or in part against an employee arising out of erroneous payments of pay and allowances, travel, transportation, and relocation expenses and allowances. A waiver may be considered when collection of the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United States, provided that there does not exist, in connection with the claim, an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee or any other person having an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim.

b. The General Accounting Office Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-316), Title I, section 103(d), enacted October 19, 1996, amended 5 U.S.C. 5584 by transferring the authority to waive claims for erroneous payments exceeding $1,500 from the Comptroller General of the United States to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB subsequently redelegated this waiver authority to the executive agency that made the erroneous payment. The authority to waive claims not exceeding $1,500, which was vested in the head of each agency prior to the enactment of Public Law 104-316, was unaffected by the Act.

c. 5 U.S.C. 5514 authorizes the head of each agency, upon a determination that an employee is indebted to the United States for debts to which the United States is entitled to be repaid at the time of the determination, to deduct up to 15%, or a greater amount if agreed to by the employee or a higher deduction has been ordered by a court under section 124 of Public Law 97-276 (96 Stat. 1195), from the employee's pay at officially established pay intervals in order to repay the debt.

3. Delegation

The Executive Director is delegated the authority to waive, in whole or in part, a claim of the United States against an employee for an erroneous payment of pay and allowances, travel, transportation, and relocation expenses and allowances, in accordance with the limitations and standards in 5 U.S.C. 5584.

4. Responsibilities

The Office of the Executive Director shall:

(1) Promptly notify an employee upon discovery of an erroneous payment to that employee;

(2) Promptly act to collect the erroneous overpayment, following established debt-collection policies and procedures;

(3) Establish time frames for employees to request a waiver in writing and for the Executive Director to review the waiver request. These time frames must take into consideration the responsibilities of the United States to take prompt action to pursue enforced collection on overdue debts, which may arise from erroneous payments.

(4) Notify employees whose requests for waiver of claims are denied in whole or in part of the basis for the denial.

(5) Pay a refund when appropriate if a waiver is granted;

(6) Fulfill all labor-relations responsibilities when implementing the provisions of this appendix; and

(7) Fulfill any other responsibility of the agency imposed by 5 U.S.C. 5584 or other applicable laws and regulations.

Additionally, the Office of the Executive Director may initiate a waiver application during the processing of a claim under 5 CFR part 2418.

5. Reporting Requirements

a. The FLRA shall maintain a register of waiver actions. The register shall cover each fiscal year and be prepared by December 31 of each year for the preceding fiscal year. The register shall contain the following information:

(1) The total amount waived by the FLRA;

(2) The number and dollar amount of waiver applications granted in full;

(3) The number and dollar amount of waiver applications granted in part and denied in part, and the dollar amount of each;

(4) The number and dollar amount of waiver applications denied in their entirety; and

(5) The number of waiver applications referred to the Executive Director for initial action.

b. The FLRA shall retain a written record of each waiver action for 6 years and 3 months. At a minimum, the written record shall contain:

(1) The FLRA's summary of the events surrounding the erroneous payment;

(2) Any written comments submitted by the employee from whom collection is sought;

(3) An account of the waiver action taken and the reasons for such action; and

(4) Other pertinent information such as any action taken to refund amounts repaid.

6. Effect of Request for Waiver

A request for a waiver of a claim shall not affect an employee's opportunity under 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D) for a hearing on the determination of the agency concerning the existence or the amount of the debt, or the terms of the repayment schedule. A request by an employee for a hearing under 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D) shall not affect an employee's right to request a waiver of the claim. The determination whether to waive a claim may be made at the discretion of the deciding official either before or after a final decision is rendered pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D) concerning the existence or the amount of the debt, or the terms of the repayment schedule.

7. Guidelines for Determining Requests

a. A request for a waiver shall not be granted if the deciding official determines there exists, in connection with the claim, an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee or any other person having an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim. There are no exceptions to this rule for financial hardship or otherwise.

(1) “Fault” exists if, in light of all the circumstances, it is determined that the employee knew or should have known that an error existed, but failed to take action to have it corrected. Fault can derive from an act or a failure to act. Unlike fraud, fault does not require a deliberate intent to deceive. Whether an employee should have known about an error in pay is determined from the perspective of a reasonable person. Pertinent considerations in finding fault include whether:

(a) The payment resulted from the employee's incorrect, but not fraudulent, statement that the employee should have known was incorrect;

(b) The payment resulted from the employee's failure to disclose material facts that were in the employee's possession and that the employee should have known to be material; or

(c) The employee accepted a payment, that the employee knew or should have known to be erroneous.

(2) Every case must be examined in light of its particular facts. For example, where an employee is promoted to a higher grade but the step level for the employee's new grade is miscalculated, it may be appropriate to conclude that there is no fault on the employee's part because employees are not typically expected to be aware of and understand the rules regarding determination of step level upon promotion. On the other hand, a different conclusion as to fault potentially may be reached if the employee in question is a personnel specialist or an attorney who concentrates on personnel law.

b. If the deciding official finds an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee or any other person having an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim, then the request for a waiver must be denied.

c. If the deciding official finds no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee or any other person having an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim, then the employee is not automatically entitled to a waiver. Before a waiver can be granted, the deciding official must also determine that collection of the claim against an employee would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States. Factors to consider when determining whether collection of a claim against an employee would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States include, but are not limited to:

(1) Whether collection of the claim would cause serious financial hardship to the employee from whom collection is sought.

(2) Whether, because of the erroneous payment, the employee either has relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the worse, regardless of the employee's financial circumstances.

(a) To establish that a valuable right has been relinquished, it must be shown that the right was, in fact, valuable; that it cannot be regained; and that the action was based chiefly or solely on reliance on the overpayment.

(b) To establish that the employee's position has changed for the worse, it must be shown that the decision would not have been made but for the overpayment, and that the decision resulted in a loss.

(c) An example of a “detrimental reliance” would be a decision to sign a lease for a more expensive apartment based chiefly or solely upon reliance on an erroneous calculation of salary, and the funds spent for rent cannot be recovered.

(3) The cost of collecting the claim equals or exceeds the amount of the claim;

(4) The time elapsed between the erroneous payment and discovery of the error and notification of the employee;

(5) Whether failure to make restitution would result in unfair gain to the employee;

(6) Whether recovery of the claim would be unconscionable under the circumstances.

d. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate that collection of the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United States.

8. Authorities

a. 5 U.S.C. 5584, “Claims for Overpayment of Pay and Allowances, and of Travel, Transportation and Relocation Expenses and Allowances.”

b. 31 U.S.C. 3711, “Collection and Compromise.”

c. 31 U.S.C. 3716, “Administrative Offset.”

d. 31 U.S.C. 3717, “Interest and Penalty on Claims.”

e. 5 CFR part 550, subpart K, “Collection by Offset from Indebted Government Employees.”

f. 31 CFR part 5, subpart B, “Salary Offset.”

g. Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316, OMB, December 17, 1996.

9. Cancellation

FLRA Internal Regulation 2790, dated December 29, 1986, is superseded.

[FR Doc. 2015-09999 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0936; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD; Amendment 39-18153; AD 2015-09-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes. This AD requires a repetitive maintenance task for electrical power deactivation on Model 787 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 1, 2015.

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

We must receive comments on this AD by June 15, 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0936.

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-2015-0936; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We have been advised by Boeing of an issue identified during laboratory testing. The software counter internal to the generator control units (GCUs) will overflow after 248 days of continuous power, causing that GCU to go into failsafe mode. If the four main GCUs (associated with the engine mounted generators) were powered up at the same time, after 248 days of continuous power, all four GCUs will go into failsafe mode at the same time, resulting in a loss of all AC electrical power regardless of flight phase.

FAA's Determination

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD requires a repetitive maintenance task for electrical power deactivation.

Interim Action

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a GCU software upgrade that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this software is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. If the four main GCUs were powered up at the same time, after 248 days of continuous power, all four GCUs will go into failsafe mode at the same time, resulting in a loss of all AC electrical power regardless of flight phase. Loss of all AC electrical power can result in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2015-0936 and Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015; and Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for electrical power deactivation of Model 787 airplanes. This service information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0936. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 28 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Electrical power deactivation 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per deactivation cycle $0 $85 per deactivation cycle $2,380 per deactivation cycle. 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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-09-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18153; Docket No. FAA-2015-0936; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective May 1, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Maintenance Task: Electrical Power Deactivation

At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, accomplish electrical power deactivation on the airplane, in accordance with step 2) in “DESIRED ACTION” of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015; or Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015. The main and auxiliary power unit (APU) batteries do not need to be disconnected when performing the electrical power deactivation. Repeat the electrical power deactivation thereafter at intervals not to exceed 120 days.

(1) Within 120 days after the last electrical power deactivation in accordance with step 2) in “DESIRED ACTION” of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015; or Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015.

(2) Within 120 days after the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

(3) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(j) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015. The date appears only on the first page of this document.

(ii) Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015. The date appears only on the first page of this document.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 23, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10066 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0766; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-26-AD; Amendment 39-18149; AD 2014-17-08R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are revising airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-17-08 for all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A turboprop engines. AD 2014-17-08 required initial and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of compressor turbine (CT) blades, and the removal from service of blades that fail inspection. This new AD adds an additional single crystal CT blade, reduces the affected population, and corrects the Credit for Previous Action paragraph. This AD was prompted by P&WC development of an additional single crystal CT blade that corrects the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of CT blades, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 5, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publications listed in this AD as of October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Internet: www.pwc.ca. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. Certain service information is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0766.

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-2013-0766; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014), (“AD 2014-17-08”). AD 2014-17-08 applied to all P&WC PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A turboprop engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71031). The NPRM was prompted by P&WC development of an additional single crystal CT blade that corrects the unsafe condition. The addition of this new part number (P/N) reduces the affected population. The NPRM proposed to retain all the requirements of AD 2014-17-08. The NPRM also proposed to add the additional single crystal CT blade that corrects the unsafe condition, reduce the affected population, and correct the Credit for Previous Action paragraph. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of CT blades, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 71031, December 1, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Disposition of Removed CT Blades

Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. and another commenter requested that we state more clearly whether pre-SB (service bulletin) PT6A-72-1669 CT blades removed as a result of this AD can be reinstalled in the same engine, the same model engine, or a different model engine.

We disagree. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this AD clearly states that to re-install removed pre-SB PT6A-72-1669 CT blades, the blades must pass a two-blade metallurgical inspection to determine airworthiness in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-1669, Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013. We did not change this AD.

Request To Not Mandate Installation of Single Crystal CT Blades

One commenter requested that we not mandate the installation of single crystal CT blades because two of the P/Ns cited as replacement blades have experienced low-time failures, indicating a design or manufacturing flaw.

We disagree. While there have been some failures of single crystal CT blades on a different engine model, that failure mode is well understood and does not affect the engines that are the subject of this AD. For the engines that are subject to this AD, single crystal blades provide a significant improvement in durability and a significant reduction in CT blade failures overall. We did not change this AD.

Request To Reference Two Additional SBs

One commenter requested that we reference P&WC SBs No. PT6A-72-1727 and No. PT6A-72-1749 in addition to P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-1669 because each one of these SBs references one of the three single crystal CT blades that can be installed as terminating action to this AD. P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-1669 alone only references one of the three blades listed as terminating action in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.

We agree. We added references to the two additional SBs in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Request To Include Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) for Inspections

Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. requested that we include in the AD an AMOC to allow a visual inspection, accomplished by splitting the engine at the C-flange, as an alternative method to the required periodic borescope inspection of pre-SB PT6A-72-1669 CT blades. The commenter states that this suggested visual method would provide easier detection of cracks.

We disagree. This AD contains the required method for resolving the unsafe condition. If an operator can accomplish required actions in a better way, or a way that better suits the operator's business processes, and the alternative method provides an acceptable level of safety, then the operator can apply for an AMOC to use that method to address the unsafe condition in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request That We Address Failures in Additional Blades

Hawkins Aero Engineering, Inc. requested that we address single crystal CT blade failures either in this or in another AD because there have been several low-time single crystal CT blade failures in several different PT6 engine models, some of which are single engine installations.

We disagree. Low-time failures that occurred on engine models not affected by this AD are due to a failure mode that is well understood. That failure mode does not occur in the engine models that are the subject of this AD. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 71031, December 1, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in NPRM (79 FR 71031, December 1, 2014).

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 300 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 hours per engine to perform the required inspection and 8 hours to replace the blades. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $59,334 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $18,106,200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2014-17-08R1 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Amendment 39-18149; Docket No. FAA-2013-0766; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-26-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 5, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A turboprop engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by several incidents of compressor turbine (CT) blade failure, causing power loss, and engine failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of CT blades, which could lead to damage to the engine and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) For engines installed with CT blades other than P&WC single crystal CT blades, part numbers (P/Ns) 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01, do the following:

(i) Until removed, per the requirements of this AD, borescope inspect the CT blade leading and trailing edges, within the following intervals, whichever occurs later:

(A) 150 operating hours after October 8, 2014; or

(B) 500 operating hours since new; or

(C) 500 operating hours since last borescope inspection (BSI) of the CT blades; or

(D) Before next flight after the effective date of this AD.

(ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD every 500 flight hours time since last inspection.

(iii) At the next hot section inspection (HSI) after the effective date of this AD, and each HSI thereafter, replace the complete set of CT blades with any of the following:

(A) New CT blades;

(B) CT blades that have passed a two-blade metallurgical inspection. Use paragraph 3.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-1669, Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013, to do the inspection; or

(C) P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01.

(2) Replacement of the complete set of CT blades with single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01 is terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(3) By October 8, 2017, replace the complete set of CT blades with P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

Performance of the metallurgical examination specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this AD on CT blades other than P&WC single crystal CT blades, P/N 3072791-01, 3072791-02, or 3079351-01, before the effective date of this AD fulfills the initial inspection requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD. However, you must still comply with the repetitive BSI requirement of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD until you complete the mandatory terminating action of paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-17-08, Amendment 39-17961 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014) are approved for this AD.

(2) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-1727, dated August 23, 2013, and SB No. PT6A-72-1749, dated September 23, 2014, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from P&WC using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014).

(i) Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin No. PT6A-72-1669, Revision 9, dated June 28, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For P&WC service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Internet: www.pwc.ca.

(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

(6) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2015. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10075 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0794; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-5] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jupiter, FL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class D Airspace at Jupiter, FL, by removing reference to Restricted Area R-2936 in the regulatory text of the Class D airspace area as the restricted area is no longer needed. 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 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 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: 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 removing reference to Restricted Area R-2936 from the regulatory text of the Class D airspace area at William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL, as the restricted area is no longer needed. This action also updates the airport's geographical coordinates to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are 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. 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 further clarifies the description of controlled airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace ASO FL D Jupiter, FL William P. Gwinn Airport, FL (Lat.26°54′29″ N.,long.80°19′42″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of William P. Gwinn Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 21, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09881 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue 30 CFR Parts 1206 and 1210 [Docket No. ONRR-2014-0001; DS63610000 DR2PS0000.CH7000 156D0102R2] RIN 1012-AA15 Indian Oil Valuation Amendments AGENCY:

Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

ONRR is amending its regulations governing the valuation, for royalty purposes, of oil produced from Indian leases. This rule will expand and clarify the major portion valuation requirement found in the existing regulations for oil production. This rule represents the recommendations of the Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). This rule also changes the form filing requirements necessary to claim a transportation allowance for oil produced from Indian leases.

DATES:

Effective date: July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions on technical issues, contact John Barder at (303) 231-3702, Karl Wunderlich at (303) 231-3663, or Elizabeth Dawson at (303) 231-3653, ONRR.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The purpose of implementing this final rule regarding the valuation of oil production from Indian leases is: (1) To ensure that Indian mineral lessors receive the maximum revenues from mineral resources on their land consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary) trust responsibility and lease terms and (2) to provide simplicity, certainty, clarity, and consistency for Indian oil valuation for Indian mineral revenue recipients and Indian mineral lessees.

II. Comments on Proposed Rule

On June 19, 2014, ONRR published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 35102) to amend the valuation regulations for oil production from Indian leases. The proposed rule represents the recommendations of the Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). The proposed rulemaking provided for a 60-day comment period, which ended on August 18, 2014. During the public comment period, ONRR received fifteen written comments: two responses from industry, three from industry trade groups or associations, three from Indian Tribes, four from individual Indian mineral owners, and three from unassociated individuals.

ONRR has carefully considered all of the public comments that it received during the rulemaking process. ONRR hereby adopts final regulations governing the valuation of oil produced from Indian leases. These regulations will apply, prospectively, to oil produced on or after the effective date that we have specified in the DATES section of this preamble.

This final rule reflects other changes to the proposed rule. In the preamble of the proposed rule, ONRR requested comments on: (1) Eliminating the current regulation's requirement that a lessee must file a Form ONRR-4110 to claim an arm's-length transportation allowance, which would mirror the Indian gas valuation rule at 30 CFR 1206.178(a)(1)(i); (2) removing the current rule's requirement that lessees reporting non-arm's-length transportation arrangements submit a Form ONRR-4110 with estimated information prior to taking the transportation allowance, again this change would mirror the Indian gas valuation rule found at § 1206.178(b)(2)(i); (3) eliminating a lessee's ability to use transportation factors in calculating its royalties due under § 1206.57, and, instead, requiring lessees to report all transportation costs as separate entries for transportation allowances on Form ONRR-2014; and (4) removing the ability for a lessee to request to exceed the 50-percent limitation on transportation allowances. As we discuss in more detail below, ONRR amended the current rule to (1) eliminate form filing requirements for arm's-length transportation allowances and (2) eliminate the pre-filing of Form ONRR-4110 prior to claiming a non-arm's-length transportation allowance.

A. General Comments

ONRR received fifteen comments on the new rule. The majority of commenters expressed support for the rule. Other general comments fall into three categories: (1) ONRR's trust responsibilities, (2) increased communication with Indian lessors, and (3) the rule's impact on Indian lease royalty rates.

1. ONRR's Trust Responsibility

Public Comment: ONRR received two comments requesting that ONRR emphasize that the purpose of the proposed rule is to maximize revenues to Indian lessors under Interior's trust responsibility. A Tribe indicated that ONRR also should modify the language in the preamble of the final rule to mirror the language that is in the proposed Indian gas rule to clarify that the purpose of the rule is to maximize revenues for the Indian lessor.

In contrast, an individual commenter disputed the proposed rule because the commenter believes that the Tribes, not ONRR, should be establishing oil prices on Indian lands. The commenter stated that the Secretary's role is solely to approve or disapprove Indian agreements and should not take on any fiduciary responsibilities.

ONRR Response: ONRR has included language in the preamble of the final rule that states that the purpose of the rule is to maximize revenues for the Indian lessor, mirroring language contained in the preamble of the Indian gas valuation rule.

The United States Government has a unique legal relationship with American Indian Tribal governments, stemming from the Constitution of the United States. Over time, treaties, Federal statutes, regulations, and court decisions have refined the relationship to be one that is committed to protecting and respecting the rights of self-government of sovereign Tribal governments. Thus, Federal Indian statutes and regulations have evolved to rest certain obligations on the Federal Government.

The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, 25 U.S.C 396a-396g, grants the Secretary the authority to oversee the leasing and development of Indian mineral resources. By enacting the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, Congress intended the Secretary to act as a trustee to Tribes and Indian mineral owners. Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., 728 F.2d 1555, 1565 (10th Cir.1984) (Seymour, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), adopted as majority opinion as modified en banc, 782 F.2d 855 (10th Cir.1986), supplemented, 793 F.2d 1171 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 970 (1986). As a trustee, when “faced with a decision for which there is more than one `reasonable' choice as that term is used in administrative law, [the Secretary] must chose the alternative that is in the best interests of the Indian tribe.” Jicarilla v. Supron, Id. at 1567.

Furthermore, Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners can negotiate mineral leasing agreements under the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. 2101-2108. Consistent with principles of self-determination, Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners, through Tribal affiliation, can negotiate valuation terms in their leases, subject to Secretarial approval. The Secretary has a duty to administer Indian oil and gas leases, including enforcing royalty obligations under those leases.

2. Increased Communication With Indian Lessors

Public Comment: ONRR received a comment seeking amendment to the rule requiring lessees to provide daily oil production reports. The commenter stated that daily oil production reports would “ensure the timely marketing of the produced oil and that the production cycle is not interrupted.”

ONRR Response: ONRR appreciates the comment. The comment, however, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the valuation of oil produced from Indian leases. ONRR receives monthly oil and gas reports, which are sufficient for us to ensure proper production verification and accountability. Through audits and other compliance activities, ONRR can, if necessary, obtain daily information to verify that lessees have properly accounted for and reported their Indian oil production.

Public Comment: ONRR received two comments seeking improved access to data to allow Indian lessors to monitor their leases—by wells—on a monthly basis. Both commenters felt that the Explanation of Payment Report (EOP) that the Bureau of Indian Affairs currently sends with royalty payments to Indian lessors on a monthly basis is insufficient to provide a clear picture of the Indian lessor's oil and gas production. One commenter felt that ONRR should post individual well information on its Web site for Indian lessors to monitor their leases.

ONRR Response: ONRR appreciates the comment. The comment, however, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the valuation of oil produced from Indian leases. Under the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), the Secretary must provide an EOP when a lessee makes any payment to an Indian lessor. 30 U.S.C. 1715. The Secretary must include “a description of the type of payment being made, the period covered by such payment, the source of such payment, production amounts, the royalty rate, unit value and such other information as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the recipient State, Indian tribe, or Indian allottee.” Id.

ONRR generally does not receive royalty payment information by well because the information is voluminous and can include multiple leases, multiple communitization areas, and multiple lessors. And the lease, not the well, typically provides the basis for financial reporting, including financial terms against which ONRR assures compliance by companies and distributes royalties to Indian lessors.

Furthermore, the rule will require ONRR to post Index-Based Major Portion (IBMP) prices on its Web site. Thus, the proposed rule will increase the capacity for Indian lessors to validate the royalties that they receive are accurate. For applicable leases, if the volume-weighted price shown on the EOP is less than the IBMP value posted on ONRR's Web site, the Tribe and/or individual Indian mineral owner will know that there is a discrepancy based on the value of oil, the volume of the oil, and the lease's royalty rate.

3. The Rule's Impact on Indian Lease Royalty Rates

Public Comment: ONRR received two comments regarding the royalty rates in the leases. One commenter stated that “the proposed rule leaves no ability for the lessor to negotiate a rate when the opportunity presents itself.” Another stated that “the Secretary has refused to negotiate royalty rates for which the Secretary is responsible.”

ONRR Response: ONRR appreciates the comments. The royalty rate, however, is a clause in the lease and is not a component of the proposed rule. Under the Indian Mineral Development Act, Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners are free to negotiate lease terms with potential lessees, subject to Secretarial approval. 25 U.S.C. 2102. The proposed rule does not limit or otherwise infringe on the authority of Tribes to negotiate those leases. The BIA regulations set out a minimum royalty rate, see 25 CFR 211.41(b); 212.41(b), and Indian lessors are free to negotiate a higher royalty rate. Nothing in this rule prevents Indian lessors from doing so.

Public Comment: In addition, a Tribal commenter stated that the proposed rule implicitly states that the Secretary's trust responsibility will not apply to Tribes in Eastern Oklahoma because the rule is not applicable to District Court leases, which do not contain a major portion provision or provide for Secretarial discretion to determine value.

ONRR Response: The purpose of the rule is to provide a method to calculate value under the major portion provision found in most Indian leases. The rule does not change how to value Indian oil on leases that do not contain a major portion provision. The commenter is correct that the rule will not apply to District Court leases because those leases do not contain a major portion provision or provide for Secretarial discretion to determine value. Therefore, valuing Indian oil produced from these leases will not change under the proposed rule. Indian lessors remain free to negotiate their royalty rates. And, as stated previously, the rule does not alter a lessor's ability to negotiate new leases or lease terms.

B. Specific Comments on 30 CFR Part 1206—Product Valuation, Subpart B—Indian Oil 1. How ONRR Calculates the LCTD

Public Comment: ONRR received a comment recommending that ONRR use an “Adjustment Ratio (AR)” instead of the Location and Crude Type Differential (LCTD). The commenter proposes an AR as the ratio of the Major Portion Price to the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Calendar Monthly Average (CMA), which would be equal to the LCTD, but would take fewer steps to calculate and, thus, decrease the chance of error.

ONRR Response: ONRR agrees with the commenter that the initial Adjustment Ratio (AR) would return the same result as the initial LCTD. The method used in the proposed rule, however, makes explicit use of the differential between the major portion price and NYMEX CMA so that those less familiar with the formula can clearly see how the Index-Based Major Portion is calculated. Therefore, ONRR will retain the LCTD in the final rule because it is more transparent.

Public Comment: ONRR received two comments regarding the LCTD. One commenter recommended amending the rule to eliminate the 10-percent adjustment mechanism for the LCTD. That commenter stated that, in months where lessees report more than 28 percent of the production as non-OINX (the gross proceeds that the lessee receives for volumes sold above the IBMP value), ONRR has the data that it needs to calculate the 75-percent major portion price. Thus, the commenter states that ONRR should use that number rather than the IBMP value because that is the price at which 75 percent of production was sold in the designated area. In months where lessees report volumes of a specific crude type in a particular designated area as non-OINX fall below 22 percent, the commenter proposes multiplying the AR by 0.98.

ONRR Response: The commenter correctly states that, in months where there is more than 28 percent of the production reported in a particular designated area for a specific crude type as non-OINX, ONRR has the price at which the 75th percentile of oil is sold. ONRR, however, disagrees that the Agency should use that price as the major portion price. First, the price will not be contemporaneous with the current production month. The commenter's recommendation will require ONRR to base the value of the Indian oil production on sales that occurred two production months prior to the current production month—effectively putting the IBMP price two months in arrears from the current reporting month. In contrast, the IBMP value uses the most recent NYMEX prices adjusted by the LCTD, which is contemporaneous with the production month. Thus, under the final rule, the data that ONRR uses results in an adjustment of the most recent NYMEX CMA price.

Second, the commenter does not clarify how ONRR would return to using an LCTD once the amount of production not reported as non-OINX falls below 28 percent. Instead, the commenter suggests using the commenter's original AR and multiplying that by 0.98 to adjust the IBMP value. As we discussed above, however, ONRR is not amending the rule to use the AR. And, this methodology falls outside of the recommendations of the Committee. Lastly, ONRR is unclear how the 0.98 adequately replaces the LCTD adjustment.

Public Comment: ONRR received another comment regarding the proposed rule's 10-percent adjustment to the LCTD. The commenter stated that the 10-percent adjustment appears arbitrary and does not take into account severe swings in the market.

ONRR Response: ONRR disagrees that the 10-percent adjustment mechanism is arbitrary. The Committee negotiated the 10-percent adjustment to allow ONRR to adjust the LCTD to reflect swings in the market. The Committee negotiated the 10-percent adjustment to ensure that the IBMP value will return to the 22-percent-to-28-percent range in the event that the IBMP value does fall outside of that range. The Committee, however, limited the adjustment to 10 percent to prevent drastic swings in the LCTD from month to month.

2. How ONRR Calculates the IBMP Value

Public Comment: ONRR received multiple comments regarding how ONRR calculates the IBMP value. ONRR received one comment stating that the formula that ONRR uses to calculate the IBMP value is too complex and difficult for the Indian lessor to understand. The commenter further believes that the calculation is labor-intensive and susceptible to error.

ONRR Response: ONRR appreciates the comment. While the formula may appear complex, ONRR will calculate the IBMP value each month and post the value on our Web site. Industry will then report and pay royalties on the higher of its gross proceeds or the posted IBMP value. Like the Indian Gas Major Portion calculation, ONRR will automate the process with internal controls to mitigate the risk of error. ONRR will provide training to those Tribes who would like to better understand the rule and to industry, who must comply with the rule.

Public Comment: Other commenters raised concerns regarding ONRR's shift from defining the major portion price in an area to be the price at which 50 percent by volume plus one barrel of oil is sold to using the price at which 25 percent, plus one barrel, by volume (starting from the top) of oil in an area is sold. One industry commenter states the 75th percentile is not a “major” portion—a major portion would be the 50 percent plus one barrel used under the current rule.

ONRR Response: ONRR incorporated the 75th percentile as the major portion of production based on (1) consistency with the Indian gas valuation rule and (2) the agreement reached by Committee. The Committee spent a significant amount of time deliberating what to use as a major portion price. Representatives for the Indian lessors advocated for a major portion price using the 75th percentile. Industry supported a major portion price based on the 50th percentile. Ultimately, industry representatives agreed to the 75th percentile in exchange for the benefits of the rule, including but not limited to: (1) Reduced accounting and administrative costs; (2) certainty associated with meeting the major portion obligation in real time; (3) significant reduction in prior period adjustments; (4) simplified audits and related expenses; and (5) reduced administrative appeals and litigation. In return, Indian lessors receive (1) royalties on their oil production founded on an index-based price equivalent to a 25-percent major portion from the top or the gross proceeds that their lessees receive; (2) more predictable and transparent information on revenues that they can expect to receive; and (3) royalties based on the leases' major portion provision sooner and with fewer adjustments. The Committee agreed to use the price at which 25 percent or more of the oil from the top is sold as a reasonable compromise on the term “major.” The change in the major portion value is identical to the trade-off that ONRR and the Indian Gas Valuation Negotiation Rulemaking Committee agreed upon prior to adopting the final Indian Gas Valuation Rules in 1999. Industry representatives agreed to the change in exchange for clarity, certainty, and reduced administrative costs.

Public Comment: ONRR also received a comment from an individual asserting ONRR “has not enforced the major portion provision or disclosed facts essential to understanding a claim. . . .”

ONRR Response: The final rule applies prospectively and will not impact ONRR's efforts to enforce the major portion provision under the prior rule.

Public Comment: One industry commenter noted that the 25-percent major price component in the rule will result in the commenter realizing the full 3.93-percent increase in royalties that ONRR estimated that industry would pay under the proposed rule.

ONRR Response: The 3.93 percent discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule is only to show, on average, the minimal impact of the proposed rule industrywide. The commenter's royalties may increase more or less than 3.93 percent.

Public Comment: ONRR also received a comment implying that the IBMP value is inadequate because it includes cost sharing. The commenter proposed to value oil produced from Indian lands by paying the Indian lessor 25 percent of the current NYMEX price, less the LCTD. The commenter stated that the LCTD should be allowed, but it should only capture the difference in value due to location and quality and that ONRR should eliminate any transportation allowances and any other costs/allowances. In so doing, the commenter states that ONRR will maximize the revenue of the Indian lessor.

ONRR Response: ONRR disagrees. ONRR maintains that the final rule maximizes revenues for Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners. The final rule ensures that the lessor receives the higher of (1) a value that approximates the major portion price at the 25th percentile by volume plus one barrel from highest price to lowest price, arrayed from the top (the top means that volume associated with the highest price that lessees receive for crude oil produced in a particular designated area in any given month); or (2) the gross proceeds accruing to the lessee. ONRR addresses the commenter's view on the elimination of transportation allowances under section 6 of the response to specific comments.

Public Comment: ONRR received three comments regarding the data that it uses to calculate the IBMP. Two Tribal commenters stated that ONRR must rely on audited data to calculate the initial LCTD for each designated area. The Tribal commenters are concerned that unaudited data may include inaccurate data that will have lingering and ongoing effects on the IBMP value. In contrast, ONRR received a comment from an individual stating that ONRR cannot go back and change the IBMP regardless if ONRR found errors in reported information.

ONRR Response: All oil production and sales reported to ONRR are subject to review and audit. Currently, ONRR has upfront edits, i.e. automated verifications, in place in our reporting systems, as well as data mining activities, which minimize inaccurately reported data. Moreover, as ONRR inputs the data that it uses to calculate the initial LCTD and future adjustments, ONRR will scrutinize the data to identify and resolve outliers as well as grossly misreported royalty volumes and values. Additionally, the large amount of data necessary to calculate the LCTD for any designated area will minimize the effects of individual misreported data. ONRR feels that these tools will adequately prevent bad data from influencing the initial LCTD calculation. In order to begin collecting royalties on the IBMP value, ONRR is using the previous 12 months of data collected. As we discussed above, ONRR will edit and scrutinize that data before using it in the formula. This approach represents a trade-off between using audited data, which can take three or more years to complete, and using the IBMP value formula, which results in contemporaneous payment of major portion obligations and early certainty for the Indian lessors.

3. ONRR's Discretion To Determine IBMP Value

In the preamble of the proposed rule, ONRR requested comments on whether ONRR should modify paragraph (e) of 30 CFR 1206.54 to provide that ONRR will use its discretion to determine an appropriate IBMP value where there are insufficient lines reported to ONRR on Form ONRR-2014 to determine a differential for a specific crude oil type or when the LCTD varies more than +/- 20 percent. In addition, ONRR requested comments on what would constitute a significant variation.

Public Comment: ONRR only received one general comment on § 1206.54(e). The commenter recommended that ONRR uses the Indian oil valuation standards found in the current oil rule to guide ONRR's discretion to ensure that the IBMP value is tied to the express terms of the lease.

ONRR Response: The provision in § 1206.54(e) providing ONRR with discretion allows ONRR to calculate a value if, for unforeseen circumstances, the data in a particular designated area for a particular crude type would prevent ONRR from accurately calculating the IBMP value. ONRR would still rely on information regarding like-quality oil and the location of the lease to calculate an appropriate differential, consistent with the lease terms. For example, ONRR may use its discretion to review sales data from nearby Federal leases to calculate the differential in situations where a designated area may have insufficient data to calculate an LCTD. Furthermore, ONRR identified designated areas to ensure that there is adequate information provided in the Form ONRR-2014 to calculate the IBMP value.

ONRR decided not to adopt a rule providing us with the discretion to calculate an IBMP value when the LCTD varies more than +/−20 percent. Instead, we will use the final rule's LCTD 10-percent adjustment mechanism to approximate, as close as possible, the 25th percentile major portion price.

4. ONRR's Proposed Designated Areas

Public Comment: A Tribal commenter indicated that Oklahoma should not be a single designated area. The Tribal commenter is concerned that using Oklahoma as a single designated area does not take into account varying transportation costs and differences in the quality of oil.

ONRR Response: In evaluating whether to use the State of Oklahoma as a Designated Area, ONRR analyzed prices and crude types across Oklahoma. In performing the analysis, ONRR did not find that there were any significant differences in the quality of the oil and the price of the oil sufficient to warrant separate designated areas, and, hence, separate LCTD calculations. The proximity of the Indian oil producing leases in Oklahoma to Cushing, Oklahoma, (the market center that serves as the basis of the IBMP value under this rule) reduced the impact of the location differential on the price of the oil. ONRR performed an analysis for the Committee, showing that transportation costs throughout Oklahoma were relatively small and that such costs do not demonstrate a consistent cost difference between leases in close proximity to Cushing and those further away. Although the Designated Area of Oklahoma is in close proximity to Cushing, Oklahoma, ONRR concluded an LCTD was warranted for Oklahoma. Because of its proximity to Cushing, Oklahoma, however, the LCTD for Oklahoma will be minimal.

Public Comment: An individual commenter suggested that ONRR remove the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Seminole Nation's lands in Osage County, Oklahoma, and designate those lands as a “Designated Area.”

ONRR Response: ONRR has confirmed that the Osage Nation owns all of the mineral rights in Osage County, Oklahoma. FOGRMA excludes Osage Indian lands. 30 U.S.C. 1702 (3). Therefore, ONRR cannot include Osage County as its own designated area or enforce the rule on Indian mineral production from Osage County, Oklahoma.

Public Comment: ONRR also received a comment from an industry commenter stating that ONRR has not provided the criteria it will use to determine when to modify or add designated areas. The commenter worries that there is no mechanism for industry “to petition ONRR to modify a designated area in the event that the designated area contains diverse geography and distinguishable access to infrastructure (such as pipelines, rail lines, and trucking).”

ONRR Response: The final rule and the preamble of the proposed rule specifically address the commenter's concerns. The final rule at 30 CFR 1206.51 lists criteria that ONRR will use to determine any future changes to designated areas that are identical to the very criteria that the commenter lists. Such criteria include markets served (such as refineries and market centers) and access to infrastructure (including trucking, pipelines, or rail). 30 CFR 1206.151 (final rule).

Moreover, the preamble to the proposed rule states: “If there is a significant change that affects the differentials for a designated area, affected Tribes, Indian mineral owners, or lessees/operators may petition ONRR to consider conveying a technical committee to review, modify, or add designated areas.” 79 FR 35102; 35104 (Jun. 19, 2014). ONRR will look at the same criteria that we outlined in the final rule to determine any future changes to designated areas. Id.

Public Comment: The industry commenter also takes issue with the final rule's use of “Designated Areas” over “fields” to calculate a price for ONRR to use to calculate the major portion price. The commenter believes that the use of a designated area is inconsistent with the lease language.

ONRR Response: The primary purpose of creating the Committee was to come to a consensus on how to implement the major portion provision found in most Indian leases. Determining the geographic range of data to use to calculate a major portion provision was one of the most highly debated topics in the Committee meetings. As a general rule, Committee members who represented industry advocated for the use of specific fields to calculate a value of oil sold under the major portion provision. Alternatively, Tribes and allottees promoted a broader area focused more on an oil type than the geographic location of the lease. The debate turned to implementing the rule on a field level versus a broader area. Ultimately, the Committee agreed to use “designated areas” developed based on the set criteria defined in the final rule. All meeting presentations, handouts, and meeting minutes are available on the Committee Web site at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/IONR/.

The commenter interprets the lease terms as requiring the Secretary to perform a major portion analysis solely on a field-by-field basis. Standard Indian lease forms commonly include a provision that states:

During the period of supervision, “value” for the purposes hereof, may, in the discretion of the Secretary, be calculated on the basis of the highest price paid or offered . . . at the time of production for the major portion of the oil of the same gravity, and gas, and/or natural gasoline, and/or all other hydrocarbon substances produced from the field where the leased lands are situated . . .

Standard Indian Allotted Lease, para. 3(c)

The rationale of using an area over a field is to ensure that there is a reasonable sample of data to conduct a major portion analysis. ONRR must meet both the requirements of the major portion provision in the leases and the Trade Secrets Act. Under the Trade Secrets Act, ONRR cannot reveal or release information that can be considered a trade secret because doing so may cause competitive harm. The Department has adopted a policy that financial and commercial data is proprietary. ONRR uses financial and commercial data that payors report to conduct a major portion analysis. Thus, ONRR has determined that, to perform a major portion analysis, it needs an area large enough to have at least three payors. Otherwise, it would be possible for a party to use the value data that ONRR provides with its calculations, combine it with other publicly available data, and determine the price that other industry members are selling their oil.

ONRR has consistently interpreted the Secretary's discretion language in Indian leases as allowing ONRR to evaluate the major portion price in areas as well as fields. See 30 CFR 1206.152; 1206.52; 1206.51; 30 CFR 206.103 (1984); and Notice to Lessees and Operators of Indian Oil and Gas Leases (NTL-1A), 42 FR 18135 (Apr. 5, 1977). In fact, under the Indian gas valuation rule, ONRR calculates the major portion price for Indian-gas-based designated areas similar to those proposed in this rule. See 30 CFR 1206.173(a)(2)(i) (2013).

The Navajo Nation Reservation provides an example of ONRR's reasoning to expand the field to a designated area. Ninety-seven percent of production on the Navajo Nation Reservation comes from one field and reservoir, the Greater Aneth Field in the Paradox Basin. Six payors report production from the Greater Aneth Field. The remaining 3 percent of production on the Navajo Nation Reservation comes from 24 fields with less than three payors on 22 of those 24 fields. The oil produced and sold on the Navajo Reservation is similar in all fields and is transported to the same refinery using similar transportation systems. Thus, to properly perform a major portion analysis for any oil production on the Navajo Reservation, ONRR expands the Designated Area to incorporate fields surrounding the Greater Aneth because the individual fields do not provide an appropriate sample size.

Public Comment: The same commenter next disputes ONRR's use of an entire reservation as a designated area. The commenter believes that using a reservation as a designated area fails to accurately account for local price differences and transportation costs that can vary within the reservation. The commenter uses the Navajo Nation Reservation as an example, illustrating the difficulties of obtaining accurate differentials. The commenter further states that it does not see that ONRR took into consideration geography and access to infrastructure within the reservations when we created the designated areas based on reservation boundaries.

ONRR Response: The Committee had exhaustive and extensive discussions regarding the amount and variation of transportation for each of the designated areas, including the factors that the commenter lists. As discussed above, ONRR evaluated the oil produced on the Navajo Nation Reservation, including the quality of the oil produced, transportation methods, and refineries used. Based on ONRR's analysis, the Committee determined that one Designated Area on the Navajo Nation Reservation adequately captured the differentials between oil produced on the reservation and oil sold in Cushing.

5. The Roll

Public Comment: ONRR received two comments in response to its request for comments on how ONRR changes the roll. ONRR sought comments on the flexibility of changing how it defines the roll or terminating the roll, with the caveat that it will publish any changes to the roll in the Federal Register. An industry commenter supported the ability for ONRR to terminate or redefine the roll only if such changes are published in the Federal Register, and ONRR provides industry the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. The second commenter suggested that ONRR eliminate the roll from its calculations altogether. The roll applies only to Indian oil produced in Oklahoma.

ONRR Response: ONRR will publish any changes to the roll in the Federal Register to provide notice and the opportunity for comment. ONRR incorporates the roll based on the agreement of the Committee and the fact that most contracts for oil sold from Indian leases in Oklahoma, which reference NYMEX prices, include the roll. Therefore, ONRR is keeping the roll in the final rule.

6. Transportation Allowances

Public Comment: ONRR received comments from five individual Indian mineral owners and one Tribe arguing that ONRR does not have the authority to include transportation allowances as part of the royalty equation.

ONRR Response: ONRR disagrees. The Act of June 30, 1834 (25 U.S.C. 9); the Act of March 3, 1909 (25 U.S.C. 396); the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a-396g); the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.); and the FOGRMA (Pub. L. 97-451; 30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) authorize the Secretary to promulgate whatever regulations are necessary to implement those statutes.

The rationale for allowing lessees to deduct transportation costs comes from the language of the lease. Generally, Indian oil leases provide that the lessee will pay the Tribe or individual Indian mineral owner a certain percent of the “value or amount of all oil, gas, and/or natural gasoline, and/or all other hydrocarbon substances produced and saved from the land leased herein.” See Standard Indian Allotted Lease, para. 3(c) (Emphasis added). In essence, transportation allowance accounts for the costs that a lessee must incur to move its production to a market and, therefore, captures the value at the lease. The lessor shares in this expense because the lessor reaps the benefit of selling its lease production at a market rather than at the wellhead. If the lessor were to take its royalties in kind (i.e. in barrels of oil), the lessor would then incur all of the cost of transporting the oil production to a market to sell the oil.

To comply with this provision, for decades ONRR's regulations have allowed a lessee to deduct its transportation costs to calculate the value of their Indian oil production when it sells that oil at a location remote from the lease. See 53 FR 1184 (Jan. 15, 1988) (promulgating rule incorporating transportation allowances to determine the value of Federal and Indian oil production, for royalty purposes). ONRR has consistently allowed transportation costs because transporting oil to market off of the lease increases the value of the oil.

Courts have upheld the use of transportation allowances as a means to calculate the value of oil production for royalty purposes. See United States v. General Petroleum Corp. of California, 73 F. Supp. 225, 262 (S.D. Cal. 1946), aff'd sub nom Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 184 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1950) (stating “It has been held that if there is no open market in the place where an article ordinarily would be sold, the market value of such article in the nearest open market less cost of transportation to such open market becomes the market value of the article in question.”). The IBLA has confirmed allowing such deductions to Indian leases, consistent with Interior policy. Kerr-McGee Corp., 22 IBLA 24 (1975).

Public Comment: One commenter claims that allowing lessees to deduct transportation allowances from the value of their oil is a taking that is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

ONRR Response: ONRR disagrees. Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government cannot deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This provision is not violated or implicated by the final rule. This final rule will not impose conditions or limitations on the use of private property, and this final rule does not modify the current regulations to allow additional transportation costs. Therefore, this final rule does not result in a takings.

Public Comment: A Tribal commenter commented on using a statewide index for transportation costs in Oklahoma when the costs of transportation in the State will vary from location to location, thus “increasing with distance from the point of sale.”

ONRR Response: The Committee debated the issue of whether to allow location differentials for Oklahoma as a designated area. As we stated previously, ONRR performed an analysis for the Committee showing that there were small amounts of transportation costs that Indian lessees claimed throughout Oklahoma. The analysis showed that, although there were small amounts of transportation in Oklahoma, such costs did not demonstrate a consistent cost difference between leases in close proximity to Cushing and those further away. ONRR found that a lease located within a few miles of Cushing may have a higher transportation cost than a lease hundreds of miles away. Although the Designated Area of Oklahoma is in close proximity to Cushing, Oklahoma, ONRR concluded that an LCTD was warranted for Oklahoma. However, because of its proximity to Cushing, Oklahoma, the LCTD for Oklahoma will be minimal.

7. Comments in Response to Other Proposed Changes to the Indian Oil Rule

In addition to the major portion component of the proposed Indian oil valuation rule, ONRR requested comments concerning amending some of the provisions governing transportation allowances. Specifically, ONRR requested comments on (1) eliminating the requirement under the current rule to file a Form ONRR-4110, Oil Transportation Allowance Report, for arm's-length transportation agreements, which would mirror the requirement to file arm's-length transportation contracts with ONRR—rather than a form—under the current Indian Gas Valuation Rule at 30 CFR 1206.178(a)(1)(i); (2) removing the requirement that lessees submit a Form ONRR-4110 for non-arm's-length transportation allowances in advance of claiming an allowance and, instead, submit actual cost information in support of the allowance on its Form ONRR-4110, again mirroring the current Indian Gas Rule; (3) eliminating transportation factors under § 1206.57(a)(5); and (4) eliminating a lessee's ability to request to exceed the 50-percent limitation on transportation allowances under the current rule at § 1206.56(b)(2).

Public Comment: Generally, commenters supported removing the form filing requirements for arm's-length transportation allowances. A couple of industry commenters, however, requested guidance on what types of agreements that ONRR would require in order to claim a transportation allowance and what format ONRR would accept the agreement to be in (hardcopy, email, flashdrive, etc.). A Tribal commenter recommended that ONRR require lessees to provide hard copies of their transportation contracts.

ONRR Response: The final rule mirrors the Indian Gas Valuation Rule and requires payors to file arm's-length transportation contracts with ONRR rather than Form ONRR-4110. See 30 CFR 1206.178(a)(1)(i). ONRR will provide guidance to payors on the acceptable types and forms of contracts on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the Indian lessor's preferences.

Public Comment: For non-arm's-length transportation allowances, ONRR received two comments in support of the change proposed. The Tribal commenter, however, requested that ONRR require lessees to notify ONRR in advance that the lessee will apply a non-arm's-length transportation allowance against the value of the oil production. The Tribal commenter feels that this notice would be helpful in identifying areas of risk and discouraging lessees from failing to report transportation allowances.

ONRR Response: ONRR appreciates the comment and suggestion. The Form ONRR-4110 does not require lessees to provide notice and, at this time, ONRR will not require lessees to provide notice. ONRR understands the Tribal commenter's concerns regarding reporting transportation allowances. Under the current rule and final rule, however, lessees must report any non-arm's-length transportation allowances as a separate line on Form ONRR-2014. Should any auditor find that a lessee is reporting its oil production net of a transportation allowances, the auditor should refer the matter to ONRR's Office of Enforcement. ONRR's Office of Enforcement will investigate, enforce the regulations, and, where necessary, issue civil penalties.

Public Comment: ONRR received three opposing comments from industry and one supporting comment from a Tribe in response to its request for comments to eliminate transportation factors.

ONRR Response: ONRR believes that the increased transparency associated with eliminating transportation factors will better facilitate (1) ONRR's monitoring of oil values and (2) the accuracy of those values. Because of the other more important aspects of this rule, however, and our desire to have consistency with the Indian gas valuation rule, ONRR has decided to pursue this issue in a future rulemaking for both Indian oil and gas production.

Public Comment: One commenter stated that it opposed eliminating transportation factors because it could not find a definition of a transportation factor. The commenter indicated it was impossible to comment without such a definition. Another industry commenter stated that “transportation factors used for oil often include both a location and a quality differential, and it may not be possible to separate this factor between the two differentials.”

ONRR Response: The current rule does not provide a definition for a transportation factor. If an arm's-length contract price or posted price includes a provision by which the purchaser reduces the listed price to reflect the purchaser's transportation costs and then pays the lessee a net value under that arm's-length contract, ONRR deems the amount of the transportation reduction to be a transportation factor. A transportation factor is an actual transportation cost embedded in the arm's-length sales contract. See 30 CFR 1206.57. Because these actual transportation costs are part of what a lessee reports as the sales price of the oil that the lessee sells and are not separately reported transportation allowances, ONRR and its Indian lessors do not see the cost of transporting the oil to the point of sale as it would with transportation allowances. While ONRR believes that eliminating transportation factors increases transparency and certainty, ONRR has decided not to eliminate transportation factors in the final rule. Because of the more important aspects of the final rule and our desire to have consistency with the Indian gas valuation rule, ONRR has decided to pursue this issue in a future rulemaking for both Indian oil and gas production.

Public Comment: ONRR received three opposing comments from industry groups and one supporting comment from a Tribe in response to its request for comments on removing the provision under 30 CFR 1206.56(b)(2) that allows lessees to request an exception of the 50-percent limitation on transportation allowances.

ONRR Response: The final rule retains a lessee's ability to request approval to exceed the 50-percent limitation on transportation allowances. Under the current rule and the final rule, ONRR has the authority to review each and every request to ensure that the exception still represents a lessee's reasonable, actual, and necessary transportation costs. To date, ONRR has yet to receive a request for a transportation allowance to exceed 50 percent of the value of the Indian oil production. At this time, ONRR does not anticipate it will begin to receive such requests. Should ONRR receive a request to exceed, however, the Agency will review the request and all data involved, then we will consult with the Indian lessor before deciding to allow the lessee to exceed 50 percent. ONRR believes that these controls satisfy its trust responsibility to the Indian lessor.

C. Specific Comments on 30 CFR Part 1210—Forms and Reports, Subpart B—Royalty Reports—Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

ONRR did not receive comments specific to 30 CFR part 1210.

D. Principal Changes

Under the proposed rule, ONRR stated, “for every month following the first full production month after this rule is effective, ONRR will monitor the LCTD using data reported on the Form ONRR-2014 for the previous month.” ONRR discovered, however, that, because companies can report on estimates, significant volumes of Indian oil sales are not reported by the last day of the month following the month of production. ONRR allows lessees to make a one-time estimate of their monthly royalty obligation in order to report and pay future royalties two months following the month of production. ONRR monitors a lessee's monthly reporting to ensure that the estimate on file with ONRR is sufficient, and, if it is not, then ONRR bills the lessee for late payment interest for the amount of the estimate that is insufficient.

Because of these estimates, many lessees do not report a large volume of Indian oil sales by the last day of the month following the month of production, ONRR is modifying the rule to use data from two months prior to the production month to monitor whether we will adjust the LCTD. This change will ensure that the data that ONRR uses to adjust the LCTD captures the majority of oil sales for that particular production month. Because ONRR will require the sales data from two months prior to the production month, ONRR will not make any adjustments to the LCTD for the first two production months after the rule is in effect.

III. Procedural Matters 1. Summary Cost and Royalty Impact Data

We estimated the costs and benefits that this rulemaking may have on all potentially affected groups: Industry, Indian Lessors, and the Federal government. This amendment will result in an estimated annual increase in royalty collections of between $19.4 million and $20.6 million for ONRR to disburse to Indian lessors. This net impact represents a minimal increase of between 3.82 percent and 3.93 percent of the total Indian oil royalties that ONRR collected in 2012. We also estimate that Industry and the Federal government will experience one-time increased system costs of approximately $4.84 million and $247 thousand, respectively.

A. Industry

The table below lists ONRR's low, mid-range, and high estimates of the additional royalty costs that Industry will incur in the first year (excluding one-time system costs). Industry will incur these costs in the same amount each year thereafter.

Summary of Royalty Impacts to Industry Low Mid High $19,400,000 $20,000,000 $20,600,000 Cost—Using the Higher of the Index-Based Major Portion Formula Value or Gross Proceeds To Value Indian Oil Sales

As discussed above, the final rule contains a provision under 30 CFR 1206.54 that explains how a lessee must meet its obligation to value oil produced from Indian leases based on the highest price paid for a major portion of like-quality oil from the field. This rule defines the monthly IBMP value that a lessee must compare to its gross proceeds and pay on the higher of those two values.

To perform this economic analysis, ONRR used royalty data that we collected for Indian oil (product code 01) for calendar year 2012. We chose calendar year 2012 because most data reported has gone through ONRR edits and lessees have made most of their adjustments. We did not distinguish crude oil type within each designated area because (1), based on our experience, crude oil type within each designated area is generally the same, and (2) lessees currently do not report crude oil type to ONRR.

We then segregated the data into the following 14 designated areas:

1. Uintah and Ouray—Uintah and Grand Counties 2. Uintah and Ouray—Duchesne County 3. North Fort Berthold 4. South Fort Berthold 5. Oklahoma—One statewide area excluding Osage County 6. Fort Peck 7. Turtle Mountain 8. Blackfeet Indian Reservation 9. Crow Indian Reservation 10. Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation 11. Isabella Indian Reservation (Saginaw Chippewa) 12. Navajo Indian Reservation 13. Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation 14. Wind River Indian Reservation

We first arrayed the monthly reported prices—net of transportation—from highest to lowest and then calculated the monthly major portion price as that price at which 25 percent plus 1 barrel (by volume) of the oil is sold (starting from the highest price). Next, we calculated the difference between the reported prices and the major portion price. For any price below the major portion price, we multiplied the price difference by the royalty volume to estimate additional royalties.

Lastly, we totaled all of the monthly additional royalties for each designated area and then totaled all of the areas to arrive at an additional average royalty amount of $20 million. This amount represents 3.70 percent of all Indian oil royalties collected in 2012, or, approximately, $0.558/bbl.

Of note, we did not use the LCTD in this analysis. The rule uses the LCTD to calculate the IBMP value, which keeps the gross proceeds volume near the 25th percentile, through monthly monitoring and adjustments to the LCTD. Rather, we used the actual monthly major portion price in our analysis. Because we used the actual monthly major portion price, we did not account for the potential +/− 3 percent volume variation adjustments that the rule would allow. Instead, we created a +/− 3 percent range of royalty impacts above and below the estimated additional royalties, reflected in the table above.

Cost—System Changes To Accommodate Reporting of Crude Oil Type

ONRR needs to know crude oil types to calculate and publish the IBMP value. Therefore, § 1210.61 requires a lessee to report crude oil types using new product codes on Form ONRR-2014. ONRR anticipates that a lessee will make computer system changes to add these new product codes to their automated reporting.

We identified 205 Indian payors (those reporting and paying royalties to ONRR) in 2012. Of those, ONRR identified 32 as large businesses and 173 as small businesses (based on the SBA definition of a small business having 500 employees or fewer). To more accurately reflect the Indian payor community—based on our experience, we reclassified the 173 small businesses into two categories: Medium and small companies. We defined a medium company as those companies with between 250 and 500 employees. We also defined small companies as those companies with 250 or fewer employees. We classified 58 companies as medium companies and 115 companies as small companies.

ONRR first identified the changes that we must make to our systems in order to accommodate the requirements (adding product codes and edits, changing and adding reports, and modifying Oil and Gas Operations Reports, Form ONRR-4054 (OGORs)) of this rule and then estimated the number of hours needed to make those changes. We then multiplied those hours by our estimated hourly cost (including contractors) to implement system changes. Some of the hours calculated for ONRR include costs that Industry would not incur, such as eCommerce updates, changes to the compliance management tool, and web publishing.

We used this same process for large businesses, reducing or eliminating the hours for some categories, but used the same hourly cost because most large companies employ system contractors similar to those ONRR employs and, therefore, would have similar system change costs.

We reduced the hours for the medium (200 hours) and small companies (100 hours) to reflect the fact that their systems are smaller and less complex. We also reduced the hourly rate for medium and small businesses to $100 and $75, respectively, reflecting lower contractor costs. The table below provides our estimate of system change costs for both ONRR and Industry.

System changes ONRR Large
  • business
  • Medium
  • business
  • Small
  • business
  • Adding product codes to ONRR 2014-PS 100 100 100 50 Adding product codes to ONRR 2014-eCommerce 100 0 0 0 Adding new edit 150 75 0 0 Changing reports 250 100 0 0 Changes to CPT 150 0 0 0 Changes to Web publishing 150 0 0 0 Changes to OGOR/PASR form 150 100 100 50 Total hours 1,050 375 200 100 Average hourly rate × $235 × $235 × $100 × $75 Cost per entity [Total hours × Average hourly rate] $246,750 $88,125 $20,000 $7,500 Number of Businesses N/A × 32 × 58 × 115 Total cost $2,820,000 $1,160,000 $862,500 Industry Grand Total $4,842,500

    The table below lists the overall estimated first year economic impact to Industry from the changes, based on the mid-range estimate of costs:

    Description Annual (cost)/benefit amount Cost—Major Portion Royalty ($20,000,000) Cost—System Changes ($4,842,500) Net First Year Cost to Industry ($24,842,500)

    After the first year, we anticipate that the estimated cost to Industry will be approximately $20,000,000 each year, based on 2012 data.

    B. Indian Lessors

    The impact to Indian lessors will be a net overall increase in royalties as a result of this change. This royalty increase will equal the royalty increase from Industry, or $20 million.

    C. Federal Government Cost—System Changes To Accommodate Reporting of Crude Oil Type

    The Federal Government will incur system costs to accommodate crude oil type reporting similar to Industry. As detailed above, ONRR estimates that it will take 1,050 hours to implement system changes related to this rule, equating to a total cost of $246,750.

    This rule will have no impact on Federal royalties. We also believe that there will be no administrative cost increases to the Federal Government because administrative savings due to decreased audit and litigation costs will offset the additional work needed to monitor and adjust the LCTD and IBMP value.

    D. Summary of Royalty Impacts and Costs to Industry, Indian Lessors, and the Federal Government

    In the table below, the negative values in the Industry column represent their estimated royalty and cost increases, while the positive values in the other columns represent the increase in Indian royalty receipts. For the purposes of this summary table, we assumed that the average for royalty increases is the midpoint of our range.

    Summary of Costs & Royalties the First Year Industry Indian Federal
  • Government
  • Annual Additional Royalties Paid ($20,000,000) $0 $0 Cost to Modify Systems ($4,842,500) $0 ($246,750) Additional Royalties Received $0 $20,000,000 $0 Total ($24,842,500) $20,000,000 ($246,750)

    After the first year, this rule will cost industry approximately $20 million per year in additional royalties paid, and Indian lessors will increase their annual royalty receipts by approximately $20 million. The Federal Government will not incur any additional costs after the first year.

    2. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rulemaking. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. This executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior (Department) certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    This rule will affect lessees under Indian mineral leases (excluding Osage Indian leases in Oklahoma). Lessees of Federal and Indian mineral leases are generally companies classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 211111, which includes companies that extract crude petroleum and natural gas. For this NAICS code classification, a small company is one with fewer than 500 employees. Approximately 205 different companies submit royalty and production reports from Indian leases to ONRR each month. In addition, approximately 32 companies are large businesses under the U.S. Small Business Administration definition because they have over 500 employees. The Department believes that the remaining 173 companies affected by this rule are small businesses.

    As provided in 1A Industry of the Procedural Matters section, we believe that industry will incur a one-time cost to comply with this rule. On average, ONRR estimates that each small business will incur a one-time cost of between $7,500 and $20,000 to modify their systems to comply with this rule.

    As we stated earlier, we believe, based on 2012 Indian oil sales, this rule will cost industry approximately $20 million dollars per year. Small businesses only accounted for 13.55 percent of the oil volumes sold in 2012. Applying that percentage to industry costs, ONRR estimates that the major portion provision will cost all small-business lessors approximately $2,710,000 per year. The amount will vary for each company depending on the volume of production that each small business produces and sells each year. We believe that reduced administrative costs, such as reduced accounting, auditing, and litigation expenses, will offset some of these costs.

    In sum, we do not believe that this rule will result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities because (1) the initial one-time cost to a small business to modify its system will be between $7,500 and $20,000, and (2) this rule will cost the small businesses a collective total of $2,710,000 per year. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will not be required, and, accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide will not be required.

    Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and ten Regional Fairness Boards receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman annually evaluates the enforcement activities and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of ONRR, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.

    4. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rulemaking:

    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The effect will be limited to a maximum estimated at $2,710,000, which equals the $20,000,000 yearly cost of this rule to industry at large multiplied by 13.55 percent (volumes sold attributable to small businesses).

    b. Does not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Indian, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.

    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. We are not required to provide a statement containing the information that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires because this rule is not an unfunded mandate.

    6. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in section 2 of E.O. 12630, this rule does not have any significant takings implications. This rule will not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property. Therefore, this rule does not require a Takings Implication Assessment.

    7. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. The management of Indian leases is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior, and ONRR distributes all of the royalties that it collects from Indian leases to Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners. Because this rule does not alter that relationship, this rule does not require a Federalism summary impact statement.

    8. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires that we review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and write them to minimize litigation.

    b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires that we write all regulations in clear language using clear legal standards.

    9. Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

    The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Under the Department's consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated this rule and determined that it has no Tribal implications that will impose substantial, direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments.

    Prior to formally promulgating this rule and throughout this rulemaking, ONRR has consulted with Tribes and representatives of individual Indian mineral owners as collaborative partners. On December 1, 2011, the Secretary signed the charter of the Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee) and authorized the Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the Committee included the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes, Land Owners Association (Fort Berthold), Navajo Nation, Oklahoma Indian Land/Mineral Owners of Associated Nations, Ute Indian Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Blackfeet Nation and individual Indian mineral owner associations. The Committee engaged in substantive discussions under the Department's consultation policy; engaging in negotiated rulemaking is an appropriate process to engage in Tribal consultation.

    Also, under this consultation policy and Executive Order criteria with Indian Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners on all policy changes that may affect them, ONRR scheduled public meetings in five different locations for the purpose of consulting with Indian Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners and to obtain public comments from other interested parties.

    ONRR held consultation sessions with Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners on October 29, 2013, at the Civic Center in New Town, North Dakota; November 6, 2013, at Ft. Washakie, Wyoming; December 14, 2013, at the Wes Watkins Technology Center at Wetumka, Oklahoma; March 19-20, 2014, at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and March 31, 2014, at the BIA Agency in Ft. Duchene, Utah.

    10. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule:

    (1) Does not contain any new information collection requirements.

    (2) Does not require a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    This rule will modify § 1210.61 to require a lessee of Indian leases to report additional product codes for crude oil types on Form ONRR-2014. Currently, OMB approved a total of 239,937 burden hours for lessees to file their Forms ONRR-2014 under OMB Control Number 1012-0004. ONRR estimates that there will be no additional burden hours, beyond the initial hours that industry must incur in order to modify systems so as to accommodate this rule, to report the applicable crude oil type in the product code field.

    This rule also changes the form filing requirements necessary to claim a transportation allowance for oil produced from Indian leases. Currently, OMB approved a total of 220 burden hours for lessees to file their Forms ONRR-4110 under OMB Control Number 1012-0002. ONRR estimates that there will be no additional burden hours because this rule will insignificantly reduce the burden hours associated with the Oil Transportation Allowance Report (Form ONRR-4110) under OMB Control Number 1012-0002. Rather than submitting estimated transportation cost information on the form and then following up with actual cost information at the end of the reporting cycle, the rule will require only responses with actual cost information. Also, under this rule, Indian lessees that have arm's-length transportation costs will no longer submit a Form ONRR-4110 to ONRR but will, instead, submit copies of the actual contracts to ONRR.

    11. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(c) and (i) and the DOI Departmental Manual, part 516, section 15.4.D: “(c) Routine financial transactions including such things as . . . audits, fees, bonds, and royalties . . . (i) Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” We have also determined that this rule is not involved in any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that require further analysis under NEPA. The procedural changes resulting from the IBMP value would have no consequence on the physical environment. This rule does not alter, in any material way, natural resources exploration, production, or transportation.

    12. Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. and, therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    List of Subjects 30 CFR Part 1206

    Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Indians—lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    30 CFR Part 1210

    Continental shelf, Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Indian leases, Indians—lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas reporting, Phosphate, Potassium, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Royalties, Sales contracts, Sales summary, Sodium, Solid minerals, Sulfur.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. Kristen J. Sarri, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ONRR amends 30 CFR parts 1206 and 1210 as follows:

    PART 1206—PRODUCT VALUATION 1. The authority for part 1206 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. 396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq., 1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1331 et seq., and 1801 et seq.

    2. Revise subpart B of part 1206 to read as follows: Subpart B—Indian Oil Sec. 1206.50 What is the purpose of this subpart? 1206.51 What definitions apply to this subpart? 1206.52 How do I calculate royalty value for oil that I or my affiliate sell(s) or exchange(s) under an arm's-length contract? 1206.53 How do I calculate royalty value for oil that I or my affiliate do(es) not sell under an arm's-length contract? 1206.54 How do I fulfill the lease provision regarding valuing production on the basis of the major portion of like-quality oil? 1206.55 What are my responsibilities to place production into marketable condition and to market production? 1206.56 What general transportation allowance requirements apply to me? 1206.57 How do I determine a transportation allowance if I have an arm's-length transportation contract? 1206.58 How do I determine a transportation allowance if I have a non-arm's-length transportation contract or have no contract? 1206.59 What interest applies if I improperly report a transportation allowance? 1206.60 What reporting adjustments must I make for transportation allowances? 1206.61 How will ONRR determine if my royalty payments are correct? 1206.62 How do I request a value determination? 1206.63 How do I determine royalty quantity and quality? 1206.64 What records must I keep to support my calculations of value under this subpart? 1206.65 Does ONRR protect information I provide? Subpart B—Indian Oil
    § 1206.50 What is the purpose of this subpart?

    (a) This subpart applies to all oil produced from Indian (Tribal and allotted) oil and gas leases (except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation, Osage County, Oklahoma). This subpart does not apply to Federal leases, including Federal leases for which revenues are shared with Alaska Native Corporations. This subpart:

    (1) Explains how you as a lessee must calculate the value of production for royalty purposes consistent with Indian mineral leasing laws, other applicable laws, and lease terms.

    (2) Ensures the United States discharges its trust responsibilities for administering Indian oil and gas leases under the governing Indian mineral leasing laws, treaties, and lease terms.

    (b) If you dispose of or report production on behalf of a lessee, the terms “you” and “your” in this subpart refer to you and not to the lessee. In this circumstance, you must determine and report royalty value for the lessee's oil by applying the rules in this subpart to your disposition of the lessee's oil.

    (c) If the regulations in this subpart are inconsistent with:

    (1) A Federal statute;

    (2) A settlement agreement between the United States, Indian lessor, and a lessee resulting from administrative or judicial litigation;

    (3) A written agreement between the Indian lessor, lessee, and the ONRR Director establishing a method to determine the value of production from any lease that ONRR expects at least would approximate the value established under this subpart; or

    (4) An express provision of an oil and gas lease subject to this subpart then the statute, settlement agreement, written agreement, or lease provision will govern to the extent of the inconsistency.

    (d) ONRR or Indian Tribes, which have a cooperative agreement with ONRR to audit under 30 U.S.C. 1732, may audit, or perform other compliance reviews, and require a lessee to adjust royalty payments and reports.

    § 1206.51 What definitions apply to this subpart?

    For purposes of this subpart:

    Affiliate means a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another person.

    (1) Ownership or common ownership of more than 50 percent of the voting securities, or instruments of ownership, or other forms of ownership, of another person constitutes control. Ownership of less than 10 percent constitutes a presumption of non-control that ONRR may rebut.

    (2) If there is ownership or common ownership of 10 through 50 percent of the voting securities or instruments of ownership, or other forms of ownership, of another person, ONRR will consider the following factors in determining whether there is control in a particular case:

    (i) The extent to which there are common officers or directors;

    (ii) With respect to the voting securities, or instruments of ownership, or other forms of ownership:

    (A) The percentage of ownership or common ownership;

    (B) The relative percentage of ownership or common ownership compared to the percentage(s) of ownership by other persons;

    (C) Whether a person is the greatest single owner; and

    (D) Whether there is an opposing voting bloc of greater ownership;

    (iii) Operation of a lease, plant, or other facility;

    (iv) The extent of participation by other owners in operations and day-to-day management of a lease, plant, or other facility; and

    (v) Other evidence of power to exercise control over or common control with another person.

    (3) Regardless of any percentage of ownership or common ownership, relatives, either by blood or marriage, are affiliates.

    Area means a geographic region at least as large as the defined limits of an oil and/or gas field in which oil and/or gas lease products have similar quality, economic, and legal characteristics.

    Arm's-length contract means a contract or agreement between independent persons who are not affiliates and who have opposing economic interests regarding that contract. To be considered arm's-length for any production month, a contract must satisfy this definition for that month, as well as when the contract was executed.

    Audit means a review, conducted under the generally accepted Governmental Auditing Standards, of royalty reporting and payment activities of lessees, designees, or other persons who pay royalties, rents, or bonuses on Indian leases.

    BLM means the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior.

    Condensate means liquid hydrocarbons (generally exceeding 40 degrees of API gravity) recovered at the surface without resorting to processing. Condensate is the mixture of liquid hydrocarbons that results from condensation of petroleum hydrocarbons existing initially in a gaseous phase in an underground reservoir.

    Contract means any oral or written agreement, including amendments or revisions thereto, between two or more persons and enforceable by law that with due consideration creates an obligation.

    Designated area means an area that ONRR designates for purposes of calculating Location and Crude Type Differentials applied to an IBMP value. ONRR will post designated areas on our Web site at www.onrr.gov. ONRR will monitor the market activity in the designated areas and, if necessary, hold a technical conference to review, modify, or add a particular designated area. ONRR will post any change to the designated areas on our Web site at www.onrr.gov. Criteria to determine any future changes to designated areas include, but are not limited to: Markets served, examples include refineries and/or market centers, such as Cushing, OK; access to markets, examples include access to similar infrastructure, such as pipelines, rail lines, and trucking; and/or similar geography, examples include no challenging geographical divides, large rivers, and/or mountains.

    Exchange agreement means an agreement where one person agrees to deliver oil to another person at a specified location in exchange for oil deliveries at another location, as well as other consideration(s). Exchange agreements:

    (1) May or may not specify prices for the oil involved;

    (2) Frequently specify dollar amounts reflecting location, quality, or other differentials;

    (3) Include buy/sell agreements, which specify prices to be paid at each exchange point and may appear to be two separate sales within the same agreement or in separate agreements; and

    (4) May include, but are not limited to, exchanges of produced oil for specific types of oil (e.g. WTI); exchanges of produced oil for other oil at other locations (location trades); exchanges of produced oil for other grades of oil (grade trades); and multi-party exchanges.

    Field means a geographic region situated over one or more subsurface oil and gas reservoirs encompassing at least the outermost boundaries of all oil and gas accumulations known to be within those reservoirs vertically projected to the land surface. Onshore fields usually are given names, and their official boundaries are often designated by oil and gas regulatory agencies in the respective States in which the fields are located.

    Gathering means the movement of lease production to a central accumulation or treatment point on the lease, unit, or communitized area or to a central accumulation or treatment point off of the lease, unit, or communitized area, as BLM operations personnel approve.

    Gross proceeds means the total monies and other consideration accruing for the disposition of oil produced. Gross proceeds also include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

    (1) Payments for services, such as dehydration, marketing, measurement, or gathering that the lessee must perform—at no cost to the lessor—in order to put the production into marketable condition;

    (2) The value of services to put the production into marketable condition, such as salt water disposal, that the lessee normally performs but that the buyer performs on the lessee's behalf

    (3) Reimbursements for harboring or terminalling fees;

    (4) Tax reimbursements, even though the Indian royalty interest may be exempt from taxation;

    (5) Payments made to reduce or buy down the purchase price of oil to be produced in later periods by allocating those payments over the production whose price the payment reduces and including the allocated amounts as proceeds for the production as it occurs; and

    (6) Monies and all other consideration to which a seller is contractually or legally entitled but does not seek to collect through reasonable efforts.

    IBMP means the Index-Based Major Portion value calculated under § 1206.54.

    Indian Tribe means any Indian Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community, rancheria, colony, or other group of Indians for which any minerals or interest in minerals is held in trust by the United States or that is subject to Federal restriction against alienation.

    Individual Indian mineral owner means any Indian for whom minerals or an interest in minerals is held in trust by the United States or who holds title subject to Federal restriction against alienation.

    Lease means any contract, profit-share arrangement, joint venture, or other agreement issued or approved by the United States under an Indian mineral leasing law that authorizes exploration for, development or extraction of, or removal of lease products. Depending on the context, lease may also refer to the land area that the authorization covers.

    Lease products means any leased minerals attributable to, originating from, or allocated to Indian leases.

    Lessee means any person to whom the United States, a Tribe, or individual Indian mineral owner issues a lease and any person who has been assigned an obligation to make royalty or other payments required by the lease. Lessee includes:

    (1) Any person who has an interest in a lease (including operating rights owners).

    (2) An operator, purchaser, or other person with no lease interest who reports and/or makes royalty payments to ONRR or the lessor on the lessee's behalf.

    Lessor means an Indian Tribe or individual Indian mineral owner who has entered into a lease.

    Like-quality oil means oil that has similar chemical and physical characteristics.

    Location and Crude Type Differential (LCTD) means the difference in value between the NYMEX Calendar Monthly Average (CMA) and the value that approximates the monthly Major Portion Price for any given month, designated area, and crude oil type.

    Location differential means an amount paid or received (whether in money or in barrels of oil) under an exchange agreement that results from differences in location between oil delivered in exchange and oil received in the exchange. A location differential may represent all or part of the difference between the price received for oil delivered and the price paid for oil received under a buy/sell exchange agreement.

    Major Portion Price means the highest price paid or offered at the time of production for the major portion of oil produced from the same designated area for the same crude oil type.

    Marketable condition means lease products that are sufficiently free from impurities and otherwise in a condition that they will be accepted by a purchaser under a sales contract typical for the field or area.

    Net means to reduce the reported sales value to account for transportation instead of reporting a transportation allowance as a separate entry on Form ONRR-2014.

    NYMEX Calendar Month Average Price means the average of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) daily settlement prices for light sweet oil delivered at Cushing, Oklahoma, calculated as follows:

    (1) Sum the prices published for each day during the calendar month of production (excluding weekends and holidays) for oil to be delivered in the nearest month of delivery for which NYMEX futures prices are published corresponding to each such day.

    (2) Divide the sum by the number of days on which those prices are published (excluding weekends and holidays).

    Oil means a mixture of hydrocarbons that existed in the liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating facilities and is marketed or used as such. Condensate recovered in lease separators or field facilities is considered to be oil.

    ONRR means the Office of Natural Resources Revenue of the Department of the Interior.

    Operating rights owner, also known as a working interest owner, means any person who owns operating rights in a lease subject to this subpart. A record title owner is the owner of operating rights under a lease until the operating rights have been transferred from record title (see Bureau of Land Management regulations at 43 CFR 3100.0-5(d)).

    Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium, or joint venture (when established as a separate entity).

    Processing means any process designed to remove elements or compounds (hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon) from gas, including absorption, adsorption, or refrigeration. Field processes that normally take place on or near the lease, such as natural pressure reduction, mechanical separation, heating, cooling, dehydration, and compression, are not considered processing. The changing of pressures and/or temperatures in a reservoir is not considered processing.

    Prompt month means the nearest month of delivery for which NYMEX futures prices are published during the trading month.

    Quality differential means an amount paid or received under an exchange agreement (whether in money or in barrels of oil) that results from differences in API gravity, sulfur content, viscosity, metals content, and other quality factors between oil delivered and oil received in the exchange. A quality differential may represent all or part of the difference between the price received for oil delivered and the price paid for oil received under a buy/sell agreement.

    Roll means an adjustment to the NYMEX price that is calculated as follows: Roll = .6667 × (P0−P1) + .3333 × (P0−P2), where: P0 = the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during the prompt month that is the same as the month of production, as published for each day during the trading month for which the month of production is the prompt month; P1 = the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during the month following the month of production, published for each day during the trading month for which the month of production is the prompt month; and P2 = the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during the second month following the month of production, as published for each day during the trading month for which the month of production is the prompt month. Calculate the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices using only the days on which such prices are published (excluding weekends and holidays). ONRR reserves the option of terminating the use of the roll when ONRR believes that the roll is no longer a common industry practice. ONRR also retains the option to redefine how to calculate the roll to comport with changes in industry practice. To terminate or otherwise redefine how to calculate the roll, ONRR will explain its rationale for terminating or redefining how to calculate the roll by publishing a notice in the Federal Register, to provide an opportunity for comment.

    (1) Example 1: Prices in out months are lower going forward. The month of production for which you must determine royalty value is December 2012. December was the prompt month from October 23 through November 20. January was the first month following the month of production, and February was the second month following the month of production. P0, therefore, is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during December published for each business day between October 23 and November 20. P1 is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during January published for each business day between October 23 and November 20. P2 is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during February published for each business day between October 23 and November 20. In this example, assume that P0 = $95.08 per bbl; P1 = $95.03 per bbl; and P2 = $94.93 per bbl. In this example (a declining market), Roll = .6667 × ($95.08−$95.03) + .3333 × ($95.08−$94.93) = $0.03 + $0.05 = $0.08. You add this number to the NYMEX price.

    (2) Example 2: Prices in out months are higher going forward. The month of production for which you must determine royalty value is November 2012. November was the prompt month from September 21 through October 22. December was the first month following the month of production, and January was the second month following the month of production. P0, therefore, is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during November published for each business day between September 21 and October 22. P1 is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during December published for each business day between September 21 and October 22. P2 is the average of the daily NYMEX settlement prices for deliveries during January published for each business day between September 21 and October 22. In this example, assume that P0 = $91.28 per bbl; P1 = $91.65 per bbl; and P2 = $92.10 per bbl. In this example (a rising market), Roll = .6667 × ($91.28−$91.65) + .3333 × ($91.28−$92.10) = (−$0.25) + (−$0.27) = (−$0.52). You add this negative number to the NYMEX price (effectively a subtraction from the NYMEX price).

    Sale means a contract between two persons where:

    (1) The seller unconditionally transfers title to the oil to the buyer and does not retain any related rights, such as the right to buy back similar quantities of oil from the buyer elsewhere.

    (2) The buyer pays money or other consideration for the oil.

    (3) The parties' intent is for a sale of the oil to occur.

    Sales type code means the contract type or general disposition (e.g. arm's-length or non-arm's-length) of production from the lease. The sales type code applies to the sales contract, or other disposition, and not to the arm's-length or non-arm's-length nature of a transportation allowance.

    Trading month means the period extending from the second business day before the 25th day of the second calendar month preceding the delivery month (or, if the 25th day of that month is a non-business day, the second business day before the last business day preceding the 25th day of that month) through the third business day before the 25th day of the calendar month preceding the delivery month (or, if the 25th day of that month is a non-business day, the third business day before the last business day preceding the 25th day of that month), unless the NYMEX publishes a different definition or different dates on its official Web site, www.nymex.com, in which case, the NYMEX definition will apply.

    Transportation allowance means a deduction in determining royalty value for the reasonable, actual costs of moving oil to a point of sale or delivery off of the lease, unit area, or communitized area. The transportation allowance does not include gathering costs.

    WTI means West Texas Intermediate.

    You means a lessee, operator, or other person who pays royalties under this subpart.

    § 1206.52 How do I calculate royalty value for oil that I or my affiliate sell(s) or exchange(s) under an arm's-length contract?

    (a) The value of production for royalty purposes for your lease is the higher of either the value determined under this section or the IBMP value calculated under § 1206.54. The value of oil under this section for royalty purposes is the gross proceeds accruing to you or your affiliate under the arm's-length contract, less applicable allowances determined under § 1206.56 or § 1206.57. You must use this paragraph (a) to value oil when:

    (1) You sell under an arm's-length sales contract.

    (2) You sell or transfer to your affiliate or another person under a non-arm's-length contract and that affiliate or person, or another affiliate of either of them, then sells the oil under an arm's-length contract.

    (b) If you have multiple arm's-length contracts to sell oil produced from a lease that is valued under paragraph (a) of this section, the value of the oil is the higher of the volume-weighted average of the values established under this section for all contracts for the sale of oil produced from that lease or the IBMP value calculated under § 1206.54.

    (c) If ONRR determines that the gross proceeds accruing to you or your affiliate does not reflect the reasonable value of the production due to either:

    (1) Misconduct by or between the parties to the arm's-length contract; or

    (2) Breach of your duty to market the oil for the mutual benefit of yourself and the lessor, ONRR will establish a value based on other relevant matters.

    (i) ONRR will not use this provision to simply substitute its judgment of the market value of the oil for the proceeds received by the seller under an arm's-length sales contract.

    (ii) The fact that the price received by the seller under an arm's-length contract is less than other measures of market price is insufficient to establish breach of the duty to market unless ONRR finds additional evidence that the seller acted unreasonably or in bad faith in the sale of oil produced from the lease.

    (d) You have the burden of demonstrating that your or your affiliate's contract is arm's-length.

    (e) ONRR may require you to certify that the provisions in your or your affiliate's contract include all of the consideration that the buyer paid to you or your affiliate, either directly or indirectly, for the oil.

    (f) You must base value on the highest price that you or your affiliate can receive through legally enforceable claims under the oil sales contract.

    (1) Absent contract revision or amendment, if you or your affiliate fail(s) to take proper or timely action to receive prices or benefits to which you or your affiliate are entitled, you must pay royalty based upon that obtainable price or benefit.

    (2) If you or your affiliate make timely application for a price increase or benefit allowed under your or your affiliate's contract—but the purchaser refuses—and you or your affiliate take reasonable documented measures to force purchaser compliance, you will not owe additional royalties unless or until you or your affiliate receive additional monies or consideration resulting from the price increase. You may not construe this paragraph (f)(2) to permit you to avoid your royalty payment obligation in situations where a purchaser fails to pay, in whole or in part, or in a timely manner, for a quantity of oil.

    (g)(1) You or your affiliate must make all contracts, contract revisions, or amendments in writing, and all parties to the contract must sign the contract, contract revisions, or amendments.

    (2) This provision applies notwithstanding any other provisions in this title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the contrary.

    (h) If you or your affiliate enter(s) into an arm's-length exchange agreement, or multiple sequential arm's-length exchange agreements, then you must value your oil under this paragraph (h).

    (1) If you or your affiliate exchange(s) oil at arm's length for WTI or equivalent oil at Cushing, Oklahoma, you must value the oil using the NYMEX price, adjusted for applicable location and quality differentials under paragraph (h)(3) of this section and any transportation costs under paragraph (h)(4) of this section and §§ 1206.56 and 1206.57 or § 1206.58.

    (2) If you do not exchange oil for WTI or equivalent oil at Cushing, but exchange it at arm's length for oil at another location and following the arm's-length exchange(s) you or your affiliate sell(s) the oil received in the exchange(s) under an arm's-length contract, then you must use the gross proceeds under your or your affiliate's arm's-length sales contract after the exchange(s) occur(s), adjusted for applicable location and quality differentials under paragraph (h)(3) of this section and any transportation costs under paragraph (h)(4) of this section and §§ 1206.56 and 1206.57 or § 1206.58.

    (3) You must adjust your gross proceeds for any location or quality differential, or other adjustments, that you received or paid under the arm's-length exchange agreement(s). If ONRR determines that any exchange agreement does not reflect reasonable location or quality differentials, ONRR may adjust the differentials that you used based on relevant information. You may not otherwise use the price or differential specified in an arm's-length exchange agreement to value your production.

    (4) If you value oil under this paragraph (h), ONRR will allow a deduction, under §§ 1206.56 and 1206.57 or § 1206.58, for the reasonable, actual costs to transport the oil:

    (i) From the lease to a point where oil is given in exchange.

    (ii) If oil is not exchanged to Cushing, Oklahoma, from the point where oil is received in exchange to the point where the oil received in exchange is sold.

    (5) If you or your affiliate exchange(s) your oil at arm's length, and neither paragraph (h)(1) nor (2) of this section applies, ONRR will establish a value for the oil based on relevant matters. After ONRR establishes the value, you must report and pay royalties and any late payment interest owed based on that value.

    § 1206.53 How do I calculate royalty value for oil that I or my affiliate do(es) not sell under an arm's-length contract?

    (a) The value of production for royalty purposes for your lease is the higher of either the value determined under this section or the IBMP value calculated under § 1206.54. The unit value of your oil not sold under an arm's-length contract under this section for royalty purposes is the volume-weighted average of the gross proceeds paid or received by you or your affiliate, including your refining affiliate, for purchases or sales under arm's-length contracts.

    (1) When calculating that unit value, use only purchases or sales of other like-quality oil produced from the field (or the same area if you do not have sufficient arm's-length purchases or sales of oil produced from the field) during the production month.

    (2) You may adjust the gross proceeds determined under paragraph (a) of this section for transportation costs under paragraph (c) of this section and §§ 1206.56 and 1206.57 or § 1206.58 before including those proceeds in the volume-weighted average calculation.

    (3) If you have purchases away from the field(s) and cannot calculate a price in the field because you cannot determine the seller's cost of transportation that would be allowed under paragraph (c) of this section and § 1206.56 and § 1206.57 or § 1206.58, you must not include those purchases in your volume-weighted average calculation.

    (b) Before calculating the volume-weighted average, you must normalize the quality of the oil in your or your affiliate's arm's-length purchases or sales to the same gravity as that of the oil produced from the lease. Use applicable gravity adjustment tables for the field (or the same general area for like-quality oil if you do not have gravity adjustment tables for the specific field) to normalize for gravity, as shown in the example below.

    (1) Example 1. Assume that a lessee, who owns a refinery and refines the oil produced from the lease at that refinery, purchases like-quality oil from other producers in the same field at arm's length for use as feedstock in its refinery. Further assume that the oil produced from the lease that is being valued under this section is Wyoming general sour with an API gravity of 23.5°. Assume that the refinery purchases at arm's-length oil (all of which must be Wyoming general sour) in the following volumes of the API gravities stated at the prices and locations indicated:

    10,000 bbl 24.5° $34.70/bbl Purchased in the field. 8,000 bbl 24.0° $34.00/bbl Purchased at the refinery after the third-party producer transported it to the refinery, and the lessee does not know the transportation costs. 9,000 bbl 23.0° $33.25/bbl Purchased in the field. 4,000 bbl 22.0° $33.00/bbl Purchased in the field.

    (2) Example 2. Because the lessee does not know the costs that the seller of the 8,000 bbl incurred to transport that volume to the refinery, that volume will not be included in the volume-weighted average price calculation. Further assume that the gravity adjustment scale provides for a deduction of $0.02 per 1/10 degree API gravity below 34°. Normalized to 23.5° (the gravity of the oil being valued under this section), the prices of each of the volumes that the refiner purchased that are included in the volume-weighted average calculation are as follows:

    10,000 bbl 24.5° $34.50/bbl (1.0° difference over 23.5° = $0.20 deducted). 9,000 bbl 23.0° $33.35/bbl (0.5° difference under 23.5° = $0.10 added). 4,000 bbl 22.0° $33.30/bbl (1.5° difference under 23.5° = $0.30 added).

    (3) Example 3. The volume-weighted average price is ((10,000 bbl × $34.50/bbl) + (9,000 bbl × $33.35/bbl) + (4,000 bbl × $33.30/bbl)) / 23,000 bbl = $33.84/bbl. That price will be the value of the oil produced from the lease and refined prior to an arm's-length sale under this section.

    (c) If you value oil under this section, ONRR will allow a deduction, under §§ 1206.56 and 1206.57 or § 1206.58, for the reasonable, actual costs:

    (1) That you incur to transport oil that you or your affiliate sell(s), which is included in the volume-weighted average price calculation, from the lease to the point where the oil is sold.

    (2) That the seller incurs to transport oil that you or your affiliate purchase(s), which is included in the volume-weighted average cost calculation, from the property where it is produced to the point where you or your affiliate purchase(s) it. You may not deduct any costs of gathering as part of a transportation deduction or allowance.

    (d) If paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section result in an unreasonable value for your production as a result of circumstances regarding that production, ONRR's Director may establish an alternative valuation method.

    § 1206.54 How do I fulfill the lease provision regarding valuing production on the basis of the major portion of like-quality oil?

    (a) This section applies to any Indian leases that contain a major portion provision for determining value for royalty purposes. This section also applies to any Indian leases that provide that the Secretary may establish value for royalty purposes. The value of production for royalty purposes for your lease is the higher of either the value determined under this section or the gross proceeds you calculated under § 1206.52 or § 1206.53.

    (b) You must submit a monthly Form ONRR-2014 using the higher of the IBMP value determined under this section or your gross proceeds under § 1206.52 or § 1206.53. Your Form ONRR-2014 must meet the requirements of 30 CFR 1210.61.

    (c) ONRR will determine the monthly IBMP value for each designated area and crude oil type and post those values on our Web site at www.onrr.gov. The monthly IBMP value by designated area and crude oil type is calculated as follows:

    (1) For Indian leases located in Oklahoma:

    ER01MY15.012

    (2) For all other Indian leases:

    ER01MY15.013

    (d) ONRR will calculate the initial LCTD for each designated area (the same designated areas posted on its Web site at www.onrr.gov) and crude oil type using the following formula:

    ER01MY15.007

    (1) For the first full production month after July 1, 2015, ONRR will calculate the monthly Major Portion Prices using data reported on the Form ONRR-2014 for the previous 12 production months prior to July 1, 2015 (Previous Twelve Months). To the extent that ONRR does not have data on the Form ONRR-2014 regarding the crude oil type for the entire previous twelve months, ONRR will assume the crude oil type is the same for those months for which ONRR does not have data as the months for which the crude oil type was reported on the Form ONRR-2014 for the same leases and/or agreements.

    (i) ONRR will array the calculated prices net of transportation by month from highest to lowest price for each designated area and crude oil type. For each month, ONRR will calculate the Major Portion Price as that price at which 25 percent plus 1 barrel (by volume) of the oil (starting from the highest) is sold.

    (ii) To calculate the average of the monthly Major Portion Prices for the previous 12 months, ONRR will add the monthly Major Portion Prices calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section and divide by 12.

    (2) For every month following the first full production month after July 1, 2015, ONRR will monitor the LCTD using data reported on the Form ONRR-2014 for the month ending two months before the current production month.

    (i) ONRR will use the oil sales volume that lessees report on Form ONRR-2014 to monitor and, if necessary, to modify the LCTD used in the IBMP value.

    (ii) ONRR will monitor oil sales volumes not reported under the sales type code OINX, as provided in 30 CFR 1210.61(a) and (b), on the Form ONRR-2014 on a monthly basis by designated area and crude oil type.

    (iii) If the monthly oil sales volumes not reported under the sales type code OINX varies more than +/− 3 percent from 25 percent of the total reported oil sales volume for the month, then ONRR will revise the LCTD prospectively starting with the following month.

    (A) If monthly oil sales volumes not reported under the sales type code OINX on Form ONRR-2014 by the designated area and crude oil type fall below 22 percent, ONRR will increase the LCTD by 10 percent every month until the monthly oil sales volumes reported under the sales type code for gross proceeds on Form ONRR-2014 fall within the +/− 3 percent range. In Example 1, assume that the IBMP value is $81.06 and the LCTD for the designated area is 14.28 percent. In the table below, the Percent of Volume not reported as OINX is less than 22 percent, which triggers a modification to the LCTD. ONRR will adjust the LCTD upward by 10 percent (14.28 percent × 1.10). Therefore, for the next month, the LCTD will be 15.71 percent. In the following month, the IBMP value will equal the next month's NYMEX CMA multiplied by (1 − 0.1571). ONRR will continue to make adjustments in subsequent months until monthly sales volumes not reported as OINX fall within 22-28 percent of the total monthly sales volume.

    Example 1—Differential Adjustment When ARMS Sales Volume for the Current Month Falls Below 22% of Total Monthly Sales Volume Lease Sales volume Unit price Sales type code Cumulative volume Percent of
  • volume
  • 1 220 81.95 ARMS 220 9.02 2 275 81.71 ARMS 495 20.29 3 400 81.06 OINX 895 36.68 4 425 81.06 OINX 1,320 54.10 5 370 81.06 OINX 1,690 69.26 6 400 81.06 OINX 2,090 85.66 7 350 81.06 OINX 2,440 100.00 2,440

    (B) If monthly oil sales volumes not reported under the sales type code OINX on Form ONRR-2014 by designated area and crude oil type exceed 28 percent, then ONRR will decrease the LCTD by 10 percent every month until the monthly oil sales volumes reported under the sales type code for gross proceeds on Form ONRR-2014 fall within the +/− 3 percent range. In Example 2, assume that the IBMP value is $81.06 and the LCTD is 14.28 percent. As noted in the table below, however, the Percent of Volume not reported as OINX is 32.69 percent, exceeding the 28 percent threshold, which triggers a modification to the LCTD. ONRR will adjust the LCTD downward by 10 percent (14.28 percent × 0.90). Therefore, for the next month, the LCTD will be 12.85 percent. In the following month, the IBMP will equal the next month's NYMEX CMA multiplied by (1−0.1285). ONRR will continue to make adjustments in subsequent months until monthly sales volumes reported as ARMS fall within 22-28 percent of the total monthly sales volume.

    Example 2—Differential Adjustment When ARMS Sales Volume Not Reported as OINX for the Current Month Exceeds 28% of Total Monthly Sales Volume Lease Sales volume Unit price Sales type code Cumulative volume Percent of
  • volume
  • 1 230 81.95 ARMS 230 11.06 2 275 81.71 ARMS 505 24.28 3 175 81.45 ARMS 680 32.69 4 250 81.06 OINX 930 44.71 5 425 81.06 OINX 1,355 65.14 6 325 81.06 OINX 1,680 80.77 7 400 81.06 OINX 2,080 100.00 2,080

    (e) In designated areas where there is insufficient data reported to ONRR on Form ONRR-2014 to determine a differential for a specific crude oil type, ONRR will use its discretion to determine an appropriate IBMP value.

    § 1206.55 What are my responsibilities to place production into marketable condition and to market production?

    (a) You must place oil in marketable condition and market the oil for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the lessor at no cost to the Indian lessor unless the lease agreement provides otherwise.

    (b) If you must use gross proceeds under an arm's-length contract or your affiliate's gross proceeds under an arm's-length exchange agreement to determine value under § 1206.52 or § 1206.53, you must increase those gross proceeds to the extent that the purchaser, or any other person, provides certain services that the seller normally would be responsible to perform in order to place the oil in marketable condition or to market the oil.

    § 1206.56 What general transportation allowance requirements apply to me?

    (a) ONRR will allow a deduction for the reasonable, actual costs to transport oil from the lease to the point off of the lease under § 1206.52 or § 1206.53, as applicable. You may not deduct transportation costs to reduce royalties where you did not incur any costs to move a particular volume of oil. ONRR will not grant a transportation allowance for transporting oil taken as Royalty-In-Kind (RIK).

    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, your transportation allowance deduction on the basis of a sales type code may not exceed 50 percent of the value of the oil at the point of sale, as determined under § 1206.52. Transportation costs cannot be transferred between sales type codes or to other products.

    (2) Upon your request, ONRR may approve a transportation allowance deduction in excess of the limitation prescribed by paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must demonstrate that the transportation costs incurred in excess of the limitation prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section were reasonable, actual, and necessary. An application for exception (using Form ONRR-4393, Request to Exceed Regulatory Allowance Limitation) must contain all relevant and supporting documentation necessary for ONRR to make a determination. Under no circumstances may the value, for royalty purposes, under any sales type code, be reduced to zero.

    (c) You must express transportation allowances for oil in dollars per barrel. If you or your affiliate's payments for transportation under a contract are not on a dollar-per-barrel basis, you must convert whatever consideration you or your affiliate are paid to a dollar-per-barrel equivalent.

    (d) You must allocate transportation costs among all products produced and transported as provided in § 1206.57.

    (e) All transportation allowances are subject to monitoring, review, audit, and adjustment.

    (f) If, after a review or audit, ONRR determines you have improperly determined a transportation allowance authorized by this subpart, then you must pay any additional royalties due plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter or report a credit for, or request a refund of, any overpaid royalties without interest under § 1218.53 of this chapter.

    (g) You may not deduct any costs of gathering as part of a transportation deduction or allowance.

    § 1206.57 How do I determine a transportation allowance if I have an arm's-length transportation contract?

    (a) Arm's-length transportation. (1) If you incur transportation costs under an arm's-length contract, your transportation allowance is the reasonable, actual costs that you incur to transport oil under that contract. You have the burden of demonstrating that your contract is arm's-length.

    (2) You must submit to ONRR a copy of your arm's-length transportation contract(s) and all subsequent amendments to the contract(s) within 2 months of the date that ONRR receives your report, which claims the allowance on Form ONRR-2014.

    (3) If ONRR determines that the consideration paid under an arm's-length transportation contract does not reflect the reasonable value of the transportation because of misconduct by or between the contracting parties, or because the lessee otherwise has breached its duty to the lessor to market the production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the lessor, then ONRR shall require that the transportation allowance be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. When ONRR determines that the value of the transportation may be unreasonable, ONRR will notify the lessee and give the lessee an opportunity to provide written information justifying the lessee's transportation costs.

    (4)(i) If an arm's-length transportation contract includes more than one liquid product, and the transportation costs attributable to each product cannot be determined from the contract, then you must allocate the total transportation costs in a consistent and equitable manner to each of the liquid products transported in the same proportion as the ratio of the volume of each product (excluding waste products which have no value) to the volume of all liquid products (excluding waste products which have no value). Except as provided in this paragraph (a)(4)(i), you may not take an allowance for the costs of transporting lease production, which is not royalty-bearing, without ONRR's approval.

    (ii) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, you may propose to ONRR a cost allocation method on the basis of the values of the products transported. ONRR shall approve the method unless it determines that it is not consistent with the purposes of the regulations in this part.

    (5) If an arm's-length transportation contract includes both gaseous and liquid products, and the transportation costs attributable to each product cannot be determined from the contract, you must propose an allocation procedure to ONRR.

    (i) You may use the oil transportation allowance determined in accordance with its proposed allocation procedure until ONRR issues its determination on the acceptability of the cost allocation.

    (ii) You must submit to ONRR all available data to support your proposal.

    (iii) You must submit your initial proposal within 3 months after the last day of the month for which you request a transportation allowance, whichever is later (unless ONRR approves a longer period).

    (iv) ONRR will determine the oil transportation allowance based on your proposal and any additional information that ONRR deems necessary.

    (6) Where an arm's-length sales contract price includes a provision whereby the listed price is reduced by a transportation factor, ONRR will not consider the transportation factor to be a transportation allowance. You may use the transportation factor to determine your gross proceeds for the sale of the product. The transportation factor may not exceed 50 percent of the base price of the product without ONRR's approval.

    (b) Reporting requirements. (1) If ONRR requests, you must submit all data used to determine your transportation allowance. You must provide the data within a reasonable period of time that ONRR will determine.

    (2) You must report transportation allowances as a separate entry on Form ONRR-2014. ONRR may approve a different reporting procedure on allotted leases and with lessor approval on Tribal leases.

    (3) ONRR may establish, in appropriate circumstances, reporting requirements that are different from the requirements of this section.

    § 1206.58 How do I determine a transportation allowance if I have a non-arm's-length transportation contract or have no contract?

    (a) Non-arm's-length or no contract. (1) If you have a non-arm's-length transportation contract or no contract, including those situations where you or your affiliate perform(s) transportation services for you, the transportation allowance is based on your reasonable, actual costs as provided in this paragraph (a)(1).

    (2) You must submit the actual cost information to support the allowance to ONRR on Form ONRR-4110, Oil Transportation Allowance Report, within 3 months after the end of the calendar year to which the allowance applies. However, ONRR may approve a longer time period. ONRR will monitor the allowance deductions to ensure that deductions are reasonable and allowable. When necessary or appropriate, ONRR may require you to modify your actual transportation allowance deduction.

    (3) You must base a transportation allowance for non-arm's-length or no-contract situations on your actual costs for transportation during the reporting period, including operating and maintenance expenses, overhead, and either depreciation and a return on undepreciated capital investment under paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, or a cost equal to the initial capital investment in the transportation system multiplied by a rate of return under paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(B) of this section. Allowable capital costs are generally those for depreciable fixed assets (including costs of delivery and installation of capital equipment), which are an integral part of the transportation system.

    (i) Allowable operating expenses include: Operations supervision and engineering; operations labor; fuel; utilities; materials; ad valorem property taxes; rent; supplies; and any other directly allocable and attributable operating expense that the lessee can document.

    (ii) Allowable maintenance expenses include: Maintenance of the transportation system; maintenance of equipment; maintenance labor; and other directly allocable and attributable maintenance expenses that the lessee can document.

    (iii) Overhead directly attributable and allocable to the operation and maintenance of the transportation system is an allowable expense. State and Federal income taxes and severance taxes and other fees, including royalties, are not allowable expenses.

    (iv) You may use either depreciation or a return on depreciable capital investment. After you have elected to use either method for a transportation system, you may not later elect to change to the other alternative without approval from ONRR.

    (A) To compute depreciation, you may elect to use either a straight-line depreciation method, based on the life of equipment or on the life of the reserves, which the transportation system services, or on a unit-of-production method. After you make an election, you may not change methods without ONRR's approval. A change in ownership of a transportation system will not alter the depreciation schedule the original transporter/lessee established for the purposes of the allowance calculation. With or without a change in ownership, a transportation system can be depreciated only once. You may not depreciate equipment below a reasonable salvage value.

    (B) ONRR will allow as a cost an amount equal to the initial capital investment in the transportation system multiplied by the rate of return determined under paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section. No allowance will be provided for depreciation.

    (v) The rate of return is the industrial rate associated with Standard and Poor's BBB rating. The rate of return you must use is the monthly average rate as published in Standard and Poor's Bond Guide for the first month of the reporting period for which the allowance is applicable and is effective during the reporting period. You must redetermine the rate at the beginning of each subsequent transportation allowance reporting period (which is determined under paragraph (b) of this section).

    (4)(i) You must determine the deduction for transportation costs based on your or your affiliate's cost of transporting each product through each individual transportation system. Where more than one liquid product is transported, you must allocate costs to each of the liquid products transported in the same proportion as the ratio of the volume of each liquid product (excluding waste products which have no value) to the volume of all liquid products (excluding waste products which have no value) and you must make such allocation in a consistent and equitable manner. Except as provided in this paragraph (a)(4)(i), you may not take an allowance for transporting lease production that is not royalty-bearing without ONRR's approval.

    (ii) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, you may propose to ONRR a cost allocation method on the basis of the values of the products transported. ONRR will approve the method unless we determine that it is not consistent with the purposes of the regulations in this part.

    (5) Where both gaseous and liquid products are transported through the same transportation system, you must propose a cost allocation procedure to ONRR.

    (i) You may use the oil transportation allowance determined in accordance with its proposed allocation procedure until ONRR issues our determination on the acceptability of the cost allocation.

    (ii) You must submit to ONRR all available data to support your proposal.

    (iii) You must submit your initial proposal within 3 months after the last day of the month for which you request a transportation allowance (unless ONRR approves a longer period).

    (iv) ONRR will determine the oil transportation allowance based on your proposal and any additional information that ONRR deems necessary.

    (6) You may apply to ONRR for an exception from the requirement that you compute actual costs under paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.

    (i) ONRR will grant the exception only if you have a tariff for the transportation system the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved for Indian leases.

    (ii) ONRR will deny the exception request if it determines that the tariff is excessive as compared to arm's-length transportation charges by pipelines, owned by the lessee or others, providing similar transportation services in that area.

    (iii) If there are no arm's-length transportation charges, ONRR will deny the exception request if:

    (A) No FERC cost analysis exists and the FERC has declined to investigate under ONRR timely objections upon filing.

    (B) The tariff significantly exceeds the lessee's actual costs for transportation as determined under this section.

    (b) Reporting requirements. (1) If ONRR requests, you must submit all data used to determine your transportation allowance. You must provide the data within a reasonable period of time that ONRR will determine.

    (2) You must report transportation allowances as a separate entry on Form ONRR-2014. ONRR may approve a different reporting procedure on allotted leases and with lessor approval on Tribal leases.

    (3) ONRR may require you to submit all of the data that you used to prepare your Form ONRR-4110. You must submit the data within a reasonable period of time that ONRR determines.

    (4) ONRR may establish, in appropriate circumstances, reporting requirements that are different from the requirements of this section.

    (5) If you are authorized to use your FERC-approved tariff as your transportation cost under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, you must follow the reporting requirements of § 1206.57(b).

    (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, for other than arm's-length contracts, no cost will be allowed for oil transportation that results from payments (either volumetric or for value) for actual or theoretical losses. This section does not apply when the transportation allowance is based upon a FERC or State regulatory agency approved tariff.

    (d) The provisions of this section will apply to determine transportation costs when establishing value using a netback valuation procedure or any other procedure that requires deduction of transportation costs.

    § 1206.59 What interest applies if I improperly report a transportation allowance?

    (a) If you deduct a transportation allowance on Form ONRR-2014 without complying with the requirements of §§ 1206.56 and § 1206.57 or 1206.58, you must pay additional royalties due plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter.

    (b) If you erroneously report a transportation allowance that results in an underpayment of royalties, you must pay any additional royalties due plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter.

    § 1206.60 What reporting adjustments must I make for transportation allowances?

    (a) If your actual transportation allowance is less than the amount that you claimed on Form ONRR-2014 for each month during the allowance reporting period, you must pay additional royalties due, plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter from the first day of the first month that you were authorized to deduct a transportation allowance to the date that you repay the difference.

    (b) If the actual transportation allowance is greater than the amount that you claimed on Form ONRR-2014 for any month during the period reported on the allowance form, you may report a credit for, or request a refund of, any overpaid royalties without interest under § 1218.53 of this chapter.

    (c) If you make an adjustment under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, then you must submit a corrected Form ONRR-2014 to reflect actual costs, together with any payment, using instructions that ONRR provides.

    § 1206.61 How will ONRR determine if my royalty payments are correct?

    (a)(1) ONRR may monitor, review, and audit the royalties that you report, and, if ONRR determines that your reported value is inconsistent with the requirements of this subpart, ONRR may direct you to use a different measure of royalty value.

    (2) If ONRR directs you to use a different royalty value, you must pay any additional royalties due plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter, or you may report a credit for, or request a refund of, any overpaid royalties without interest under § 1218.53 of this chapter.

    (b) When the provisions in this subpart refer to gross proceeds, in conducting reviews and audits, ONRR will examine if your or your affiliate's contract reflects the total consideration actually transferred, either directly or indirectly, from the buyer to you or your affiliate for the oil. If ONRR determines that a contract does not reflect the total consideration, you must value the oil sold as the total consideration accruing to you or your affiliate.

    § 1206.62 How do I request a value determination?

    (a) You may request a value determination from ONRR regarding any oil produced. Your request must:

    (1) Be in writing.

    (2) Identify specifically all leases involved, all interest owners of those leases, the designee(s), and the operator(s) for those leases.

    (3) Completely explain all relevant facts. You must inform ONRR of any changes to relevant facts that occur before we respond to your request.

    (4) Include copies of all relevant documents.

    (5) Provide your analysis of the issue(s), including citations to all relevant precedents (including adverse precedents).

    (6) Suggest your proposed valuation method.

    (b) In response to your request, ONRR may:

    (1) Request that the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs issue a valuation determination.

    (2) Decide that ONRR will issue guidance.

    (3) Inform you in writing that ONRR will not provide a determination or guidance. Situations in which ONRR typically will not provide any determination or guidance include, but are not limited to:

    (i) Requests for guidance on hypothetical situations.

    (ii) Matters that are the subject of pending litigation or administrative appeals.

    (c)(1) A value determination that the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs signs is binding on both you and ONRR until the Assistant Secretary modifies or rescinds it.

    (2) After the Assistant Secretary issues a value determination, you must make any adjustments to royalty payments that follow from the determination, and, if you owe additional royalties, you must pay the additional royalties due plus late payment interest calculated under § 1218.54 of this chapter.

    (3) A value determination that the Assistant Secretary signs is the final action of the Department and is subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 701-706.

    (d) Guidance that ONRR issues is not binding on ONRR, the Indian lessor, or you with respect to the specific situation addressed in the guidance.

    (1) Guidance and ONRR's decision whether or not to issue guidance or request an Assistant Secretary determination, or neither, under paragraph (b) of this section, are not appealable decisions or orders under 30 CFR part 1290.

    (2) If you receive an order requiring you to pay royalty on the same basis as the guidance, you may appeal that order under 30 CFR part 1290.

    (e) ONRR or the Assistant Secretary may use any of the applicable valuation criteria in this subpart to provide guidance or make a determination.

    (f) A change in an applicable statute or regulation on which ONRR or the Assistant Secretary based any determination or guidance takes precedence over the determination or guidance, regardless of whether ONRR or the Assistant Secretary modifies or rescinds the determination or guidance.

    (g) ONRR or the Assistant Secretary generally will not retroactively modify or rescind a value determination issued under paragraph (d) of this section, unless:

    (1) There was a misstatement or omission of material facts.

    (2) The facts subsequently developed are materially different from the facts on which the guidance was based.

    (h) ONRR may make requests and replies under this section available to the public, subject to the confidentiality requirements under § 1206.65.

    § 1206.63 How do I determine royalty quantity and quality?

    (a) You must calculate royalties based on the quantity and quality of oil as measured at the point of royalty settlement that BLM approves.

    (b) If you determine the value of oil under § 1206.52, § 1206.53, or § 1206.54 based on a quantity and/or quality that is different from the quantity and/or quality at the point of royalty settlement that BLM approves for the lease, you must adjust that value for the differences in quantity and/or quality.

    (c) You may not make any deductions from the royalty volume or royalty value for actual or theoretical losses incurred before the royalty settlement point unless BLM determines that any actual loss was unavoidable.

    § 1206.64 What records must I keep to support my calculations of value under this subpart?

    If you determine the value of your oil under this subpart, you must retain all data relevant to the determination of royalty value.

    (a) You must show:

    (1) How you calculated the value that you reported, including all adjustments for location, quality, and transportation.

    (2) How you complied with these rules.

    (b) On request, you must make available sales, volume, and transportation data for production that you sold, purchased, or obtained from the field or area. You must make this data available to ONRR, Indian representatives, or other authorized persons.

    (c) You can find recordkeeping requirements in §§ 1207.5, 1212.50, and 1212.51 of this chapter.

    (d) ONRR, Indian representatives, or other authorized persons may review and audit your data, and ONRR will direct you to use a different value if they determine that the reported value is inconsistent with the requirements of this subpart.

    § 1206.65 Does ONRR protect information that I provide?

    (a) Certain information that you or your affiliate submit(s) to ONRR regarding the valuation of oil, including transportation allowances, may be exempt from disclosure.

    (b) To the extent that applicable laws and regulations permit, ONRR will keep confidential any data that you or your affiliate submit(s) that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure.

    (c) You and others must submit all requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act regulations of the Department of the Interior at 43 CFR part 2.

    PART 1210—FORMS AND REPORTS 3. The authority citation for part 1210 continues to read as follows: Authority

    5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. 396, 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189, 190, 359, 1023, 1751(a); 31 U.S.C. 3716, 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334, 1801 et seq.; and 44 U.S.C. 3506(a).

    Subpart B—Royalty Reports—Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources 4. Add § 1210.61 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 1210.61 What additional reporting requirements must I meet for Indian oil valuation purposes?

    (a) If you must report and pay under § 1206.52 of this chapter, you must use Sales Type Code ARMS on Form ONRR-2014.

    (b) If you must report and pay under § 1206.53 of this chapter, you must use Sales Type Code NARM on Form ONRR-2014.

    (c) If you must report and pay under § 1206.54 of this chapter, you must use Sales Type Code OINX on Form ONRR-2014.

    (d) You must report one of the following crude oil types in the product code field of Form ONRR-2014:

    (1) Sweet (code 61);

    (2) Sour (code 62);

    (3) Asphaltic (code 63);

    (4) Black Wax (code 64); or

    (5) Yellow Wax (code 65).

    (e) All of the remaining requirements of this subpart apply.

    [FR Doc. 2015-09955 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0292] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Blynman (SR 127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public event, the annual Saint Peter's Fiesta 5K Road Race. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for thirty minutes to facilitate public safety.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on June 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0292] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Blynman (SR 127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8.2 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.586.

    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Saint Peter's Fiesta 5K Road Race.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Blynman (SR 127) Bridge may remain in the closed position for thirty minutes between 6:15 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. on Thursday June 25, 2015.

    The waterways are transited by commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes. There is an alternate route for vessel traffic around Cape Ann. Also, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at all times.

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

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

    Dated: April 21, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10217 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0132] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Manitowoc River, Manitowoc, WI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the Wisconsin Central Railroad Bridge, mile 0.91, across Manitowoc River, at Manitowoc, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The drawbridge was removed in its entirety in 2012 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2015-0132] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this final rule. 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 Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone (216) 902-6085, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Wisconsin Central Railroad bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.1089, was removed from the waterway in 2012. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The bridge has been removed from the waterway for 3 years and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The removal has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The Wisconsin Central Railroad Bridge across the Manitowoc River, mile 0.91, was removed in 2012. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the removal of the bridge. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.1089(b), that pertained to the former drawbridge.

    The purpose of this rule is to remove the section of 33 CFR 117.1089 that refers to the Wisconsin Central Railroad Bridge at mile 0.91 from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that has been removed.

    C. Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.1089 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that governs the operation of the Wisconsin Central Railroad Bridge, which in fact no longer exists. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.1089 that governs the remaining active drawbridges on the Manitowoc River.

    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 or 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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be “significant” under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

    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 will have no effect on small entities since this drawbridge has been removed and the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    4. 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 have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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 might disproportionately affect children.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. Technical Standards

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

    13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 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 removing 33 CFR 117.1089(b) from the regulations. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 117.1089 [Amended]
    2. In § 117.1089 remove and reserve paragraph (b).
    Dated: April 20, 2015. F.M. Midgette, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10238 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0333] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Floating Construction Platform, Chicago River, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. This temporary safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a designated portion of the South Branch of the Chicago River due to the transit of a floating construction platform on April 26, 2015, or alternatively on a later date. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the transit of the floating construction platform.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from May 1, 2015 until May 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0333. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact or email MST1 John Ng, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at (630) 986-2122 or [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule 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 with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. On April 22, 2015, the Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone to accommodate the transit of the floating construction platform, which was scheduled for April 19, 2015 (USCG-2015-0277). However, we recently learned that scheduled transit would be postponed to April 26, 2015. We did not know of this change and the final details for this event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with this operation, which are discussed further below.

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

    B. Basis and Purpose

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

    On April 26, 2015, or alternatively on a later date on or prior to May 9, 2015, a floating construction platform will transit up the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois from the Canal Street Bridge to the Lake Street Bridge. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the transit of the floating construction platform poses a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include limited maneuverability and restricted visibility associated with the transit of a floating construction platform.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels during the transit of the floating construction platform on the South Branch of the Chicago River. This rule was enforced from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on April 26, 2015. However, enforcement may occur on a later date within this effective period due to an unanticipated delay. In the event of a postponement, advanced notice of the enforcement time will be provided through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The safety zone will encompass all waters of South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, IL, from the Canal Street Bridge to the Lake Street Bridge.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    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 conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will only impact a small area of the Chicago River and will be enforced for an estimated period of seven hours on one day between April 25, 2015 and May 9, 2015. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected portion of the South Branch of the Chicago River between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on April 26, 2015, or alternatively on a later date.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

    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 this 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 the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, 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. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0333 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0333 Safety Zone; Floating Construction Platform, Chicago River, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, IL, from Canal Street Bridge to Lake Street Bridge.

    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from May 1, 2015 until May 9, 2015. This rule was enforced on April 26, 2015, by actual notice. This rule may be enforced by actual or constructive notice after publication until May 9, 2015.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. K.M. Moser, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10215 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 63 RIN 2900-AO71 Health Care for Homeless Veterans Program AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its medical regulations concerning eligibility for the Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program. The HCHV program provides per diem payments to non-VA community-based facilities that provide housing, outreach services, case management services, and rehabilitative services, and may provide care and/or treatment to homeless veterans who are enrolled in or eligible for VA health care. The rule modifies VA's HCHV regulations to conform to changes enacted in the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012. Specifically, the rule removes the requirement that homeless veterans be diagnosed with a serious mental illness or substance use disorder to qualify for the HCHV program. This change makes the program available to all homeless veterans who are enrolled in or eligible for VA health care. The rule also updates the definition of homeless to match in part the one used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The rule further clarifies that the services provided by the HCHV program through non-VA community-based providers must include case management services, including non-clinical case management, as appropriate.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Hallett, Health Care for Homeless Veterans Manager, c/o Bedford VA Medical Center, Veterans Health Administration, 200 Springs Road, Bldg. 17, Bedford, MA 01730; (781) 687-3187. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The HCHV program is authorized by section 2031 of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), under which VA may provide to eligible veterans outreach; care, treatment, and rehabilitative services (directly or by contract in community-based treatment facilities, including halfway houses); and therapeutic transitional housing assistance, under 38 U.S.C. 2032, in conjunction with work therapy under 38 U.S.C. 1718(a)-(b). Under current regulations, only veterans who are homeless, enrolled in the VA health care system or eligible for VA health care under title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 17.36 or 17.37, and have a serious mental illness and/or substance use disorder are eligible for the program. 38 CFR 63.3(a).

    In a document published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27826), VA proposed to amend part 63 of 38 CFR to remove the requirement that homeless veterans must suffer from a serious mental illness or substance use disorder to be eligible for HCHV, to modify the definition of the term “homeless” to match in part the definition used by HUD, and to require HCHV providers to offer case management services to homeless veterans, as appropriate. We provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on July 14, 2014. We received seven comments, all of which supported the proposed changes to part 63.

    One commenter stated that it is shameful that homeless veterans have to be diagnosed with an illness before they can receive the benefits they have earned through military service. Before the enactment of Public Law 112-154, § 302, 126 Stat. 1164, 1184 (Aug. 6, 2012), VA only had authority to provide HCHV services to veterans with serious mental illness, including veterans who are homeless. As amended, the law authorizes VA to make services under the HCHV program available to all homeless veterans VA provides care and services to, regardless of whether they have a serious mental illness. VA fully supports the change in law, and agrees with the commenter that benefits for homeless veterans provided through the HCHV program should not be predicated on a diagnosis of serious mental illness. This regulation will remove that requirement, thereby allowing all eligible homeless veterans to receive services. VA is not making a change based on this comment.

    Another commenter asked VA to make the changes in the proposed rule, stating that homeless veterans should be provided resources through the HCHV program regardless of whether or not they have a mental illness. Another commenter stated her wholehearted support for the proposed amendment. Another commenter stated the proposed changes need to be passed. We appreciate the commenters taking the time to review this rulemaking.

    Another commenter expressed support for the rule and noted that the proposed change could reduce the social stigma many homeless veterans who do not suffer from a serious mental illness feel about seeking assistance to address their homelessness. Another commenter noted that removing the requirement of a diagnosis for mental illness would also help homeless veterans with serious mental illness access the program, as they may not have been willing to acknowledge their disability before. We agree and believe that these changes will help more homeless veterans, both those with and without a serious mental illness, access the health care services they need through the HCHV program.

    One commenter expressed support for the proposed changes, but identified two concerns. First, the commenter urged VA to request increased funding and resources to accommodate the number of new enrollees that would be eligible as a result of the proposed rule. Second, the commenter stated their concern that the proposed rule could have the unintended effect of disadvantaging homeless veterans with a serious mental illness if HCHV providers find that veterans without a mental illness are easier to place or receive the bulk of the services available. While the first comment is somewhat outside the scope of this rule, VA will take into account the changes made as a result of this rule when determining the resources it will allocate for the HCHV program. However, VA notes that the rule should not result in any increased expense to the Department, as it only modifies the pool of eligible persons, rather than the number of persons served. As explained in the proposed rule, the principal driver of costs is bed availability, which would not change as a result of this rule. Similarly, and also in response to the second comment, VA has found that the supply of HCHV services generally exceeds demand, so we do not believe there will be a shift in emphasis or a reduction in services from homeless veterans with a serious mental illness. Further, the HCHV provider would be prohibited from engaging in discrimination by virtue of entering into a contract with VA as a recipient of Federal financial assistance. Pursuant to 38 CFR 63.10(a)-(b), HCHV providers must enter into a contract with VA in order to be granted financial assistance. VA is authorized by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 706, 794) and VA's implementing regulations in subpart D, part 18, 38 CFR to prohibit discrimination against persons on the basis of handicap by any party that receives Federal financial assistance. Under these authorities, any HCHV provider is prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries on the basis of a disability, including a serious mental illness.

    Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this document, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with no changes.

    Effect of Rulemaking

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule removes the requirement that veterans have a serious mental illness to participate in the HCHV program and clarifies that the HCHV program includes case management services. This rule only impacts those entities that choose to participate in the HCHV program. As of June 2014, approximately 300 non-profit entities participate in the HCHV program. We do not expect this rule to result in any additional costs or economic impacts on these entities, as the rule modestly expands the population of veterans eligible to receive care and requires case management services consistent with current practice. Small entity applicants will not be affected to a greater extent than large entity applicants. Small entities must elect to participate, and this clarification simply reinforces the services these entities are already providing. The expanded population of eligible veterans will not result in any additional costs because the principal driver of cost is bed availability, which will not change as a result of this rule. To the extent this rule will have any impact on small entities, it will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.

    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 final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm, by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD.

    Unfunded Mandates

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

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are as follows: 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 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 24, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Disability benefits, Government contracts, Health care, Homeless, Housing, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Public assistance programs, Public housing, Relocation assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. William F. Russo, Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 63 as follows:

    PART 63—HEALTH CARE FOR HOMELESS VETERANS (HCHV) PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501, 2031, and as noted in specific sections.

    2. Revise § 63.1 to read as follows:
    § 63.1 Purpose and scope.

    This part implements the Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program. This program provides per diem payments to non-VA community-based facilities that provide housing, outreach services, case management services, and rehabilitative services, and may provide care and/or treatment to all eligible homeless veterans.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031(a)(2))
    3. Amend § 63.2 by: a. Adding the definition “Case management” in alphabetical order. b. Revising the definitions of “Homeless” and “Non-VA community-based provider”. c. Removing the definitions of “Serious mental illness” and “Substance use disorder”. d. Revising the authority citation at the end of the section.

    The addition and revisions read as follows:

    § 63.2 Definitions.

    Case management means arranging, coordinating, or providing direct clinical services and support; referring and providing linkage to VA and non-VA resources, providing crisis management services and monitoring; and intervening and advocating on behalf of veterans to support transportation, credit, legal, and other needs.

    Homeless has the meaning given that term in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the definition of homeless in 24 CFR 576.2.

    Non-VA community-based provider means a facility in a community that provides temporary, short-term housing (generally up to 6 months) for the homeless, as well as community outreach, case management, and rehabilitative services, and, as needed, basic mental health services.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2002, 2031)
    4. Amend § 63.3 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 63.3 Eligible Veterans.

    (a) Eligibility. In order to serve as the basis for a per diem payment through the HCHV program, a veteran served by the non-VA community-based provider must be:

    (1) Enrolled in the VA health care system, or eligible for VA health care under 38 CFR 17.36 or 17.37; and

    (2) Homeless.

    § 63.10 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 63.10 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

    (a) Who can apply. VA may award per diem contracts to non-VA community-based providers who provide temporary residential assistance homeless persons, including but not limited to persons with serious mental illness, and who can provide the specific services and meet the standards identified in § 63.15 and elsewhere in this part.

    6. Amend § 63.15 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 63.15 Duties of, and standards applicable to, non-VA community-based providers.

    (b) Treatment plans, therapeutic/rehabilitative services, and case management. Individualized treatment plans are to be developed through a joint effort of the veteran, non-VA community-based provider staff, and VA clinical staff. Therapeutic and rehabilitative services, as well as case management and outreach services, must be provided by the non-VA community-based provider as described in the treatment plan. In some cases, VA may complement the non-VA community-based provider's program with added treatment or other services, such as participation in VA outpatient programs or counseling. In addition to case management services, for example, to coordinate or address relevant issues related to a veteran's homelessness and health as identified in the individual treatment plan, services provided by the non-VA community-based provider should generally include, as appropriate:

    (1) Structured group activities such as group therapy, social skills training, self-help group meetings, or peer counseling.

    (2) Professional counseling, including counseling on self-care skills, adaptive coping skills, and, as appropriate, vocational rehabilitation counseling, in collaboration with VA programs and community resources.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10150 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087; FRL-9926-77-Region 9] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve Rule 1325, Federal PM2.5 New Source Review Program, into the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on February 17, 2015. Rule 1325 governs the issuance of permits for major stationary sources and major modifications located in areas designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS to meet Clean Air Act Part D requirements for emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals for inclusion in state implementation plans. The intended effect is to update the SIP with nonattainment new source review (NNSR) rules for major stationary sources and major modifications emitting PM2.5 and certain PM2.5 precursors.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087] for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, by phone: (415) 972-3534 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comment III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

    On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8250), EPA proposed approval of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1325, Federal PM2.5 New Source Review Program, for inclusion in the California SIP. Rule 1325 was adopted by SCAQMD on December 5, 2014, and submitted by the California Air Resources Board on December 29, 2014.

    II. Public Comment

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this time we received two comments. Only one of the comments, submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of Health Advocates 1 , objected to our proposed approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.

    1 Health Advocates consists of Communities for a Better Environment, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, and Sierra Club My Generation Campaign.

    III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment

    The letter submitted on behalf of Health Advocates objected to EPA's proposed approval of Rule 1325 on three grounds. Below we provide a summary of our response to each of Health Advocates' comments. Please see the Response to Comments document in the docket for this final action for our complete response.

    1. Approval of exclusion of ammonia as a precursor.

    CAA subpart 4 includes section 189(e), which requires NNSR controls for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, and hence PM2.5 precursors, “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” CAA section 189(e) (Emphasis added). EPA has identified ammonia as a precursor to the formation of PM2.5. See generally 80 FR 15340, 15352 (Mar, 23, 2015) (Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule). EPA proposed to approve Rule 1325 even though it does not contain NNSR requirements for ammonia emissions because SCAQMD provided information that demonstrates major stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area. 80 FR at 8251.

    Health Advocates disagreed with our proposal on three grounds, asserting that (1) EPA's determination that a contribution of 1.7 tons per day (tpd) of ammonia emissions to the ammonia inventory is small is “unjustified”; (2) EPA has not demonstrated that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 NAAQS violations in the South Coast Air Basin; and (3) it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to consider the trends and actual air quality of PM2.5 in the area. Earthjustice Letter at p.3.

    EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA applied a weight of the evidence approach taking into account several factors to determine if SCAQMD appropriately determined that major stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 nonattainment in the area.

    One factor we considered is that there are only four existing major stationary sources of ammonia and these four sources' emissions are only a small percentage (1.7%) of the total ammonia inventory for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. Health Advocates did not submit any information or provide an explanation to show that 1.7% is not a small percentage. Health Advocates did not indicate what percentage would be justified as being small. For reasons explained fully in our Response to Comments, EPA continues to consider the 1.7% contribution of ammonia emissions from the four existing stationary sources to be relatively small compared to the rest of the ammonia inventory.

    A second factor we considered is whether major stationary sources of ammonia contribute significantly to levels exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and whether potential new major stationary sources would be expected to contribute significantly to levels exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. The SCAQMD provided information showing that a regional increase of 10 tpd of ammonia (more than five times the amount currently emitted by all major stationary sources) would result in a 0.22 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations. This estimated increase in annual PM2.5 concentration would be 1.5% of the 15 μg/m3 1997 PM2.5 annual standard. SCAQMD submitted additional information showing that decreasing ammonia emissions by 2.9 tpd near the Mira Loma monitor would result in a reduction of 0.16 μg/m3 at that monitor.2 This estimated increase in 24-hr PM2.5 concentration would be 0.46% of the 35 μg/m3 1997 PM2.5 24-hr standard. Based on these data, one can reasonably conclude that the current ambient contribution (in μg/m3) of the four existing major stationary sources (with emissions of 1.7 tpd) and the ambient contributions from a new major source, to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard are likely to be less than the estimated changes in PM2.5 concentrations indicated in the analyses cited above (which evaluated emission changes of 10 tpd and 2.9 tpd, respectively). Thus, EPA determined that existing and new major stationary sources of ammonia would make a relatively minor contribution to levels exceeding the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.

    2 Draft Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin dated January 2015 at E-1.

    A third factor we considered was the progress the SCAQMD has made and the overall severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the South Coast Air Basin. Health Advocates contends it was arbitrary and capricious to consider the past progress and current air quality and asserts that our evaluation of the air quality is flawed. We disagree with both points. EPA's General Preamble in 1992 noted that determinations under CAA section 189(e) are case-by-case and depend on a variety of information that is specific to the area. See 57 FR 13498, 13538-42 (April 16, 1992). EPA's proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently reiterated that application of section 189(e) should be case-specific and focused on location, including a weight of the evidence approach considering, among other factors, the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area. 80 FR at 15359. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider this factor.

    Health Advocates also asserted that EPA's discussion of the air quality in the South Coast Air Basin was misleading, contending that there were violations of both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Earthjustice Letter at p. 3-4. EPA acknowledges one monitor (Mira Loma) has recorded PM2.5 emissions exceeding the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013 air quality data. However, Health Advocates failed to provide any information to support its claims that there are any current violations of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The information Health Advocates cited to support its allegations of additional violations of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at the Mira Loma monitor is from a combination of both federal and non-federal reference method monitors. In in addition the data is preliminary, uncertified and has not been quality assured.

    Based on the weight of the evidence, EPA concludes that it was appropriate for SCAQMD to exclude ammonia as a precursor pursuant to CAA section 189(e).

    2. Regulation of VOCs by SCAQMD NNSR Rule 1303 rather than Rule 1325.

    Health Advocates also disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve Rule 1325 without requiring VOC emissions to be included in the Rule's requirements. Id at p. 4. Health Advocates contends our proposal is inconsistent with CAA section 189(e).

    EPA did not propose to determine that VOCs do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 standards and is making no such finding in this final rule. Instead, consistent with the proposed rule, EPA is determining that the NNSR control requirements applicable under the SCAQMD SIP for major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of VOCs (which are PM2.5 precursors), because major VOC sources are currently subject to stringent NNSR control requirements under Rule 1303. The requirements in Rule 1303 3 are more stringent than those that would apply under Rule 1325 and fully satisfy the control requirements of CAA section 189(e) with respect to VOCs.4 Moreover, it is long-standing EPA policy to allow NNSR regulation of PM precursors via their regulation through other NNSR programs. 57 FR at 13542 (“The VOC reductions may also be realized from new or modified major stationary sources due to the implementation of NSR programs in ozone nonattainment or attainment areas”).

    3 SCAQMD Regulation XIII establishes the NNSR program requirements for VOC emissions from stationary sources. Rule 1303 references other SCAQMD rules in Regulation XIII. Our citation to Rule 1303 also includes any other provisions in Regulation XIII as applicable.

    4 Section 189(e) of the CAA states that “[t]he control requirements applicable under plans in effect under this part for major stationary sources of PM10 shall also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors,” except where the Administrator makes specific findings.

    We continue to find that the NNSR regulation of VOC emissions pursuant to Rule 1303 rather than Rule 1325 satisfies the requirements of section 189(e).

    3. Consideration of attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Finally, Health Advocates contends that EPA cannot approve Rule 1325 because the South Coast Air Basin has not demonstrated the area is in attainment with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Earthjustice Letter at p. 5.

    There is no requirement for the area to have attained the PM2.5 NAAQS as a predicate for EPA to approve a new NNSR rule for PM2.5. Approval of a new NNSR rule to control emissions of PM2.5, including NOX, SO2 and VOCs 5 emissions as precursors, in no way interferes with the SCAQMD's progress towards attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    5 As noted above, major stationary sources of VOC emissions are regulated pursuant to a different, more stringent NNSR rule (Rule 1303) rather than Rule 1325.

    No comments were submitted to change our assessment of Rule 1325 as described in our proposed action. Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided in our proposed action, associated TSD and detailed Response to Comments document included in the docket, EPA is finalizing approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR 52.220 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(458) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (458) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on December 29, 2014 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) Incorporation by Reference.

    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Rule 1325, Rule 1325, “Federal PM2.5 New Source Review Program” adopted on December 5, 2014.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10239 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0248; FRL-9926-24] Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin in or on coffee, green bean; pear, Asian; and tea, dried. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to cover residues of azoxystrobin in coffee, Asian pear, and tea imported into the United States; there are currently no U.S. registrations for pesticides containing azoxystrobin that are used on coffee, Asian pear, or tea.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 1, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 30, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0248, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0248 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 30, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0248, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL-9910-29), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E8228) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin, in or on coffee, bean, green at 0.03 parts per million (ppm); pear, Asian at 0.07 ppm and tea at 10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has increased the tolerance on tea from what the petitioner requested. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Azoxystrobin has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant and is not a skin sensitizer. Repeated oral dosing of azoxystrobin to rats resulted in decreased body weights, decreased food intake and utilization, increased diarrhea, and other clinical toxicity observations (increased urinary incontinence, hunched postures, and distended abdomens). In addition, liver effects characterized by increased liver weights, increase in alkaline phosphatase and gamma glutamyltransferase, decrease in albumin, and gross and histological lesions in the liver and bile ducts, were seen in rats. In dogs, effects on liver/biliary function were found after oral administration.

    In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, increased incidence of diarrhea was observed at all dose levels tested. Decreases in body weight and food utilization were noted in the rat subchronic neurotoxicity study. There were no indications of treatment-related neurotoxicity in either the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies.

    In the rat developmental toxicity study, diarrhea, urinary incontinence, and salivation were observed in maternal animals; in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, maternal animals exhibited decreased body weight gain. No adverse treatment-related developmental effects were seen in either study. In the rat reproduction study, offspring and parental effects (decreased body weights and increased adjusted liver weights) were observed at the same dose.

    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. As a result, EPA has classified azoxystrobin as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Azoxystrobin induced a weak mutagenic response in the mouse lymphoma assay, but the activity expressed in vitro is not expected to be expressed in whole animals.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by azoxystrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Human Health Aggregate Risk Assessment for Permanent Tolerances on Imported Asian Pear, Imported Tea, and Imported Coffee; Establishment of Permanent Tolerances on Ti Palm and for Crop Group Conversions for Stone Fruits Group 12-12 and Tree Nut Group 14-12 Crop Groups” on page 5 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0248.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for azoxystrobin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Azoxystrobin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All Populations) LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 3x
  • Acute RfD = 0.67mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.67 mg/kg/day
  • Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on diarrhea at two-hours post dose at all dose levels tested.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.18 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.18 mg/kg/day
  • Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Feeding Study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 82.4/117 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on reduced body weights in both sexes and bile duct lesions in males.
  • Incidental oral short-term
  • (1 to 30 days) & intermediate-term
  • (1 to 6 months)
  • NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 2-Generation Reproduction Study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 165 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weights in both males and females (↓8-21%).
  • Dermal
  • (All durations)
  • No hazard was identified for this exposure scenario. 21-Day Repeated Dose Dermal Study—Rat. No dermal or systemic toxicity was seen at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day).
    Inhalation 1
  • short-term
  • (1 to 30 days) & intermediate-term
  • (1 to 6 months)
  • NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day 2
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 2-Generation Reproduction Study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 165 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weights in both males and females (↓8-21%).
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Azoxystrobin is classified as “Not Likely” to be carcinogenic to humans. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). 1 To protect for the body weight decreases seen in the pups, a 69 kg body weight was used for estimating short- and intermediate-term inhalation doses because the pup body weight decrease also influenced by the maternal health. 2 Toxicity via the inhalation route is assumed to be equivalent to the oral route.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to azoxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing azoxystrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.507. EPA assessed dietary exposures from azoxystrobin in food as follows:

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

    Such effects were identified for azoxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat In America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary assessment incorporated tolerance-level residues for all commodities except for citrus fruits (which used the highest residues from residue trials); 100 percent crop treated (PCT); and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver. 3.16) default processing factors, except for where tolerances were established for processed commodities or when processing studies showed no concentration. Field trial data were translated from the representative commodities to the non-representative commodities according to HED SOP 2000.1“Guidance for Translation of Field Trial Data from Representative Commodities in the Crop Group Regulation to other Commodities in Each Crop Group/Subgroup.”

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary analysis incorporated tolerance-level residues for all commodities, average PCT estimates when available and DEEM (ver. 3.16) default processing factors, except for where tolerances were established for processed commodities or when processing studies showed no concentration.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that azoxystrobin should be classified as “not likely” to be carcinogenic to humans. Therefore a cancer risk assessment is unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Agency estimated the PCT for the chronic dietary exposure assessment for existing uses as follows: Almonds, 20%; apricots, 10%; artichokes, 20%; asparagus, <2.5%; barley, <2.5%; green beans, 15%; blueberries, 15%; broccoli, 10%; cabbage, 10%; cane berries, 5%; cantaloupes, 20%; carrots, 10%; cauliflower, <2.5%; celery, 10%; corn, <2.5%; cotton, <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment), 25%; cucumbers, 20%; dry beans/peas, <2.5%; eggplant, 30%; garlic, 70%; grapefruit, 20%; grapes, 5%; hazelnuts, 5%; lemons, <2.5%; lettuce, <2.5%; nectarines, <2.5%; onions, 5%; oranges, 5%; peaches, 5%; peanuts, 20%; peanuts (seed treatment), 30%; green peas, <2.5%; pecans, 5%; peppers, 20%; pistachios, 5%; plums/prunes, <2.5%; potatoes, 40%; potatoes (seed treatment), <1%; pumpkins, 20%; rice, 40%; soybeans, 5%; soybeans (seed treatment), <1%; spinach, 10%; squash, 20%; strawberries, 25%; sugar beets, 10%; sugar beets (seed treatment), <2.5%; sweet corn, 15%; tangelos, 25%; tangerines, 10%; tobacco, 15%; tomatoes, 25%; walnuts, >2.5%; watermelons, 15%; wheat, 5%; wheat seed (seed treatment), <1%.

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

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

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

    Based on the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), for surface water, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of azoxystrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 70.2 parts per billion (ppb) and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 48.5 ppb. For ground water, the estimated drinking water concentration for both acute and chronic exposure scenarios is 3.1 ppb.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 70.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 48.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Azoxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Outdoor residential (lawns, ornamentals, flower gardens, vegetables, fruit and nut trees, berries and vines) and recreational (golf courses, parks and athletic fields) sites. Additionally, it is registered for use on indoor carpets/other surfaces by non-commercial applicators, and in treated paints (preservative incorporation).

    The proposed uses do not impact the aggregate risk assessment; however, the scenarios that do impact the aggregate assessment have been re-evaluated in this assessment to reflect the revised incidental oral and inhalation PODs. Using those new PODs, EPA assessed residential exposure using the 2012 updated residential standard operating procedures (SOPs) that are now used in all human health assessments.

    For the adult aggregate assessment, the Agency used inhalation exposure from adult handlers applying treated paint via airless sprayers; for the aggregate assessment for children, the Agency used post-application inhalation exposure from space-trays and hand-to-mouth exposures from indoor applications to treated carpets for children 1 to <2 years old.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicity database for azoxystrobin includes prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction study in young rats. In these studies, there is no evidence that azoxystrobin results in increased quantitative sensitivity to developing fetuses. Also in the reproduction study, the offspring and the parental effects occurred at the same dose level.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for all exposure scenarios except acute exposure. For assessing acute dietary risk, EPA is retaining an FQPA factor of 3X to account for the use of a LOAEL from the acute neurotoxicity study to derive an acute reference dose. The Agency believes that a 3X FQPA SF (as opposed to a 10X) will be adequate to extrapolate a NOAEL in assessing acute risk based on the following considerations:

    • The LOAEL is based on a transient effect (diarrhea in rats) expected to be relatively insignificant in nature. This effect is also seen in other chemicals of the same class.

    • The diarrhea was only seen in studies using gavage dosing in the rat, but not in studies using repeat dosing through dietary administration in rats or mice, and not through gavage dosing in rabbits.

    • The very high dose level needed to reach the acute oral lethal dose (LD)50(>5000 mg/kg), and the overall low toxicity of azoxystrobin.

    The decision to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X for the assessment of the remaining exposure scenarios is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for azoxystrobin is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that azoxystrobin is a neurotoxic chemical. Although clinical signs were observed in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies which included transient diarrhea, decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food utilization, no other effects were seen in those studies that would be considered indicative of neurotoxicity. Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that azoxystrobin results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. In the reproduction study, the offspring and the parental effects occurred at the same dose level.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary (food) exposure assessments utilized conservative upper-bound inputs including assuming 100% CT and tolerance-level residues for all commodities except citrus fruits where the highest field trial residue was used as a refinement. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, and used tolerance-level residues for all commodities and PCT information for selected crops. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to azoxystrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by azoxystrobin.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to azoxystrobin will occupy 40% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to azoxystrobin from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of azoxystrobin is not expected.

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

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

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2,400 for adults and 280 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for azoxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

    Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, azoxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk. Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure estimate.

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with a nitrogen-phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) method, RAM 243/04) is available to enforce the tolerance expression for residues of azoxystrobin and its Z-isomer in crop commodities. This method (designated RAM 243, dated 5/15/98) has been submitted to FDA for inclusion in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM), Volume II.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has established a MRL for azoxystrobin in or on coffee, bean at 0.03 ppm. The US tolerance for coffee is harmonized with the Codex MRL. The Codex has not established a MRL for Asian pear or tea.

    C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the notice of filing of Syngenta Crop Protection's petition. The commenter objected to the increase of chemical residues generally and expressed additional concerns about the carcinogenic effects of chemicals in general on humans. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns regarding toxic chemicals and their potential effects on humans. Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, and as discussed further in this preamble, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of azoxystrobin, which included an assessment on the carcinogenic potential of azoxystrobin. Based on its assessment of the available data, the Agency has concluded that azoxystrobin is not likely to be a carcinogen and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of azoxystrobin.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The tolerance on tea has been revised from what was proposed in the initial petition. EPA is increasing the proposed tolerance for tea from 10 ppm to 20.0 ppm. The proposed tolerance of 10 ppm for tea is insufficient, as the trials were conducted at 50% of the label maximum rate. Correction by proportionality to the maximum label rate provides a tolerance recommendation of 20.0 ppm. Also, because magnitude of residue data used to determine the appropriate tolerance level were provided for dried tea only, EPA is only establishing a tolerance for dried tea at this time.

    In addition, EPA is altering the commodity name for “coffee, green bean” from the petitioned-for name (“coffee, bean, green”) to be consistent with the general food and feed commodity vocabulary EPA uses for tolerances and exemptions.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of azoxystrobin, in or on coffee, green bean at 0.03 ppm; pear, Asian at 0.07 ppm; and tea, dried at 20.0 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.507: a. Add alphabetically the entries for “Coffee, green bean”; 1 “Pear, Asian”,1 “Tea, dried” 1 to the table in paragraph (a)(1). b. Revise footnote 1 at the end of the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    The additions and revision read as follows:

    § 180.507 Azoxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Coffee, green bean 1 0.03 *    *    *    *    * Pear, Asian 1 0.07 *    *    *    *    * Tea, dried 1 20.0 *    *    *    *    * 1 There are no United States registrations for use of azoxystrobin on coffee, green bean; ginseng; pear, Asian and tea, dried.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10149 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8381] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available in SFHAs
  • Region II New York: Cairo, Town of, Greene County 360286 October 3, 1975, Emerg; September 6, 1989, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. June 2, 2015 June 2, 2015 Hunter, Town of, Greene County 360292 November 12, 1976, Emerg; February 2, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. *-do-   Do. Hunter, Village of, Greene County 360293 October 1, 1976, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Jewett, Town of, Greene County 361114 May 13, 1980, Emerg; April 4, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Lexington, Town of, Greene County 360294 September 12, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Tannersville, Village of, Greene County 360297 July 15, 1975, Emerg; April 18, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Region III Virginia: Prince George County, Unincorporated Areas 510204 May 17, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Region IV North Carolina: Edgecombe County, Unincorporated Areas 370087 August 6, 1975, Emerg; August 3, 1981, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Halifax County, Unincorporated Areas 370327 November 22, 1976, Emerg; May 5, 1981, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Leggett, Town of, Edgecombe County 370317 March 4, 1997, Emerg; December 20, 1999, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Macclesfield, Town of, Edgecombe County 370090 March 25, 1980, Emerg; March 25, 1980, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Pinetops, Town of, Edgecombe County 370091 November 7, 1975, Emerg; March 28, 1980, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Princeville, Town of, Edgecombe County 370318 August 9, 1976, Emerg; April 15, 1980, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Speed, Town of, Edgecombe County 370093 September 4, 1979, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Tarboro, Town of, Edgecombe County 370094 February 15, 1974, Emerg; January 5, 1978, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Region V Indiana: Andrews, Town of, Huntington County 180097 July 28, 1982, Emerg; September 30, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Huntington, City of, Huntington County 180094 August 8, 1975, Emerg; July 18, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Huntington County, Unincorporated Areas 180438 August 21, 1978, Emerg; July 18, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Markle, Town of, Huntington and Wells Counties 180457 N/A, Emerg; November 7, 1991, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Roanoke, Town of, Huntington County 180096 July 28, 1982, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Warren, Town of, Huntington County 180095 February 19, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VI Oklahoma: Kiowa, Town of, Pittsburg County 400168 N/A, Emerg; May 11, 2012, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Pittsburg County, Unincorporated Areas 400494 November 26, 2002, Emerg; November 1, 2007, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VIII Utah: Ogden, City of, Weber County 490189 December 27, 1974, Emerg; January 19, 1983, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Riverdale, City of, Weber County 490190 October 4, 1974, Emerg; February 3, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Roy, City of, Weber County 490223 January 16, 1976, Emerg; October 24, 1978, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. South Ogden, City of, Weber County 490191 August 2, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Uintah, City of, Weber County 490192 April 30, 1974, Emerg; May 19, 1981, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. Weber County, Unincorporated Areas 490187 March 25, 1975, Emerg; July 19, 1982, Reg; June 2, 2015, Susp. ......do   Do. *-do- =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: April 27, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10229 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 150226189-5389-02] RIN 0648-BE91 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). The final rule increases commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. Quotas for subsequent fishing years would remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking. This rule also announces the closure dates for the red snapper recreational sector components (private angling and for-hire components) in the Gulf. The private angling component will close at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 11, 2015, and the for-hire component will close at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 15, 2015. This rule is intended to help achieve optimum yield for the Gulf red snapper resource without increasing the risk of red snapper experiencing overfishing.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the 2015 Gulf red snapper framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Meyer, telephone 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery, including red snapper, under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On April 1, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (80 FR 17380). The proposed rule and the framework action set forth the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule sets the commercial and recreational quotas (equal to the commercial and recreational annual catch limit (ACLs)) and the recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years for red snapper based on the acceptable biological catch levels chosen by the Council, as recommended by its Scientific and Statistical Committee, and on the current commercial and recreational allocations (51-percent commercial and 49-percent recreational). Quotas for subsequent fishing years will remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking. All values contained in this final rule are given in round weight. For 2015, the commercial quota is set at 7.293 million lb (3.308 million kg) and the recreational quota is set at 7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg); for 2016, the commercial quota is set at 7.120 million lb (3.230 million kg) and the recreational quota is set at 6.840 million lb (3.103 million kg); and for 2017 and subsequent fishing years, the commercial quota is set at 7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg) and the recreational quota is set at 6.733 million lb (3.054 million kg).

    Based on the revised recreational quotas contained in this final rule, the revised recreational ACTs for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years are as follows: 5.606 million lb (2.543 million kg) for 2015; 5.472 million lb (2.482 million kg) for 2016; and 5.384 million lb (2.442 million kg) for 2017. Recreational ACTs for subsequent fishing years will remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking.

    Implementation of Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector for Gulf red snapper (a Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component and a private angling component), allocated the red snapper recreational quota and ACT between the components, and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. These component quotas and ACTs are effective through 2017. In addition, the final rule for Amendment 40 established ACLs for the commercial and recreational sectors, which are equal to the commercial and recreational quotas, respectively. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 40 on April 10, 2015, and a final rule published on April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22422), effective May 22, 2015.

    Based on the component allocations set in Amendment 40 and the increased recreational quotas (equal to the recreational ACLs) contained in this final rule, the resulting recreational component quotas and ACTs are as follows. The for-hire component quota and private angling component quota, respectively, are: 2.964 million lb (1.344 million kg) and 4.043 million lb (1.834 million kg) for 2015; 2.893 million lb (1.312 million kg) and 3.947 million lb (1.790 million kg) for 2016; 2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg) and 3.885 million lb (1.762 million kg) for 2017. The for-hire component ACT and private angling component ACT, respectively, are: 2.371 million lb (1.075 million kg) and 3.234 million lb (1.467 million kg) for 2015; 2.315 million lb (1.050 million kg) and 3.158 million lb (1.432 million kg) for 2016; and 2.278 million lb (1.033 million kg) and 3.108 million lb (1.410 million kg) for 2017.

    Red Snapper Recreational Fishing Season

    In accordance with 50 CFR 622.34(b) and 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i), the red snapper recreational fishing season opens each year on June 1 and closes when the applicable component ACT is projected to be reached. To project the 2015 recreational fishing season lengths, NMFS used finalized 2014 landings data, catch rates for each state, state season lengths, as well as other information. The method used to project these season lengths can be found in SERO-LAPP-2015-04: 2015 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Recreational Season Length Estimates on the SERO Web site. After analysis of the information referenced above, NMFS determined that the season for the private angling component is 10 days and the season for the for-hire component is 44 days. As required by 50 CFR 622.34(b) and 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i), NMFS announces the closure dates for the recreational sector components (private angling and for-hire components) in the Gulf through this final rule. NMFS opens both components on June 1 and closes the private angling component at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 11, 2015, and the for-hire component at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 15, 2015.

    Additional Changes to Codified Text

    This final rule makes two administrative changes to the Gulf Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program regulations. In §§ 622.21 and 622.22, the Web site for the Gulf IFQ program changes from “ifq.sero.fisheries.noaa.gov” to “https://portal.southeast.fisheries.noaa.gov/cs/main.html” to align with the renaming of NMFS Web sites for all of the regions in the U.S. In § 622.21(b)(6)(ii), NMFS revises the minimum share transfer percentage for the Gulf red snapper IFQ program from “0.0001 percent” to “0.000001 percent” to align with the Gulf grouper/tilefish program minimum share transfer percentage and allows for smaller percentages of red snapper IFQ shares to be transferred. When the red snapper IFQ program was implemented in 2007, NMFS determined, based on the share cap and red snapper commercial quota, that 0.0001 percent was the appropriate minimum share transfer percentage. Because the red snapper commercial quota has been increasing, NMFS has now determined that the minimum share transfer percentage should be 0.000001 percent. This gives shareholders greater flexibility by allowing transfers of smaller increments of shares. In addition, modifying the minimum share transfer percentage for red snapper helps avoid confusion among shareholders who trade both red snapper and grouper/tilefish shares because both programs have the same minimum share transfer percentage.

    Comments and Responses

    During the comment period, NMFS received 20 comments, including 17 from private anglers, 1 from a recreational fishing organization, and 2 from charter fishermen. Comments pertinent to the rule unanimously supported increasing the red snapper quota and did not raise any additional issues within the scope of this rulemaking. NMFS agrees with the commenters that the quota increases are appropriate, and are in accordance with the red snapper rebuilding plan.

    Many of these same commenters provided additional observations and suggestions for alternative strategies to manage the recreational red snapper harvest that were beyond the scope of the rule. The Council has considered many of the public suggestions in the past and may consider alternative management options for the recreational harvest of red snapper in the future. NMFS agrees that alternative recreational management strategies may prove to be viable options for the management of red snapper in the future; however, these comments and suggestions are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be further addressed in this rule.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS determined that this final rule and the framework action are necessary for the conversation and management of Gulf red snapper and are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.

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

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. As a result, neither an initial nor final regulatory flexibility analysis was required and therefore, neither was prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Quotas, Recreational, Red Snapper.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.21, the third sentence in paragraph (b)(1), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(2), the last sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(i), the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the only sentence in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B), the third sentence in paragraph (b)(5)(v), the second and third sentences in paragraph (b)(6)(ii), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(6)(iv), and the first sentence in paragraph (b)(10) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.21 Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf red snapper.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * An owner of a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, who has established an IFQ account for Gulf red snapper as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, online via the NMFS IFQ Web site https://portal.southeast.fisheries.noaa.gov/cs/main.html, may establish a vessel account through that IFQ account for that permitted vessel. * * *

    (2) * * * A dealer with a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit can download a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement from the NMFS IFQ Web site. * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * * All IFQ landings and their actual ex-vessel prices must be reported via the IFQ Web site.

    (iii) The dealer must complete a landing transaction report for each landing of Gulf red snapper via the IFQ Web site on the day of offload, except if the fish are being trailered for transport to a dealer as specified in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section (in which case the landing transaction report may be completed prior to the day of offload), and within 96 hours from the time of landing reported on the most recent landing notification, in accordance with the reporting form(s) and instructions provided on the Web site. * * *

    (iv) * * * This form is available via the IFQ Web site. * * *

    (5) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) * * * Authorized methods for contacting NMFS and submitting the report include calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, completing and submitting to NMFS a landing notification provided through the VMS unit, or providing the required information to NMFS through the web-based form available on the IFQ Web site.

    (v) * * * Proposed landing locations may be submitted online via the IFQ Web site, or by calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, at any time; however, new landing locations will be approved only at the end of each calendar-year quarter. * * *

    (6) * * *

    (ii) * * * An IFQ shareholder must initiate a share transfer request by logging onto the IFQ Web site. Following the instructions provided on the IFQ Web site, the shareholder must enter pertinent information regarding the transfer request including, but not limited to, amount of shares to be transferred, which must be a minimum of 0.000001 percent; name of the eligible transferee; and the value of the transferred shares. * * *

    (iv) * * * An IFQ account holder must initiate an allocation transfer by logging onto the IFQ Web site, entering the required information, including but not limited to, name of an eligible transferee and amount of IFQ allocation to be transferred and price, and submitting the transfer electronically. * * *

    (10) * * * On or about January 1 each year, IFQ shareholders will be notified, via the IFQ Web site, of their IFQ share and allocation for the upcoming fishing year. * * *

    3. In § 622.22, the third sentence in paragraph (b)(1), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(2), the last sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(i), the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the only sentence in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B), the third sentence in paragraph (b)(5)(v), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(6)(ii), the second sentence in paragraph (b)(6)(iv), and the first sentence in paragraph (b)(10) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.22 Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * An owner of a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, who has established an IFQ account for the applicable species, as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, online via the NMFS IFQ Web site https://portal.southeast.fisheries.noaa.gov/cs/main.html, may establish a vessel account through that IFQ account for that permitted vessel. * * *

    (2) * * * A dealer with a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit can download a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement from the NMFS IFQ Web site. * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * * All IFQ landings and their actual ex-vessel prices must be reported via the IFQ Web site.

    (iii) The dealer must complete a landing transaction report for each landing of Gulf groupers or tilefishes via the IFQ Web site on the day of offload, except if the fish are being trailered for transport to a dealer as specified in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section (in which case the landing transaction report may be completed prior to the day of offload), and within 96 hours from the time of landing reported on the most recent landing notification, in accordance with the reporting form(s) and instructions provided on the Web site. * * *

    (iv) * * * This form is available via the IFQ Web site. * * *

    (5) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) * * * Authorized methods for contacting NMFS and submitting the report include calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, completing and submitting to NMFS a landing notification provided through the VMS unit, or providing the required information to NMFS through the web-based form available on the IFQ Web site.

    (v) * * * Proposed landing locations may be submitted online via the IFQ Web site, or by calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, at any time; however, new landing locations will be approved only at the end of each calendar-year quarter. * * *

    (6) * * *

    (ii) * * * An IFQ shareholder must initiate a share transfer request by logging onto the IFQ Web site. * * *

    (iv) * * * An IFQ account holder must initiate an allocation transfer by logging onto the IFQ Web site, entering the required information, including but not limited to, the name of an eligible transferee and amount of IFQ allocation to be transferred and price, and submitting the transfer electronically. * * *

    (10) * * * On or about January 1 each year, IFQ shareholders will be notified, via the IFQ Web site, of their IFQ shares and allocations, for each of the five share categories, for the upcoming fishing year. * * *

    4. In § 622.39, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.39 Quotas.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Commercial quota for red snapper. (A) For fishing year 2015—7.293 million lb (3.308 million kg), round weight.

    (B) For fishing year 2016—7.120 million lb (3.230 million kg), round weight.

    (C) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg), round weight.

    (2) * * *

    (i) Recreational quota for red snapper. (A) Total recreational quota (Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas combined).

    (1) For fishing year 2015—7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—6.840 million lb (3.103 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—6.733 million lb (3.054 million kg), round weight.

    (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—2.964 million lb (1.344 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—2.893 million lb (1.312 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017—2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg), round weight.

    (C) Private angling component quota. The private angling component quota applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—4.043 million lb (1.834 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—3.947 million lb (1.790 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017—3.885 million lb (1.762 million kg), round weight.

    5. In § 622.41, paragraph (q) is revised to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (q) Red snapper—(1) Commercial sector. The IFQ program for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico serves as the accountability measure for commercial red snapper. The commercial ACL for red snapper is equal to the applicable commercial quota specified in § 622.39(a)(1)(i).

    (2) Recreational sector. (i) The AA will determine the length of the red snapper recreational fishing season based on when recreational landings are projected to reach the applicable recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section, and announce the closure date in the Federal Register. This will serve as an in-season accountability measure. On and after the effective date of the recreational closure notification, the bag and possession limit for red snapper is zero. The recreational ACL is equal to the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i).

    (ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) of this section, if red snapper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable recreational ACL (quota) specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i), and red snapper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational ACL (quota) by the amount of the quota overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the applicable recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section (based on the buffer between the ACT and the quota specified in the FMP), unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.

    (iii) Recreational ACT for red snapper. (A) Total recreational ACT (Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component ACTs combined).

    (1) For fishing year 2015—5.606 million lb (2.543 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—5.472 million lb (2.482 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—5.384 million lb (2.442 million kg), round weight.

    (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—2.371 million lb (1.075 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—2.315 million lb (1.050 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017—2.278 million lb (1.033 million kg), round weight.

    (C) Private angling component ACT. The private angling component ACT applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.

    (1) For fishing year 2015—3.234 million lb (1.467 million kg), round weight.

    (2) For fishing year 2016—3.158 million lb (1.432 million kg), round weight.

    (3) For fishing year 2017—3.108 million lb (1.410 million kg), round weight.

    [FR Doc. 2015-10088 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 140429387-4971-02] RIN 0648-XD911 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacktip Sharks, Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks, and Hammerhead Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico Region AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is closing the commercial fisheries for blacktip sharks, aggregated large coastal sharks (LCS), and hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region. This action is necessary because the commercial landings of blacktip sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region for the 2015 fishing season are projected to exceed 80 percent of the available commercial quota as of May 1, 2015, commercial landings of aggregated LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region have exceeded 80 percent of the available commercial quota, and the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries are quota-linked under the current regulations.

    DATES:

    The commercial fisheries for blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks are closed effective 11:30 p.m. local time May 3, 2015, until the end of the 2015 fishing season on December 31, 2015, or until and if NMFS announces via a notice in the Federal Register that additional quota is available and the season is reopened.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexis Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301-427-8503; fax 301-713-1917.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

    Under § 635.5(b)(1), dealers must electronically submit reports on sharks that are first received from a vessel on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic reporting system. Reports must be received by no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise notified by NMFS. Under § 635.28(b)(2), the quotas of certain species/fisheries and/or management groups are linked. If quotas are linked, when the specified quota threshold for one management group or species/fishery is reached and is closed, the linked management group or fishery closes at the same time. The quotas for aggregated LCS and the hammerhead shark management groups in the Gulf of Mexico region are linked (§ 635.28(b)(3)(ii)). The blacktip shark quota is not linked to the aggregated LCS or hammerhead shark quotas. Regulations at § 635.28(b)(1) and § 635.28(b)(4) authorize closure of the blacktip shark management group when landings have reached or are expected to reach 80 percent of the quota or before those situations occur.

    Under § 635.28(b)(1) and § 635.28(b)(2), when NMFS calculates that the landings for any species and/or management group of either a non-linked or a linked group have reached or are projected to reach a threshold of 80 percent of the available quota, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for all of the species and/or management groups of either a non-linked or linked group that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until and if NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fisheries for all linked species and/or management groups and specified non-linked species and/or management groups are closed, even across fishing years.

    On December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71331), NMFS announced that the commercial Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota was 328.6 mt dw (724,302 lb dw), the Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS quota for 2015 was 156.5 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (344,980 lb dw), and the Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark quota was 25.3 mt dw (55,722 lb dw). Dealer reports recently received through April 24, 2015, indicate that that 261.1 mt dw or 79 percent of the available Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota has been landed, 128.6 mt dw or 82 percent of the available Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS quota has been landed, and that 12.4 mt dw or 49 percent of the available Gulf of Mexico hammerhead shark quota has been landed. Based on these dealer reports, NMFS estimates that the 80-percent limit specified for a closure notice in the regulations for blacktip sharks will be exceeded as of May 1, 2015, and has been exceeded for aggregated LCS. Accordingly, NMFS is closing the commercial blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead management groups in the Gulf of Mexico region as of 11:30 p.m. local time May 3, 2015. All other shark species or management groups that are currently open will remain open, including the commercial Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS), blacknose sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks other than porbeagle or blue.

    At § 635.27(b)(1), the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that boundary is considered for the purposes of monitoring and setting quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region.

    During the closure, retention of blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region is prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a commercial shark limited access permit under § 635.4. However, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that is also properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for HMS and is engaged in a for-hire trip could fish under the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions (§ 635.22(a) and (c)). Similarly, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and has a NMFS-approved observer onboard may continue to harvest and sell blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region pursuant to the terms and conditions of the shark research permit.

    During this closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark Limited Access Permit (LAP), except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage consistent with § 635.28(b)(5). Additionally, a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region that were harvested by a vessel issued a valid shark research fishery permit per § 635.32 with a NMFS-approved observer onboard during the trip the sharks were taken on as long as the LCS research fishery quota remains open. Similarly, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with relevant state regulations, purchase or receive blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and/or hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.

    Classification

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that providing prior notice and public comment for this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the fishery is currently underway and any delay in this action would result in overharvest of the quota and be inconsistent with management requirements and objectives. Similarly, affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because if the quota is exceeded, the stock may be negatively affected and fishermen ultimately could experience reductions in the available quota and a lack of fishing opportunities in future seasons. For these reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is required under § 635.28(b)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10165 Filed 4-28-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 84 Friday, May 1, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0005] RIN 0579-AE09 Importation of Citrus From Peru; Expansion of Citrus-Growing Area AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetable regulations to allow citrus fruit from the entire country of Peru into the continental United States. Currently, the regulations allow the importation of citrus fruit to the United States from five approved citrus-producing zones in Peru, subject to a systems approach. However, based on the findings of a pest list and commodity import evaluation document, we have determined that this systems approach also mitigates the plant pest risk associated with citrus fruit produced in all other areas of Peru. This action would allow the importation of citrus fruit from the entire country of Peru while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0005.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0005, 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-2015-0005 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. Tony Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2242.

    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 within the United States.

    Under § 319.56-41, grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), limes (C. aurantiifolia), mandarins or tangerines (C. reticulata), sweet oranges (C. sinensis), and tangelos (C. tangelo) may be imported into the United States from approved growing areas in Peru under a systems approach designed to mitigate the risk presented by four species of fruit flies (Anastrepha fracterculus, A. obliqua Macquart, A. serpentina, and Ceratitis capitata) and a Tortricid (Ecdytolopha aurantiana). The systems approach requires the following:

    • The fruit must be accompanied by a permit issued in accordance with § 319.56-3(b);

    • The fruit may be imported in commercial consignments only;

    • The fruit must be grown in an approved growing area (Zone I, Piura; Zone II, Lambayeque; Zone III, Lima; Zone IV, Ica; Zone V, Junin);

    • The production site where the fruit is grown must be registered for export with the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru, and the producer must have signed an agreement with the NPPO of Peru whereby the producer agrees to participate in and follow the fruit fly management program established by the NPPO of Peru;

    • The NPPO of Peru's fruit fly management program must be approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), must require participating citrus producers to allow APHIS inspectors access to production areas in order to monitor compliance with the fruit fly management program, and must follow certain trapping, control, and recordkeeping requirements;

    • The fruit, except limes, must be cold treated for fruit flies in accordance with 7 CFR part 305;

    • Each consignment of fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru stating that the fruit has been inspected and found free of E. aurantiana; and

    • Citrus fruits imported from Peru are subject to inspection and sampling by an inspector at the port of first arrival into the United States in accordance with § 319.56-3(d), and if a single living fruit fly in any stage of development or E. aurantiana is found, the consignment will be held until an investigation is completed and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    The NPPO of Peru has requested that APHIS amend the regulations to allow citrus fruit from the entire country of Peru to be imported into the continental United States.

    As part of our evaluation of Peru's request, we prepared a pest list, titled “Pest List for the Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit (Citrus x paradisi); Lime (C. aurantiifolia); Mandarin Orange, Tangerine, or Hybrids (C. reticulata); Sweet Orange (C. sinensis); and Tangelo (C. x tangelo) from Peru into the Continental United States” (November 2012). The pest list examines the plant pest risks associated with the importation of citrus from the entire country of Peru into the continental United States. The pest list identified the same four fruit flies and one Tortricid identified in the 2003 pest risk assessment for the importation of citrus from the five zones in Peru as potentially following the pathway of citrus fruit from the entire country of Peru to the United States.

    Based on the pest list, we prepared a commodity import evaluation document (CIED), titled, “Expansion of Areas Allowed to Export Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit Including Grapefruit (Citrus x paradisi); Lime (C. aurantiifolia); Mandarin Orange, Tangerine, or Hybrids (C. reticulata); Sweet Orange (C. sinensis); and Tangelo (C. x tangelo) from Peru into the Continental United States” (November 2012), to assess the risks associated with the importation of citrus from the entire country of Peru and recommend mitigation measures to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests and diseases of quarantine concern. The CIED recommends applying the systems approach in § 319.56-41 to citrus fruit from the entire country of Peru.

    Based on the conclusions of the pest list and CIED, we are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of citrus from the entire country of Peru into the continental United States under the systems approach in § 319.56-41. Specifically, we are proposing to remove paragraph (c), which contains the list of approved growing areas that are allowed to export citrus to the United States, and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs.

    Currently, the regulations allow the importation of citrus from Peru into the United States, including Hawaii and the U.S. Territories. Between 2006 and 2012, Peru shipped small consignments to one U.S. Territory, Puerto Rico, but has never exported citrus fruit to Hawaii or the other U.S. territories. As a result, in preparing this rule, we asked the NPPO of Peru whether they intended to ship to markets in Hawaii and the U.S. Territories in the future. Peru indicated that they do not intend to do so, and that their request for market access could be limited to the continental United States. As a result, the pest list and CIED prepared for this proposed rule only evaluated the risk associated with the importation of citrus from Peru into the continental United States, which excludes Hawaii and the U.S. Territories. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the introductory text of the section to limit the importation of citrus from Peru to the continental United States.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This 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).

    Currently, the regulations allow the importation of fresh grapefruit, lime, mandarin, orange, tangerine or hybrids, sweet orange, and tangelo from five approved citrus-producing zones in Peru to the United States. The proposed rule would allow the importation of these fruits from the entire country of Peru into the continental United States under the same conditions that are currently in place. The proposed rule is expected to increase the area in Peru approved to produce citrus for export to the United States to about 1,500 hectares over 3 years. Additional volumes of citrus expected to be shipped to the United States are 5,000 metric tons (MT) in the first year that the rule is in effect, 6,500 MT in the second year, and 8,000 MT in the third year. These quantities are equivalent to less than 1 percent of annual U.S. citrus production or U.S. citrus imports.

    The primary entities that may be affected by the rule are citrus producers, citrus importers, and support industries such as packinghouses. Based on data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture and Small Business Administration small-entity standards, the majority of these operations are small.

    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 citrus to be imported from Peru into the continental United States. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh citrus 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-2015-0005. 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 citrus into the continental United States 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 and monitoring, production sites, recordkeeping, and inspections 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 NPPO of Peru stating that the fruit has been inspected and found free of E. aurantiana. At the port of first arrival, an inspector will sample and cut citrus fruits from each consignment to detect pest infestation.

    Allowing the importation of fresh citrus into the continental United States from Peru will require information collection activities, including permit applications to import plants or plant products, registered production sites and agreements, fruit fly trapping and control, trapping records, 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 2.6 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO of Peru, producers/growers, and importers.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 67.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 14.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 912.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 2,334 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.

    § 319.56-41 [Amended]
    2. Section 319.56-41 is amended as follows: a. In the introductory text, by adding the word “continental” between the words “the” and “United States”. b. By removing paragraph (c). c. By redesignating paragraphs (d) through (h) as paragraphs (c) through (g), respectively. Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10199 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 3 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0098] Petition To Develop Specific Ethologically Appropriate Standards for Nonhuman Primates in Research AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    We are notifying the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition requesting that we amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to specify ethologically appropriate standards that researchers must adhere to in order to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used in research. We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments regarding the petition and any issues raised by the petition that we should take into account as we consider this petition.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0098.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0098, 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-2014-0098 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:

    Dr. Carol Clarke, Research Program Manager, USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3751.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), among other things, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to promulgate standards and other requirements governing research facilities. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for enforcing the AWA to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care.

    Regulations and standards promulgated under the AWA are contained in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to collectively below as the AWA regulations). Part 3 of the AWA regulations contains specific standards regarding the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of species of animals covered under the AWA.

    Within part 3 of the AWA regulations, subpart D (§§ 3.75-3.92) contains standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of nonhuman primates.

    Section 3.81 of the AWA regulations requires research facilities that house nonhuman primates to develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environmental enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. The section further specifies that the plan must be in accordance with currently accepted professional standards as cited in appropriate professional journals or reference guides, and as directed by the attending veterinarian for the facility. The plan must be available to APHIS upon request, and in the case of research facilities, it must also be available to the funding agency. The plan must address at a minimum: Social grouping, environmental enrichment, special considerations, and use of restraint devices. Exemptions to the plan can be made by the attending veterinarian for the facility because of a particular animal's health or condition, or in consideration of that animal's well-being. Additionally, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), a committee entrusted with ensuring the research facility's compliance with the AWA regulations, may exempt individual nonhuman primates from the plan for scientific reasons, provided these reasons are set forth in a research proposal and reviewed by the IACUC.

    On May 7, 2014, APHIS received a petition submitted jointly by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance, the Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund requesting that we initiate rulemaking to amend the AWA regulations. Specifically, the petition asks that we amend § 3.81 to require that research facilities construct and maintain an ethologically appropriate environment for nonhuman primates housed at the facilities, that is, an environment that is appropriate with respect to the patterns of behavior exhibited by the nonhuman primates in their natural state. The petition also asks that we amend § 3.81 to specify minimum standards that must be met in order for an environment to be considered ethologically appropriate. The petition cites standards recently adopted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for chimpanzees used in NIH-funded research as a reference point for the development of such generally applicable minimum standards and as evidence of their feasibility.

    The petition agrees that the intent of § 3.81 of the AWA regulations is to ensure that the environment provided to nonhuman primates housed at research facilities promotes the psychological well-being of the primates. The petition suggests, however, that because of ambiguities in the current regulations, research facilities have broad discretion regarding the actual environment provided to nonhuman primates at their facilities, and can meet the requirements in § 3.81 without actually meeting their intent.

    The petition states that, by amending the AWA regulations in the manner that the petitioners suggest, we would remove these ambiguities and facilitate regulatory compliance.

    We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments to help determine what action, if any, to take in response to this request. The petition and any comments submitted are available for review as indicated under ADDRESSES above. We welcome all comments on the issues outlined in the petition. In particular, we invite responses to the following questions:

    1. Should APHIS amend § 3.81 of the AWA regulations to require research facilities to construct and maintain an ethologically appropriate environment for nonhuman primates, and specify the minimum standards that must be met for an environment to be considered ethologically appropriate?

    2. What constitutes an ethologically appropriate environment for a nonhuman primate? Does this differ among species of nonhuman primates? If so, how does it differ?

    3. Are there any environmental conditions that make an environment ethologically inappropriate for a nonhuman primate? If so, what are they? Do they differ among species of nonhuman primates?

    4. Does an ethologically appropriate environment for nonhuman primates used in research differ from an ethologically appropriate environment for nonhuman primates that are sold or exhibited? If so, in what ways does it differ?

    5. Who should make the determination regarding the ethological appropriateness of the environment for nonhuman primates at a particular research facility: The attending veterinarian for the facility, APHIS, or both parties? If both parties should jointly make such a determination, which responsibilities should fall to the attending veterinarian and which to APHIS?

    We encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments and position. We also invite data on the costs and benefits associated with any recommendations. We will consider all comments and recommendations received.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10195 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006] RIN 1904-AC55 Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of Data Availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed a provisional analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating an energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. This analysis incorporates information and comments received after the completion of an analysis presented in a notice of data availability (NODA) published in December 2014. At this time, DOE is not proposing an energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. This analysis may be used in support of the Appliance Standards Federal Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) commercial and industrial fans working group negotiations to develop a recommendation for regulating commercial and industrial fans. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis and to present comments submitted to this NODA and to the NODA published in December 2014 to the working group.

    DATES:

    Information is available as of May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The analysis for this NODA is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=25.

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, by any of the following methods:

    (1) Email: to [email protected] Include EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    (2) Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Revisions to Energy Efficiency Enforcement Regulations, EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    (4) Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking.

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

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including public comments. See ADDRESSES, for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected].

    Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers II. Current Status III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE A. Energy Metric B. Engineering Analysis C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses E. National Impact Analysis IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public Comment I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment under Title III, Part C. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) 1 Included among the various types of industrial equipment addressed by EPCA are commercial and industrial fans and blowers, the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2) (A)) All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (December 18, 2012).

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1.

    DOE initiated the current rulemaking by publishing a proposed coverage determination for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. 76 FR 37678 (June 28, 2011). This was followed by the publication of a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document for commercial and industrial fans and blowers in the Federal Register. In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback from interested parties on many issues related to analyses DOE would conduct as part of the rulemaking, such as the engineering analysis, the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses, and the national impact analysis (NIA). 78 FR 7306 (February 1, 2013).2

    2 Supporting documents are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006

    On December 10, 2014, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability (the “December 2014 NODA”) that presented a provisional analysis estimating the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating a regulatory energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. 79 FR 73246.3 The December 2014 NODA analysis relied on an electric input power based metric (i.e., “wire-to-air”), the fan energy index (FEI). The FEI of a fan was defined as the average electric input power, or fan energy rating, of a fan that exactly meets the efficiency level being analyzed (FERSTD), divided by the average electric input power or fan energy rating of the fan (FER). In the December 2014 NODA, the FER was calculated over a specific load profile based on the fan's flow at peak total efficiency 4 and at a specified speed.5

    3 The December 2014 NODA comment period was originally scheduled to close on January 26, 2015. DOE subsequently published a notice in the Federal Register extending the comment period to February 25, 2015, to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments.

    4 The efficiency of a fan is defined as the ratio of air output power to mechanical input power. Fan efficiency varies depending on the output flow and pressure. The best efficiency point or BEP represents the flow and pressure values at which the fan efficiency is maximized when operating at a given speed.

    5 In the December 2014 NODA, DOE calculated the FEI at the speed corresponding to the highest electric motor synchronous speed configuration that exists within the fan's operational speed range.

    In October 2014, several energy efficiency advocates and representatives of fan manufacturers 6 (the “Joint Stakeholders”) presented a different energy metric approach to DOE called “Fan Efficiency Ratio”. The Joint Stakeholder approach included a fan efficiency only metric (FERH) as well as a wire-to-air metric (FERW).7 This metric approach was described in more details by AMCA in a white paper (“AMCA white paper”) published in December 2014 which AMCA included in comments to the December 2014 NODA.8 (AMCA, No. 48 at p. 15) Based on the additional information received, and comments to the December 2014 NODA, DOE revised its analysis. This second NODA presents an analysis that characterizes fan performance and efficiency levels using a revised FEI metric that is based on the FERW presented by the Joint Stakeholders. (See section III.A for details on the revised FEI metric)

    6 The Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA), New York Blower Company, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).

    7 Supporting documents from this meeting, including presentation slides are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#a!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.

    8 All comments are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.

    II. Current Status

    The analyses described in this NODA were developed to support a potential energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans. As DOE announced in an April 2015 notice, DOE intends to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed definitions, the equipment classes for which standards would be considered (including any system interaction effects), certain aspects of a proposed test procedure (if applicable), and proposed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359 (April 1, 2015)

    To examine these issues, and others as necessary, DOE will provide to all parties in the negotiation data and an analytic framework complete and accurate enough to support their deliberations. DOE is publishing this analysis to inform a prospective negotiation.

    In this NODA, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans. DOE may revise the analyses presented in this NODA based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during the course of the rulemaking. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis.

    III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE

    DOE developed a fan energy performance metric and conducted provisional analyses of commercial and industrial fans in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) manufacturer impacts; (3) LCC and PBP; and (4) national impacts. The metric and provisional analyses incorporate information received after the completion of the analysis for the December 2014 NODA, including the published fan industry white paper “Fan Efficiency Ratios” and a database of confidential sales information provided by (AMCA). The fan energy performance metric and the tools used in preparing these analyses and their respective results are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006. Each individual spreadsheet includes an introduction that provides an overview of the contents of the spreadsheet. These spreadsheets present the various inputs and outputs to the analysis and, where necessary, instructions. Brief descriptions of the fan energy performance metric, of the provisional analyses, and of the supporting spreadsheet tools are provided below. If DOE proposes an energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans in a future NOPR, then DOE will publish a TSD containing a detailed written account of the analyses performed in support of the NOPR, which will include updates to the analyses made available in this NODA.

    A. Energy Metric

    Commercial and industrial fan energy performance is a critical input in the provisional analyses discussed in this notice. For the purpose of this NODA, DOE revised the fan energy metric used to represent fan performance and characterize the efficiency levels analyzed in the December 2014 NODA. The revised FEI metric is based on an approach similar to the wire-to-air metric presented by the Joint Stakeholders to DOE in October 2014. AMCA subsequently published a white paper in December 2014 that describes the Joint Stakeholder approach in more detail. AMCA included this white paper in its publicily-available comments to the December 2014 NODA, which additional stakeholders supported in their written comments on the December 2014 NODA.9 10 (Joint Stakeholders, No. 50 at p. 2; AMCA, No. 48 at p. 15; CAIous, No. 49 at p. 2; Morrison, No. 51 at p. 2)

    9 Supporting documents from the October 2014 meeting, including presentation slides are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0029.

    10AMCA, Introducing Fan Efficiency Ratios, December 2014, http://www.amca.org/resources/FER_Whitepaper_single%20pages.pdf.

    In this NODA, the FEI is defined as the electric input power of a fan, or fan energy rating that exactly meets the efficiency level being analyzed (FERSTD), divided by the electric input power, or fan energy rating, of a given fan model (FER) at a given operating point (characterized by a value of flow and total pressure). For a given operating point, an FEI value less than one would indicate that the fan does not meet the efficiency level being analyzed for that given operating point, while a value greater than one would indicate that the fan is more efficient than the efficiency level being analyzed at that given operating point. For each fan operating point, the FEI is calculated as:

    EP01MY15.008

    In order to calculate the FER of a fan, DOE assumed default motor full load and part load efficiency values, as well as default transmission losses: 11

    11 These default losses assumptions are presented in the LCC spreadsheet, in the “Default Losses” worksheet. The default transmission efficiency is equal to one in case of a direct driven fan.

    EP01MY15.009 Where: FERi: electrical input power (hp) at operating point i; Q i: flow (cfm) at operating point i; P i: total fan efficiency (%) at operating point i; ηfan,i: total fan efficiency (%) at operating point i; ηT,i: default transmission efficiency (%) at oprating point i (equals 100% f the fan is a direct driven fan); L M,i: default electric motor losses (hp) at operatin gpoint i; BHP i: shaft input power (hp) at operating point i; 6343: conversion factor to I-P units.

    For the FERSTD calculation of a fan that exactly meets the efficiency level being analyzed, DOE used the same FER equation, except the calculation of the fan shaft input power is based on a minimum allowable fan total efficiency:

    EP01MY15.010 Where: FER STD,i: Maximum allowable electrical input power (hp) at operating point i; BHP STD,i: Maximum allowable shaft input power (hp) at operating point i; Q i: flow (cfm) at operating point i; P i: total pressure (in.wg) at operating point i; ηSTD,i: minimum total fan efficiency (%) at operating point i ; ηT,i: default transmission efficiency (%) at operating point i (the minimally compliant fan is assumed to always be belt-driven); L M,i: default electric motor losses (hp) at operating point i; 6343: conversion factor to I-P units.

    For all fan categories, the minimum fan total efficiency at a given operating point is expressed as a function of flow and total pressure, as follows:

    EP01MY15.011 Where: ηSTD,i: Minimum total fan efficiency (%) at operating point i; BHP STD,i: Max allowable shaft input power (hp) at operating point i; Q 0: flow constant equal to 250 P 0: total pressure constant equal to 0.4 ηtarget: constant used to establish the efficiency level 12

    12 The efficiency target is a constant that described the expected minimum allowable fan efficiency for very high flow and total pressure operating points at a given efficiency level.

    6343: conversion factor to I-P units

    This equation was based on the metric approach recommended by the Joint Stakeholders as well as on AMCA's proposed values for Q 0 and P 0 and on DOE's preliminary review of the applicability of this equation.13

    13 See AMCA's DOE Fan efficiency Proposal presented at the 59th AMCA Annual Meeting, January 24, 2015. http://www.amca.org/adovacy/documents/DOEFanEfficiencyProposal-AMCAAnnualMeetingRedux1-24-15.pdf.

    The primary difference between the revised FEI metric used in this NODA and the wire-to-air metric recommended by the Joint Stakeholders is that the Joint Stakeholders recommend using an equation expressing static efficiency 14 as a function of static pressure and flow when calculating FER and FERSTD at a given operating point for unducted fans (i.e. fans generally applied without a duct on their outlet), instead of using total efficiency as a function of total pressure and flow, as recommended for ducted fans.15 In its white paper, AMCA states that a metric based on static efficiency should be used for unducted fans, to accommodate the selection of unducted fans based on the use of static pressure. AMCA noted, however, that this opinion is not shared across all the industry. Three additional representatives of the industry agreed that static efficiency should be the basis for any metric related to unducted fans because of existing selection practices, while one recommended using total efficiency for all fan categories. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 50 at p. 3; AMCA, No. 48 at p. 16; CES Group LLC, No. 40 at p. 1; Multi-wing, No. 52 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 43 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 51 at p. 2)

    14 Static efficiency is equal to the total efficiency multiplied by the ratio of static pressure to total pressure, at a given point of operation. Static pressure is the difference between fan total pressure and fan velocity pressure at a given point of operation.

    15 Unducted fans include the following fan categories: Axial unhoused, centrifugal unhoused, and power roof ventilators.

    DOE understands that using static pressure may be useful for selecting unducted fans, however, because static efficiency is, by definition, calculated using total pressure, and because the shaft input power of a fan is a function of the fan's total output power and total efficiency, DOE maintained the use of an energy metric based on total pressure and total efficiency for all fan categories.16 DOE does not believe this approach would prevent end-users from selecting fans using either static or total pressure.

    16 The fan's total output power is the power delivered to the air (or gas). It is proportional to the product of the fan airflow rate and fan total pressure (if air were incompressible).

    B. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels of commercial and industrial fans and blowers. This relationship serves as the basis for calculations performed in the other analysis tools to estimate the costs and benefits to individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation.

    As a first step in the engineering analysis, DOE established seven provisional fan groups based on characteristics such as the direction of airflow through the fan and the presence of a housing. While DOE analyzed seven provisional fan groups in this NODA, DOE expects the working group to discuss and ultimately recommend equipment classes for which standards would be considered. For each of the seven provisional fan groupings, DOE identified existing technology options that could affect efficiency. DOE then conducted a screening analysis to review each technology option and decide whether it: (1) Is technologically feasible; (2) is practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) would adversely affect product utility or product availability; or (4) would have adverse impacts on health and safety. The technology options remaining after the screening analysis consisted of a variety of impeller types and guide vanes. DOE used these technology options to divide the fan groups into subgroups and conducted a market-based assessment of the prevalence of each subgroup at the different efficiency levels analyzed using the sales data provided by AMCA. This NODA has fewer subgroups than the December 2014 NODA due to limitations in the sales data provided by AMCA. DOE analyzed six efficiency levels in this NODA, each representing a different efficiency target (η target). AMCA presented results for an efficiency target of 62 percent for ducted fans.17 This NODA includes one efficiency level representing the same efficiency target as well as additional levels above and below.

    17 See AMCA's DOE Fan efficiency Proposal presented at the 59th AMCA Annual Meeting, January 24, 2015. http://www.amca.org/adovacy/documents/DOEFanEfficiencyProposal-AMCAAnnualMeetingRedux1-24-15.pdf

    DOE estimated the MPCs for each technology option for each fan group as a function of blade or impeller diameter, independent of efficiency level. DOE then calculated MPCs for each fan group at each efficiency level analyzed by weighting the MPCs of each technology option within a group by its prevalence at the efficiency level being analyzed. The MPCs were derived from product teardowns and publically-available product literature and informed by interviews with manufacturers.

    DOE's preliminary MPC estimates indicate that the changes in MPC as efficiency level increases are small or, in some fan groups, zero. However, DOE is aware that aerodynamic redesigns are a primary method by which manufacturers improve fan performance. These redesigns require manufacturers to make large upfront investments for R&D, testing and prototyping, and purchasing new production equipment. DOE's preliminary findings indicate that the magnitude of these upfront costs is more significant than the difference in MPC of a fan redesigned for efficiency compared to its precursor. For this NODA, DOE included a conversion cost markup in its calculation of the manufacturer selling price (MSP) to account for these conversion costs. These markups and associated MSPs were developed and applied in downstream analyses. They are discussed in section C and presented in the engineering analysis and conversion cost spreadsheet.

    The main outputs of the commercial and industrial fans engineering analysis are the MPCs of each fan group (including material, labor, and overhead) and technology option distributions at each efficiency level analyzed.

    C. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    For the MIA, DOE used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to assess the economic impact of potential standards on commercial and industrial fan manufacturers. DOE developed key industry average financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data from corporate annual reports along with information received through confidential interviews with manufacturers. These values include average industry tax rate; working capital rate; net property, plant, and equipment rate; selling, general, and administrative expense rate; research and development expense rate; depreciation rate; capital expenditure rate; and manufacturer discount rate.

    Additionally, DOE calculated total industry capital and product conversion costs associated with meeting all analyzed efficiency levels. DOE first estimated the average industry capital and product conversion costs associated with redesigning a single fan model to meet a specific efficiency level. DOE estimated these costs for all technology options within each fan group. DOE multiplied the per model conversion costs by the number of models that would be required to be redesigned at each potential standard level to arrive at the total industry conversion costs. The number of models that would be redesigned was calculated using information from the AMCA sales database.

    In the December 2014 NODA, DOE assumed a redesign time of six months and an additional testing time of six months. Five representatives of the industry commented that six months was not a representative redesign time and made recommendations ranging from 12 to 24 months. (AHRI, No. 53 at p. 8; AMCA, No. 48 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 43 at p. 2; Greenheck, No. 54 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 51 at p. 4) DOE revised its conversion cost estimates in this NODA to assume a redesign time of 12 months and additional testing time of 6 months.

    The GRIM uses these estimated values in conjunction with inputs from other analyses including the MPCs from the engineering analysis, the annual shipments by fan group from the NIA, and the manufacturer markups for the cost recovery markup scenario from the LCC analysis to model industry annual cash flows from the base year through the end of the analysis period. The primary quantitative output of this model is the industry net present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of industry annual cash flows, discounted to the present day using the industry specific weighted average cost of capital, or manufacturer discount rate.

    Standards can affect INPV in several ways including requiring upfront investments in manufacturing capital as well as research and development expenses, which increase the cost of production and potentially alter manufacturer markups. DOE expects that manufacturers may lose a portion of INPV due to standards. The potential loss in INPV due to standards is calculated as the difference between INPV in the base-case (absent new energy conservation standards) and the INPV in the standards case (with new energy conservation standards in effect). DOE examines a range of possible impacts on industry by modeling various pricing strategies commercial and industrial fan manufacturers may adopt following the adoption of new energy conservations standards for commercial and industrial fans.

    In addition to INPV, the MIA also calculates the manufacturer markups, which are applied to the MPCs derived in the engineering analysis, to arrive at the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) in the base case. For efficiency levels above the baseline, which require manufacturers to redesign models that do not meet the potential standards, conversion cost recovery markups were incorporated into the MSP in addition to the manufacturer markup. These conversion markups are based on the total conversion costs from the MIA and calculated to allow manufacturers to recover their upfront conversion costs. They are calculated by amortizing the conversion investment over the units shipped throughout the analysis period that were redesigned to meet the efficiency level being analyzed. The base case and standards case MSPs were used as inputs for downstream analyses.

    D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential standards on individual consumers, in the compliance year. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing and operating a commercial or industrial fan over the course of its lifetime.

    DOE determines the LCC by considering: (1) The total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes); (2) the range of annual energy consumption of commercial and industrial fans as they are used in the field; (3) the operating cost of commercial and industrial fans (e.g., energy cost); (4) equipment lifetime; and (5) a discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms. The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the increase in purchase price of higher-efficiency commercial and industrial fans through savings in the operating cost. PBP is calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of the higher efficiency product, compared to the baseline product, by the annual savings in operating costs.

    For each considered standards case corresponding to each efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the base case. The base case is characterized by the distribution of equipment efficiencies in the absence of new standards (i.e., what consumers would have purchased in the compliance year in the absence of new standards). In the standards cases, equipment with efficiency below the standard levels “roll-up” to the standard level in the compliance year.

    To characterize annual fan operating hours, DOE established statistical distributions of consumers of each fan category across sectors (industry or commercial) and applications (clean air ventilation, exhaust, combustion, drying, process air, process heating/cooling, and others), which in turn determined the fan's operating hours. Recognizing that several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable or uncertain (e.g., annual energy consumption, lifetime, discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulations and probability distributions.

    In addition to characterizing several of the inputs to the analyses with probability distributions, DOE developed a sample of individual fan selections (i.e., a fan models and the operating flow and pressure values for which they were purchased) using fan sales data provided by AMCA 18 . By developing this sample, DOE was able to perform the LCC and PBP calculations for each fan selection to account for the variability in energy consumption associated with each fan selection. DOE notes that when developing the LCC sample, it did not include fan sales data for which no flow and pressure selection information was available.

    18 See description in LCC spreadsheet, LCC sample description worksheet.

    The primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analyses are: (1) Average LCC in each standards case; (2) average PBPs; (3) average LCC savings at each standards case relative to the base case; and (4) the percentage of consumers that experience a net benefit, have no impact, or have a net cost for each fan group and efficiency level. The average annual energy consumption derived in the LCC analysis is used as an input in the NIA.

    E. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential new standards at each EL. DOE calculated NES and NPV for each EL as the difference between a base case forecast (without new standards) and the standards case forecast (with standards). Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined for the lifetime of a commercial or industrial fan shipped during a 30 year analysis period assumed to start in 2019.19 Energy savings include the full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e., the energy needed to extract, process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel sources). The NPV is the sum over time of the discounted net savings each year, which consists of the difference between total energy cost savings and increases in total equipment costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

    19 The LCC and NIA spreadsheet provide results for a different compliance year (2019, 2020, and 2021).

    To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE projected future shipments 20 and efficiency distributions (for each EL) for each potential commercial and industrial fan category. DOE recognizes the uncertainty in projecting shipments and electricity prices; as a result the NIA includes several different scenarios for each. Other inputs to the NIA include the estimated commercial and industrial fan lifetime used in the LCC analysis, manufacturer selling prices from the MIA, average annual energy consumption, and efficiency distributions from the LCC.

    20 The “shipments” worksheet of the NIA spreadsheet presents the scope of the analysis and the total shipments value in units for the fans in scope.

    IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Public Comment

    DOE is interested in receiving comment on all aspects of this analysis. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:

    1. DOE requests comments on the equation expressing fan total efficiency as presented in this notice, as a function of flow and total pressure.

    2. DOE requests comment on the values of the flow constant (Q0) and total pressure constant (P0) used to calculate the minimum fan total efficiency at a given operating point.

    3. DOE requests comments on the default transmission efficiency equation used in the FEI calculation.

    4. DOE requests comments on the default motor losses assumptions used in the FEI calculation.

    5. DOE requests comments on how manufacturers determine/would determine whether to redesign or eliminate a fan model that is not compliant at an operating point or points at which it has been sold previously.

    6. DOE estimated the number of redesigns at each efficiency level based on the sales data provided by AMCA. DOE recognizes that the AMCA data does not include all commercial and industrial fan sales for the industry, and that existing fans can operate at more selection points than those at which they were sold as represented in the AMCA sales database. DOE requests comments on whether the resulting total conversion costs presented in the spreadsheets released with this NODA are representative of the industry at the efficiency levels analyzed. If not, how should the number of redesigns be adjusted to be representative of the industry?

    7. DOE requests additional information to allow quantifying installation, repair, and maintenance costs for industrial and commercial fans.

    8. DOE requests additional information to allow quantifying lifetimes for industrial and commercial fans.

    9. DOE requests additional information to allow quantifying annual operating hours for industrial and commercial fans.

    10. DOE seeks inputs and comments on the estimates of flow and total pressure operating points used in the energy use analysis.

    11. DOE requests comments on how to account for consumers purchasing fans without providing any selection data (i.e., design flow and pressure values) in the LCC calculations.

    12. DOE requests comment on determining the motor horsepower based on 120 percent of the fan shaft input power when performing the energy use calculation.

    13. DOE requests comments on the method used in the LCC to identify fans that could be considered substitutes.

    14. DOE seeks comments and inputs regarding the use of typical fan curves and efficiency curves in order to calculate fan shaft input power at different flow and pressure values based on a fan selection's performance data at a single given design point.

    15. DOE seeks inputs to support the development of trends in fan efficiency over time in the base case and in the standards cases.

    The purpose of this NODA is to notify industry, manufacturers, consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other stakeholders of the publication of an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans. Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information pertaining to the analyses performed for this NODA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10036 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 127 RIN 3245-AG72 Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes to amend its regulations to implement section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (2015 NDAA). Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA included language granting contracting officers the authority to award sole source contracts to Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs). Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA also changed the deadline for SBA to conduct a study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented to January 2, 2016. As a result, SBA is proposing to amend its definitions of underrepresentation and substantial underrepresentation.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AG72, or by docket number SBA-2015-0004, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Brenda Fernandez, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning & Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416. SBA will not accept comments to this proposed rule submitted by email. SBA will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, please submit the information to Brenda Fernandez, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review the information and make the final determination on whether it will publish the information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Fernandez, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Policy, Planning & Liaison, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205-7337; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program, set forth in section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(m), authorizes Federal contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) or Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs) for Federal contracts in certain industries. Section 8(m) of the Small Business Act (Act) sets forth certain criteria for the WOSB Program, including the eligibility and contract requirements for the program. Congress recently amended the WOSB Program with section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (December 19, 2014) (2015 NDAA), which included language granting contracting officers the authority to award sole source awards to WOSBs and EDWOSBs and shortening the time period for SBA to conduct a required study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented.

    II. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Sole Source Authority

    In order to implement these statutory changes, SBA is proposing to amend 13 CFR part 127. Specifically, this proposed rule amends § 127.101, concerning the type of contracting assistance available under part 127, to include the new sole source authority. This proposed rule also amends the definitions of the terms “EDWOSB requirement” and “WOSB requirement” in § 127.102 to include sole source contracts. The proposed rule also amends § 127.500, which concerns the industries in which a contracting officer is authorized to restrict competition under the WOSB program, to address the new sole source authority.

    SBA proposes to amend § 127.503 by adding two new paragraphs to incorporate the statutory language of section 825 of the 2015 NDAA granting authority for sole source contracts to EDWOSBs and WOSBs. Under this statutory authority, if a contracting officer conducts market research in an industry where a WOSB or EDWOSB set-aside is authorized, and the contracting officer cannot identify two or more WOSBs or EDWOSBs that can perform at a fair and reasonable price, but identifies one WOSB or EDWOSB that can perform at a fair and reasonable price, the contracting officer can award the contract on a sole source basis, if the value of the contract, including options, does not exceed $6.5 million for manufacturing contracts and $4 million for all other contracts.

    The proposed rule also amends § 127.507, concerning contracting opportunities at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, to address sole source awards under the WOSB Program. Finally, the proposed rule amends the protest regulations in § 127.600 to include procedures for protests involving sole source contracts. The protest procedures for sole source contracts to WOSBs and EDWOSBs would be the same as those procedures for sole source contracts involving service-disabled veteran owned small business concerns (SDVO SBC) (§ 125.24(a)) and HUBZone small business concerns (§ 126.800(a)).

    B. Time Period for Study

    In order to comply with the revised timeline for SBA to conduct a required study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented, SBA is proposing to revise the definitions of “underrepresentation” and “substantial underrepresentation” in § 127.102. Section 825 established a new timeline for SBA to conduct a study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented. The original deadline for this study was established by section 1697(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. 112-239, January 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2091 (2013 NDAA), which required SBA to conduct a study of the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented within five years of the date of enactment of the 2013 NDAA (and every 5 years thereafter). Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA amended section 1697(b) of the 2013 NDAA and changed the deadline to within 3 years of the date of enactment of the 2013 NDAA, which means the study must be conducted by January 2, 2016.

    In order to meet this deadline, the proposed rule amends the definitions of the terms “substantial underrepresentation” and “underrepresentation” in § 127.102. This change would allow SBA to conduct a study within the time constraint imposed by Congress by providing SBA with the flexibility necessary to conduct the most reliable and relevant study of WOSB participation in Federal contracting. In addition, the new definitions of these terms would align more closely than the current definitions with the statutory intent of the 2013 NDAA and the 2015 NDAA.

    C. Other

    SBA recognizes that Section 825 also created a requirement that a firm be certified as a WOSB or EDWOSB by a Federal Agency, a State government, SBA, or a national certifying entity approved by SBA. This statutory requirement appears to apply to both sole source and set asides under the WOSB Program, and may require substantial resources. Establishing a certification requirement and process will require a more prolonged rulemaking before SBA can establish such a program. In our view, there is no evidence that Congress intended to halt the existing WOSB Program until such time as SBA establishes the infrastructure and issues regulations implementing the statutory certification requirement. Instead, we maintain that the new WOSB sole source authority can and should be implemented as quickly as possible, using existing program rules and procedures, while SBA proceeds with implementing the certification requirement through a separate rulemaking.

    III. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, 13563, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 800.

    Executive Order 12988

    This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

    Executive Order 13132

    For the purpose of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that the proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore SBA has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment.

    Executive Order 13563

    A description of the need for this regulatory action, the benefits and costs associated with this action, and any alternatives are included in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

    In drafting this proposed rule, SBA considered input submitted by three coalitions of women's groups representing women-owned small businesses who support this rule and encourage its quick implementation.

    Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Ch. 35

    For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, SBA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C., 601-612

    According to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, when an agency issues a rulemaking, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis to address the impact of the rule on small entities. In accordance with this requirement, SBA has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis addressing the impact of this rule.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. What are the need for and objective of this proposed rule?

    This proposed rule is necessary to implement Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, December 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3292 (2015 NDAA). Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA included language granting contracting officers the authority to award sole source contracts to Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs). The purpose of this rule is to establish the procedures whereby Federal agencies may award sole source contracts to WOSBs and EDWOSBs and to provide a mechanism to protest such awards. The rule provides an additional tool for Federal agencies to ensure that WOSBs have an equal opportunity to participate in Federal contracting and ensures consistency among SBA's socio-economic small business contracting programs. The objectives of this proposed rule are to put the WOSB Program on a level playing field with other SBA government contracting programs with sole source authority, and to provide an additional, needed tool for agencies to meet the statutorily mandated 5% prime contracting goal for WOSBs.

    Section 825 of the 2015 NDAA also revised the timeline for SBA to conduct a study to determine the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented. This proposed rule is necessary to allow SBA to conduct the most reliable and relevant study of WOSB participation in Federal contracting and comply with the new statutorily mandated timeline.

    2. What is the legal basis for this proposed rule?

    The legal basis for this proposed rule is section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, December 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3292, which amended Section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(m).

    3. What is SBA's description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply?

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small business concerns that may be affected by the rule. This proposed rule establishes a new procurement mechanism to benefit WOSBs. Therefore, WOSBs and EDWOSBs available to compete for Federal contracts under the WOSB Program are the specific group of small business concerns most directly affected by this rule.

    SBA searched the Dynamic Small Business Supplemental Search (DSBS) and determined that there were approximately 34,000 firms listed as either WOSBs or EDWOSBs under the WOSB Program. In addition, according to the fiscal year 2013 small business goaling report, there were a little over 250,000 actions concerning women-owned small businesses and the total dollar value of those actions was approximately $15 billion. An analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System from April 1, 2011 (the implementation date of the WOSB Program) through January 1, 2013, revealed that there were approximately 26,712 women-owned small business concerns, including 131 EDWOSBs and 388 WOSBs eligible under the WOSB Program, that received obligated funds from Federal contract awards, task or delivery orders, and modifications to existing contracts.

    Therefore, this rule could affect a smaller number of EDWOSBs and WOSBs than those eligible under the WOSB Program. We note that the sole source authority can only be used where a contracting officer conducts market research in an industry where a WOSB or EDWOSB set-aside is authorized, and the contracting officer cannot identify two or more WOSBs or EDWOSBs that can perform at a fair and reasonable price, but identifies one WOSB or EDWOSB that can perform. In addition, the sole source authority for WOSBs and EDWOSBs is limited to contracts valued at $6.5 million or less for manufacturing contracts and $4 million or less for all other contracts.

    Nonetheless, we believe that this rule may have a significant positive economic impact on EDWOSB concerns competing for Federal contracting opportunities in industries determined by SBA to be underrepresented by WOSB concerns and likewise may positively affect WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program competing in industries determined by SBA to be substantially underrepresented by WOSB concerns, since the sole source authority will still provide greater access to Federal contracting opportunities.

    4. What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping, Paperwork Reduction Act, and other compliance requirements?

    SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    5. What relevant Federal rules may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule?

    SBA has not identified any relevant Federal rules currently in effect that duplicates this rule. The sole source mechanism of the WOSB program will be an addition to the procurement mechanisms available under the existing small business contracting programs that agencies currently administer, such as the HUBZone Program, the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business Program, and the 8(a) Business Development Program. The sole source mechanism for WOSBs and EDWOSBs is only authorized where a contracting officer conducts market research in an industry where a WOSB or EDWOSB set aside is authorized, and the contracting officer cannot identify two or more WOSBs or EDWOSBs that can perform at a fair and reasonable price, but identifies one WOSB or EDWOSB that can perform (and so long as the value of the contract, including options, does not exceed $6.5 million for manufacturing contracts and $4 million for all other contracts). Therefore, the addition of the sole source mechanism for WOSBs and EDWOSBs should complement rather than conflict with the goals of existing small business procurement programs.

    SBA believes that the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) will need to be amended to include this authority so that there is no conflict between the SBA's rules and the FAR.

    6. What significant alternatives did SBA consider that accomplish the stated objectives and minimize and significant economic impact on small entitiese?

    The RFA requires agencies to identify alternatives to the rule in an effort to minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities. The statutory authority for the sole source awards sets forth specific criteria, including dollar value thresholds for the awards. Therefore, the proposed regulations must implement the statutory provisions, and there are no alternatives for these regulations.

    List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 127

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 127 as follows:

    PART 127—WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS FEDERAL CONTRACT PROGRAM 1. The authority for 13 CFR part 127 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 637(m), and 644.

    2. Revise § 127.101 to read as follows:
    § 127.101 What type of assistance is available under this part?

    This part authorizes contracting officers to restrict competition or award sole source contracts or orders to eligible Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs) for certain Federal contracts or orders in industries in which the Small Business Administration (SBA) determines that WOSBs are underrepresented in Federal procurement. It also authorizes contracting officers to restrict competition or award sole source contracts or orders to eligible WOSBs for certain Federal contracts or orders in industries in which SBA determines that WOSBs are substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement and has waived the economically disadvantaged requirement.

    3. Amend § 127.102 by revising the definitions of the terms “EDWOSB requirement”, “Substantial underrepresentation”, “Underrepresentation”, and “WOSB requirement” to read as follows:
    § 127.102 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?

    EDWOSB requirement means a Federal requirement for services or supplies for which a contracting officer has restricted competition or awarded a sole source contract or order to eligible EDWOSBs, including Multiple Award Contracts, partial set-asides, reserves, sole source awards, and orders set-aside for EDWOSBs issued against a Multiple Award Contract.

    Substantial underrepresentation is determined by a study using a reliable and relevant methodology.

    Underrepresentation is determined by a study using a reliable and relevant methodology.

    WOSB requirement means a Federal requirement for services or supplies for which a contracting officer has restricted competition or awarded a sole source contract or order to eligible WOSBs, including Multiple Award Contracts, partial set-asides, reserves, sole source awards, and orders set-aside for WOSBs issued against a Multiple Award Contract.

    4. Revise § 127.500 to read as follows:
    § 127.500 In what industries is a contracting officer authorized to restrict competition or make a sole source award under this part?

    A contracting officer may restrict competition or make a sole source award under this part only in those industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement, as specified in § 127.501.

    5. Amend § 127.503 as follows: a. Revise section heading; b. Revise paragraph (a) subject heading and paragraph (b) subject heading; c. Redesigne paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h); and d. Add new paragraphs (c) and (d).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 127.503 When is a contracting officer authorized to restrict competition or award a sole source contract or order under this part?

    (a) Competition restricted to EDWOSBs. * * *

    (b) Competition restricted to WOSBs. * * *

    (c) Sole source awards to EDWOSBs. For requirements in industries designated by SBA as underrepresented pursuant to § 127.501, a contracting officer may issue a sole source award to an EDWOSB when the contacting officer determines that:

    (1) The EDWOSB is a responsible contractor with respect to performance of the requirement and the contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that 2 or more EDWOSBs will submit offers;

    (2) The anticipated award price of the contract (including options) will not exceed $6,500,000 in the case of a contract assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for manufacturing, or $4,000,000 in the case of any other contract opportunity; and

    (3) In the estimation of the contracting officer, the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.

    (d) Sole source awards to WOSBs. For requirements in industries designated by SBA as substantially underrepresented pursuant to § 127.501, a contracting officer may issue a sole source award to a WOSB when the contacting officer determines that:

    (1) The WOSB is a responsible contractor with respect to performance of the requirement and the contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that 2 or more WOSBs will submit offers;

    (2) The anticipated award price of the contract (including options) will not exceed $6,500,000 in the case of a contract assigned a NAICS code for manufacturing, or $4,000,000 in the case of any other contract opportunity; and

    (3) In the estimation of the contracting officer, the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.

    6. Revise § 127.507 to read as follows:
    § 127.507 Are there EDWOSB and WOSB contracting opportunities at or below the simplified acquisition threshold?

    If the requirement is valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting may set aside the requirement or award the requirement on a sole source basis as set forth in § 127.503.

    7. Revise § 127.600 to read as follows:
    § 127.600 Who may protest the status of a concern as an EDWOSB or WOSB?

    (a) For sole source procurements. SBA or the contracting officer may protest the proposed awardee's EDWOSB or WOSB status.

    (b) For all other EDWOSB or WOSB requirements. An interested party may protest the apparent successful offeror's EDWOSB or WOSB status.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10331 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by several reports of chafing of the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration. These wire bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire conductors. This proposed AD would require replacing the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks with new, improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent arcing between the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel tank explosion.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0935.

    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-2015-0935; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received several reports of chafing of the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration. These wire bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire conductors. These conditions, if not prevented, could result in arcing between the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel tank explosion.

    Related AD

    AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659, July 15, 2011), superseded AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR 65352, December 12, 1997), and continues to require repetitive inspections to detect damage of the sleeving and wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks, and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed); replacement of any damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and repair or replacement of any damaged wires with new wires. For airplanes on which any burned wires are found, AD 2011-15-03 also continues to require an inspection to detect damage of the conduit, and replacement of any damaged conduit with a serviceable conduit. AD 2011-15-03 reduced the initial compliance time and repetitive inspection interval in AD 97-26-07. AD 2011-15-03 was prompted by fleet information indicating that the repetitive inspection interval in AD 97-26-07 was too long because excessive chafing of the sleeving continued to occur much earlier than expected between scheduled inspections. Accomplishing the replacement specified in this proposed AD would terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (n) of AD 2011-15-03.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacing the wire bundles of the electrical conduit inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks. This service information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0935. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement Up to 53 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,505 $4,600 Up to $9,105 Up to $1,602,480.
    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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659, July 15, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2, 2014.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of chafing of the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration. These wire bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire conductors. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent arcing between the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel tank explosion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks with new, improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2, 2014. Accomplishing the replacement required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (n) of AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659, July 15, 2011).

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2015. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10068 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CT58 Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede airworthiness directives (ADs) 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16, which apply to certain General Electric Company (GE) CT58 turboshaft engines. ADs 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16 require recalculating the lives of life-limited rotating parts using a Repetitive Heavy-Lift (RHL) multiplying factor and removal from service of parts that exceed the recalculated cyclic or hourly life limit. This proposed AD would consolidate ADs 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16, and further reduce the life capability of certain parts. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of life-limited rotating parts, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH, 45215; phone: 513- 552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    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-2008-0808; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjana Murthy, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On August 24, 2001, we issued AD 2001-18-06, Amendment 39-12432 (66 FR 47575, September 13, 2001), (“AD 2001-18-06”), and on October 20, 2008, we issued AD 2008-22-16, Amendment 39-15712 (73 FR 63629, October 27, 2008), (“AD 2008-22-16”), for CT58 turboshaft engines. AD 2001-18-06 requires the use of an RHL multiplying factor in calculating the lives of life-limited rotating parts used in RHL missions. AD 2008-22-16 addressed a shortfall in the life capability of compressor spools used in RHL operations. We issued ADs 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16 to prevent cracks in rotating parts that could result in an uncontained engine failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

    Actions Since ADs 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16 Were Issued

    Since we issued ADs 2001-18-06 and 2008-22-16, GE updated the life limits of compressor spools. GE also updated how to calculate the life consumption of compressor spools and of life-limited rotating parts flown in Utility operations. This update resulted in generally reduced lives for compressor spools and all other life-limited parts used in Utility operations. GE published their updated life calculations for all life-limited parts in GE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE ASB No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for calculating life limits for the affected life-limited rotating parts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would reduce the life limits of certain compressor spools used in all operations and, through imposition of a new lifing methodology, increase the life consumption of all rotating parts used in Utility operations.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 60 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. The average pro-rated cost of the life-limited rotating parts is $20,000. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,715,000.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    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: a. Removing airworthiness directives (AD) 2001-18-06; Amendment 39-12432 (66 FR 47575, September 13, 2001); and AD 2008-22-16, Amendment 39-15712 (73 FR 63629, October 27, 2008), and b. Adding the following new AD: General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0808; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-18-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 30, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2001-18-06, Amendment 39-12432 (66 FR 47575, September 13, 2001) and AD 2008-22-16, Amendment 39-15712 (73 FR 63629, October 27, 2008.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CT58-100-2, CT58-110-1, CT58-110-2, CT58-140-1, and CT58-140-2 turboshaft engines.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by recalculation of life for parts installed on engines used in Utility operations, and a reduced life for compressor spools in all operations. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of life-limited rotating parts, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

    (e) Compliance

    Do the actions required by this AD, unless already done.

    (1) Calculating Cyclic Life Consumption

    Re-calculate the cycles-since-new for all compressor spools, and for life-limited rotating parts other than compressor spools used in Utility operations. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) and 3.B.(1) in the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015, to perform the calculations.

    (2) Removal of Compressor Spools

    After the effective date of this AD, remove compressor spools, part numbers (P/Ns) 5124T94G02, 6010T57G04, 6010T57G07, and 6010T57G08 from service, before reaching the life limits specified in paragraph 4.(1), Appendix A, in GE ASB No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015, as re-calculated per paragraph (e)(1) in this AD.

    (3) Removal of Rotating Parts Used in Utility Operations Other Than Compressor Spools

    After the effective date of this AD, remove from service any life-limited rotating part used in Utility operations other than the compressor spools with P/Ns listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD that exceeds its life limit, as re-calculated per paragraph (e)(1) in this AD. Use Tables I, II, III, and IV in paragraphs 3.D. through 3.G. in the Accomplishment Instructions in GE ASB No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015, and paragraph 4.(4), Appendix A, of this GE ASB, to determine when to remove these parts.

    (4) Removal of Rotating Parts Not Used in Utility Operations Other Than Compressor Spools

    After the effective date of this AD, remove from service any life-limited rotating part not used in Utility operations other than the compressor spools with P/Ns listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD that exceeds its life limits. Use Tables I, II, III, and IV in paragraphs 3.D. through 3.G. in the Accomplishment Instructions in GE ASB No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015, and paragraph 4.(3), Appendix A of this GE ASB to determine when to remove these parts.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjana Murthy, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) GE ASB No. CT58 S/B 72-A0162, Revision 16, dated January 7, 2015, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2015. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09932 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft LTD. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the aileron trim tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet altitude. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd, Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2015-1177; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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 Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0060, dated April 10, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a continued airworthiness review, a potential unsafe condition was identified that could result from a disconnected aileron trim tab occurring above an altitude of 10.000 feet.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in case of a disconnection of an aileron trim tab, to undamped aeroplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. issued SB No. 27-021 to provide instructions for replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight.

    For the reason described above, this AD requires replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight with a new, slightly heavier, aileron tab counter balance weight.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015. The PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015, describes procedures to replace the aileron tab counter balance weight. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 303 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5.5 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 $1,000 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $444,652.50, or $1,467.50 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. model and serial number airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model PC-12/47, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 684 through MSN 888; and

    (2) Model PC-12/47E, MSNs 545, and 1001 through 1520.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the aileron trim tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet altitude. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnected aileron trim tab, which could lead to undamped airplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) For airplanes equipped with aileron trim tab assembly, part number (P/N) 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038; or aileron assembly, P/N 557.05.12.015, 557.05.12.016, 557.05.12.017, or 557.05.12.018, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the aileron tab counter balance weight and re-identify the aileron trim tab assembly following the instructions of Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015.

    (2) For an airplane that on the effective date of this AD has an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 27.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038, installed: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install another aileron trim tab assembly with P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038.

    (3) For an airplane that on the effective date of this AD does not have an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 27.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038, installed: After the effective date of this AD, do not install an aileron trim tab assembly with P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038.

    (4) After the effective date of this AD, you are allowed to install on an airplane an aileron assembly, having a P/N 557.05.12.015, 557.05.12.016, 557.05.12.017, or 557.05.12.018, provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on the airplane.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0060, dated April 10, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177. For service information related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD, Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 23, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10073 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0277; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-05-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B series turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) on CFM CFM56-7B engines following rupture of the 73-tooth gearshaft located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). This proposed AD would require magnetic chip detector (MCD) inspection of the affected gearshafts until removal. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of certain engine AGB gearshafts, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    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-2015-0277; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0277; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-05-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of uncommanded IFSDs on CFM CFM56-7B engines following rupture of the 73-tooth gearshaft located in the engine AGB. CFM has identified an affected population of 73-tooth gearshafts that show premature wear on the teeth due to inadequate shot peening. In the process of its investigation, CFM identified an additional population of 41-tooth gearshafts that is subject to the same premature wear. The affected population of 73-tooth and 41-tooth gearshafts exhibit a surface finish that leads to loss in oil film effectiveness, causing micro-pitting which eventually leads to material separating from the gearshaft and its eventual failure.

    The proposed AD requires enhanced MCD inspection until removal of the gearshaft. This enhanced inspection requires that any material, including fuzz, be sent to the particles lab for analysis to determine the source of the material. We are allowing affected engines to continue to operate for 75 flight hours (FHs) after the MCD inspection to provide sufficient time to determine the source of the material and to remove the affected gearshaft if the particles lab analysis finds that the source of the material is from an affected 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft. The enhanced MCD inspection and particles lab analysis is repeated every 500 FHs after the initial MCD inspection until the affected gearshaft is removed from service. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of certain engine AGB gearshafts, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SBs) CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014, and CFM56-7B S/B 72-0965, dated December 16, 2014. The SBs describe procedures for removal of affected 73-tooth and 41-tooth gearshafts. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require an MCD inspection within 250 FHs since last inspection or within 25 FHs after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later. The proposed AD would also require that the MCD inspection be repeated every 500 FHs after the initial MCD inspection until removal of the affected gearshaft. The proposed AD would also require as terminating action that the affected gearshafts be removed.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    This proposed AD would require an MCD inspection 250 FHs since last inspection or within 25 FHs after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later. CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014, recommends performing a MCD inspection 250 FHs since last inspection or as soon as possible if the inspection was done more than 250 FHs ago.

    In this proposed AD, we are not requiring that operators send the particles to CFM for analysis. We are, however, requiring that operators determine if the particles are 73-tooth gearshaft or 41-tooth gearshaft material. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964 recommends that if any magnetic particles, including fuzz are seen, operators send the inspection results and lab analysis to CFM for disposition.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 67 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 hour per engine to do the inspection and 8 hours per engine to replace each affected gearshaft. We estimate thirty-six 73-tooth gearshafts and forty 41-tooth gearshafts will need replacement at a cost of $12,480 and $7,680 per part, respectively. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $813,855.

    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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    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): CFM International S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0277; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-05-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 30, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B engines with accessory gearboxes (AGBs), with 73-tooth gearshafts or 41-tooth gearshafts, identified in Appendix A and Appendix B of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns on CFM CFM56-7B engines following rupture of the 73-tooth gearshaft located in the engine AGB. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of certain AGB gearshafts, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Initial Magnetic Chip Detector (MCD) Inspection and Analysis. (i) For affected 73-tooth gearshafts, perform an MCD inspection within 250 flight hours (FHs) since last inspection, within 25 FHs from the effective date of this AD, or when the gearshaft accumulates 3,000 FHs since new, whichever comes later.

    (ii) For affected 41-tooth gearshafts, perform an MCD inspection within 250 FHs since last inspection, within 25 FHs from the effective date of this AD, or when the gearshaft accumulates 6,000 FHs since new, whichever comes later.

    (iii) If any magnetic particles, including fuzz, are seen, determine with particles lab analysis if the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft material.

    (iv) If the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft material, remove the affected gearshaft(s) within 75 FHs since the MCD inspection.

    (2) Repetitive MCD Inspection and Analysis. (i) For affected 73-tooth gearshafts, perform an MCD inspection and particles lab analysis within every 500 FHs since the last MCD inspection until affected gearshaft is removed.

    (ii) For affected 41-tooth gearshafts, perform an MCD inspection and particles lab analysis within every 500 FHs since the last MCD inspection until affected gearshaft is removed.

    (iii) If any magnetic particles, including fuzz, are seen, determine with particles lab analysis if the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft material.

    (iv) If the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft material, remove the affected gearshaft(s) within 75 FHs since the MCD inspection.

    (f) Mandatory Terminating Action

    (1) Remove the affected 73-tooth gearshaft prior to the gearshaft accumulating 6,000 FHs since new or within 50 FHs after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later.

    (2) Remove the affected 41-tooth gearshaft prior to the gearshaft accumulating 9,000 FHs since new or within 50 FHs after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later.

    (g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected gearshaft into an AGB.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) CFM SBs CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014, and CFM56-7B S/B 72-0965, dated December 16, 2014, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2015. Thomas A. Boudreau, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-09930 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1069; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace; Salem, OR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After a biennial review, the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-1069; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11, 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.

    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:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

    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-2014-1069/Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-11.” 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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for 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

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D surface area airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removing Class E surface area airspace as an extension at McNary Field, Salem, OR. After a biennial review of the airspace, the FAA found modification of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airport. Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace would extend upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet within a 4-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, extending to 6.2 miles to the southeast, and 8.1 miles from the southeast to the northwest, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport, OR. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 6.5-mile radius northeast of McNary Field, extending to 8.2 miles to the southeast, and 9.1 miles from the southeast to the northwest, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport, OR.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 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 D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    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 for 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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at McNary Field, Salem, OR.

    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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 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 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 5000: Class D airspace. ANM OR D Salem, OR [Modified] Salem, McNary Field, OR (Lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.) Independence, Independence State Airport, OR (Lat. 44°52′01″ N., long. 123°11′54″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 6.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 150° bearing, and that airspace within a 8.1-mile radius of McNary Field from the 150° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330° bearing, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport, OR. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002: Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM OR E2 Salem, OR [Modified] Salem, McNary Field, OR (Lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.) Independence, Independence State Airport, OR (Lat. 44°52′01″ N., long. 123°11′54″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 6.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 150° bearing, and that airspace within a 8.1-mile radius of McNary Field from the 150° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330° bearing, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport, OR. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004: Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM OR E4 Salem, OR [Removed] Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ANM OR E5 Salem, OR [Modified] Salem, McNary Field, OR (Lat. 44°54′34″ N., long. 123°00′09″ W.) Independence, Independence State, OR (Lat. 44°52′01″ N., long. 123°11′54″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of McNary Field from the 330° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 074° bearing, and that airspace within a 8.2-mile radius of McNary Field from the 074° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 150° bearing, and that airspace within a 9.1-mile radius of McNary Field from the 150° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 330° bearing, excluding that airspace within 1.2 NM of Independence State Airport, OR.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, AJV-W2.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10048 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0691; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-6] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace and Modification of Class D Airspace; Ogden, Hill AFB, UT AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace and modify Class D airspace at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Ogden, UT. This action, initiated by the FAA's biennial review of the airspace area, would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates for Hill AFB, and Ogden-Hinckley Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0691; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-6, 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.

    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:

    Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.

    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-2015-0691/Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-6.” 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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for 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

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace as an extension to Class D surface area, modifying Class D airspace at Hill AFB, Ogden, UT. Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D would be established with a segment extending 1 mile southeast of the airport. The Class D airspace area boundary between Hill AFB and Ogden-Hinckley Airport would be moved 1 mile northwest and the radius of Hill AFB expanded from 4.3 miles to 4.6 miles. This action would also update the geographic coordinates for Hill AFB and Ogden-Hinckley Airport. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found modification of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport.

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

    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    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 for 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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Hill AFB, Ogden UT.

    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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 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 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 5000 Class D airspace. ANM UT D Ogden, Hill AFB, UT [Modified] Hill AFB, UT (Lat. 41°07′26″ N., long. 111°58′23″ W.) Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT (lat. 41°11′44″ N., long. 112°00′47″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to, but not including, 7,800 feet within a 4.6-mile radius of Hill AFB, excluding that airspace north of a line beginning at a point where the Ogden-Hinckley Airport 216° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius, thence counter clockwise along the 4.6-mile radius to the point where the Ogden-Hinckley Airport 99° radial intersects the Hill AFB-4.6 mile radius, thence northwest to lat. 41°10′56″ N., long. 111°59′19″ W.; to lat. 41°10′21″ N, long. 112°00′55″ W., to the point of beginning. This airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area. ANM UT E4 Ogden, Hill AFB, UT [New] Hill AFB, UT (Lat. 41°07′26″ N., long. 111°58′23″ W.) Hill AFB, point in space coordinates (Lat. 41°06′27″ N., long.111°57′43″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-mile radius of point in space coordinates at lat. 41°06′27″ N., long. 111°57′43″ W.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager (Acting), Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10050 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4901-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0671; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-5] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area, modify Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. This action, initiated by the FAA's biennial review of the airspace area, would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB, Ogden, UT.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-0671; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-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.

    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:

    Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.

    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-2015-0671/Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-5.” 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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for 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

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area, modifying Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area would be established with a segment extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 16 miles southwest of the airport. The Class D airspace common boundary between Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB, Ogden, UT, would be moved 1 mile northwest. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 5.3-mile radius of the airport, with segments extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 11 miles northwest, and 13 miles southwest of the airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates for Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found this action necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    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 for 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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden UT.

    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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 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 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 5000 Class D airspace. ANM UT D Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [Modified] Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT (Lat. 41°11′44″ N., long. 112°00′47″ W.) Hill AFB, UT (Lat. 41°07′26″ N., long. 111°58′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to, but not including, 7,800 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, and that airspace beginning at a point where the Ogden-Hinckley 216° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius to the point where the Ogden-Hinckley 231° radial intersects the 4.3-mile radius, thence clockwise along the 4.3-mile radius to where the Ogden-Hinckley 84° radial intersects the 4.3-mile radius to the point where the Ogden-Hinckley 99° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius, excluding the portion southeast of a line beginning where the 216° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius, thence northeast to lat. 41°10′21″ N., long. 112°00′55 W.; to lat. 41°10′56″ N., long. 111°59′19″ W.; to a point where the Ogden-Hinckley 99° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-nm radius. This airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area. ANM UT E4 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [New] Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT (Lat. 41°11′44″ N., long. 112°00′47″ W.) Hill AFB, UT (Lat. 41°07′26″ N., long. 111°58′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface 4 miles north and parallel to the 225° radial of the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of the airport, thence southeast to lat.41°2′40″ N., long.112°20′4″ W., thence northeast to the point where the Ogden-Hinckley 99° radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-nm radius.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ANM UT E5 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [Modified] Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT (Lat. 41°11′44″ N., long. 112°00′47″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5.3-mile radius of Ogden-Hinckley Airport, and that airspace 3 miles either side of the 294° radial from the airport extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of the airport, and that airspace 4 miles either side of the Ogden-Hinckley 226° radial from the 5.3-mile radius to 13 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10044 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4901-13P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 147 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0247] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; POLAR PIONEER, Outer Continental Shelf Drill Unit, Chukchi Sea, Alaska AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface. This safety zone would be in effect both when the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. Placing a safety zone around the drilling unit will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, which could result in oil spills and releases of natural gas, and thereby protects the safety of life, property, and the environment. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0247 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR Jason Boyle, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone 907-463-2821, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0247), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0247 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0247 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one by using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a temporary safety zone around the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in several prospects located in the Chukchi Sea during the 2015 drilling season. The purpose of the temporary safety zone is to protect the drilling unit from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways.

    The request for the temporary safety zone was made by Shell Exploration & Production Company due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER and the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that it is highly likely that any allision or inability to identify, monitor or mitigate any risks or threats, including ice-related hazards that might be encountered, may result in a catastrophic event. Incursions into the safety zone by unapproved vessels could degrade the ability to monitor and mitigate such risks. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around the operation; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessel; (3) concerns for the environment given the sensitivity of the environmental and the importance of fishing and hunting to the indigenous population; (4) the lack of any established shipping fairways, and fueling and supply storage/operations which increase the likelihood that an allision would result in a catastrophic event; (5) the recent and potential future maritime traffic in the vicinity of the proposed areas; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the proposed area; (7) the structural configuration of the vessel, and (8) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operation of the vessel.

    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of the proposed temporary safety zone. A safety zone would significantly reduce the threat of allisions that could result in oil spills, and other releases. Furthermore, a safety zone would increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi Sea by prohibiting entry into the zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative. Due to the remote location and the need to protect the environment, the Coast Guard may use criminal sanctions to enforce the safety zone as appropriate.

    Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed and received permits for drill sites within the Burger prospects, Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

    Based on the anticipated drilling operations, we believe a safety zone is needed be around the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in various locations in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska during the 2015 timeframe.

    The actual order of drilling activities will be controlled by an interplay between actual ice conditions immediately prior to a rig move, ice forecasts, any regulatory restrictions with respect to the dates of allowed operating windows, whether the planned drilling activity involves only drilling the shallow non-objective section or penetrating potential hydrocarbon zones, the availability of permitted sites having approved shallow hazards clearance, the anticipated duration of each contemplated drilling activity, the results of preceding wells and Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation plan requirements.

    All planned exploration drilling in the identified lease will be conducted with the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER. While conducting exploration drilling operations, the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER will be anchored using an anchoring system consisting of an 8-point anchored mooring spread attached to the onboard turret and could have a maximum anchor radius of 3,600 ft (1,100 m). The center point of the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER will be positioned within the prospect location in the Chukchi Sea.

    The DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER will move into the Chukchi Sea on or about July 1, 2015 and onto a prospect location when ice allows. Drilling will conclude on or before October 31, 2015. The drillship and support vessels will depart the Chukchi Sea at the conclusion of the 2015 drilling season.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed temporary safety zone would encompass the area that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface. As a result, the size and shape of the safety zone would vary, depending on how far from the vessel the mooring spread is deployed, which is expected to be no more than 1,000 meters. This safety zone would be in effect when the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER is on location in order to drill exploratory wells at various prospects located in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, from 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2015.

    This safety zone will be in effect both when the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. As a result, the size and shape of the safety zone will vary, depending on how far from the vessel the mooring spread is deployed, which is expected to be no more than 1,000 meters. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: An attending vessel or a vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 907-463-2000. For any group intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of the rig, these demonstrations must be conducted outside the safety zone.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER on the Outer Continental Shelf and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone without incurring additional costs.

    2. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard has considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the Burger Prospects of the Chukchi Sea.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will enforce a safety zone around a drilling unit facility that is in areas of the Chukchi Sea not frequented by vessel traffic and is not in close proximity to a safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone without incurring additional costs.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 LCDR Jason Boyle, Coast Guard Seventeenth District, Office of Prevention; telephone 907-463-2821, [email protected] The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no 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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 $100,000,000.00 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

    The Coast Guard analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

    PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 147.T17-0247 to read as follows:
    § 147.T17-0247 Safety Zone; DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER, Outer Continental Shelf Drillship, Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

    (a) Description. The DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER will be engaged in exploratory drilling operations at various locations in the Chukchi Sea from July 1, 2015 through October 31, 2015. The DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER will be anchored while conducting exploratory drilling operations with the center point of the vessel located in various locations in the Chukchi Sea. The area that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER, as well as 500 meters from those points, suitably marked by a buoy, where the DRILL UNIT POLAR PIONEER's mooring spread meets the ocean's surface is a safety zone. Lawful demonstrations may be conducted outside of the safety zone.

    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following:

    (1) An attending vessel; or

    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative.

    Dated: April 8, 2015. Daniel B. Abel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10259 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0246] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone—Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay, and adjacent navigable waters in the Dutch Harbor area on June 15, 2015. The temporary safety zones would encompass the navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety zones is to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor, and the adjacent territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the summer of 2015. Lawful demonstrations are permitted outside of the temporary safety zones so long as they do not endanger the safety of vessels either moored or anchored within the port, transiting through the port, or transiting through the adjacent waters of the territorial sea.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0246 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Heikki Laukkanen, Sector Anchorage Prevention, Coast Guard; telephone 907-428-4186, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, (USCG-2015-0246), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0246] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2015-0246” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type http://www.regulations.gov, click on the docket number in the “SEARCH” box insert “USCG-2015-0246” and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. “in the “Actions” column.

    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not now plan to hold a public meeting you may submit a request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    Similar safety zones were implemented in previous years when oil exploration equipment was staged in Dutch Harbor, most recently in 2012.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    It is anticipated that vessels associated with exploratory drilling operations will call upon the Port of Dutch Harbor en route to proposed drilling sites in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Based on information provided by private entities affiliated with oil exploration activities, the Coast Guard anticipates approximately 28 exploration or support vessels will call on Dutch Harbor during the period of time that the temporary safety zones are in effect. The addition of these vessels in conjunction with the high volume of traffic operating within the Port of Dutch Harbor creates a safety risk for all vessels operating therein. Such risks include reduced ability to navigate safely within the congested waterways of the port during the subject time period. To address these risks, the Coast Guard is proposing safety zones to ensure safe and efficient vessel transits within the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea. The increased maritime traffic through the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea can potentially create a scenario where the safety of vessels transiting through this area is placed at heightened risk.

    Based on the expectation of increased maritime traffic, the Coast Guard believes temporary safety zones are needed to address safety concerns for personnel aboard the support vessels, mariners operating other vessels in the vicinity of Dutch Harbor, and to protect the environment. The vessels and equipment anticipated to be staged within these areas, due to their size and technical complexity, pose a safety risk to vessels that attempt to navigate too closely to them. Limited rescue capabilities are available in the area. In an effort to mitigate the safety risks and any resulting environmental damage, the Coast Guard is proposing temporary safety zones within the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea. Enforcing temporary safety zones for each offshore exploration or support vessel while they are on the navigable waters in the Port of Dutch Harbor or the adjacent territorial sea will help ensure the safety of all vessels, including the diverse commercial fleets of Dutch Harbor.

    In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including, but not limited to: (1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the Port of Dutch Harbor; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessels; (3) sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential adverse affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the types and volume of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the Port of Dutch Harbor; and (5) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operations of support vessels. Vessels transiting in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones could consist of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, tugs and tows, and recreational vessels. Any group or individual intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of offshore exploration support vessels must do so outside of the temporary safety zones.

    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the five criteria identified above, in conjunction with International Maritime Organization guidelines and existing regulations, warrant establishment of temporary safety zones. These would significantly reduce the threat of collisions, allisions, or other incidents which could endanger the safety of all vessels operating on the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is proposing temporary safety zones that would surround the designated vessels while at anchor, moored or underway on the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea in order to mitigate the potential safety risks associated with the increased vessel traffic. The proposed temporary safety zones would encompass the waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.

    The proposed temporary safety zones would be located around moored or moving vessels in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-001 N 166-38.000 W, north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea at 54-13.000 N 166-38.000 W, and from Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W, north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea at 54-12.619 N 166-25.883 W.

    The proposed temporary safety zones would prohibit entry into the zones unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska, or his designated on-scene representative. The zones would be in effect from June 15 through July 1 to accommodate the expected arrival of the vessels.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The safety zone will have negligible economic impact, as there will be ample room for navigation around it.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the port of Dutch Harbor because of the limited area affected and the limited duration of the rule. The proposed safety zones are also designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel around the proposed safety zones without incurring additional costs.

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

    This proposed rule could affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or anchor in within a portion of the Port of Dutch Harbor or adjacent waters, from June 15, 2015, to July 15, 2015.

    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These safety zone restrictions are only effective from June 15, 2015, to July 15, 2015, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rulemaking would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone, which is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T17-0246 to read as follows:
    § 165.T17-0246 Safety Zone; Port of Dutch Harbor; Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:

    (1) All navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard radius of any underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located within the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-001 N 166-38.000 W, north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea at 54-13.000 N 166-38.000 W, and from Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W, north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea at 54-12.619 N 166-25.883 W.

    (b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at 12:01 a.m., June 15, 2015, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., July 1, 2015, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the area described in paragraph (a).

    (1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety zone described in paragraph (a), the moored or anchored vessel must remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support vessel maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.

    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative, consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.

    (3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission prior to entering.

    (4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated on-scene representative.

    (5) The COTP, Western Alaska, will notify the maritime and general public by marine information broadcast during the period of time that the safety zones are in force by providing notice in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33. U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Paul Mehler, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10216 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0267] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone—Oil Exploration Staging Area in Goodhope Bay; Kotzebue Sound, AK AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones in the Port of Goodhope Bay, Alaska, and adjacent U.S. territorial sea from 12:01 a.m. local time on July 1, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. on October 15, 2015. The temporary safety zones would encompass the navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety zones are to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Goodhope Bay, Alaska, and the adjacent territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the summer of 2015. Lawful demonstrations are permitted outside of the temporary safety zones so long as they do not endanger the safety of vessels either moored or anchored within the port, transiting through the port, or through the adjacent waters of the territorial sea.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0267 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Heikki Laukkanen, Sector Anchorage Prevention, Coast Guard; telephone 907-428-4186, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0267), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0267] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2015-0267” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type http://www.regulations.gov, click on the docket number in the “SEARCH” box insert “USCG-2015-0267” and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking in the “Actions” column.

    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not now plan to hold a public meeting; you may submit a request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    Similar safety zones were implemented in previous years when oil exploration equipment was staged in other locations in Alaska, most recently in 2012.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    Based on information provided by private entities affiliated with oil exploration activities, the Coast Guard anticipates approximately eleven vessels associated with exploratory drilling operations will call upon the Port of Goodhope Bay, Alaska, en route to proposed drilling sites in the Chukchi and Beaufort. The addition of these vessels in conjunction with the high volume of traffic operating within the Port of Goodhope Bay creates a safety risk for all vessels operating therein. Such risks include reduced ability to navigate safely within the congested waterways of the port during the subject time period.

    The vessels and equipment anticipated to be staged within these areas, due to their size and technical complexity, pose a safety risk to vessels that attempt to navigate too closely to them. Limited rescue capabilities are available in the area. In evaluating whether a safety zone would be appropriate, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including, but not limited to: (1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the Port of Goodhope Bay; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessels; (3) sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential adverse affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the types and volume of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the Port of Goodhope Bay; and (5) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operations of support vessels. Vessels transiting in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones could consist of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, tugs and tows, and recreational vessels. Any group or individual intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of offshore exploration support vessels must do so outside of the temporary safety zones. Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the five criteria identified above, in conjunction with International Maritime Organization guidelines and existing regulations, warrant establishment of safety zones to ensure safe and efficient vessel transits within the Port of Goodhope Bay and the adjacent territorial sea. These safety zones would facilitate safe navigation and protect vessels from hazards caused by increased volume of vessel traffic, including hazards that may be intentionally created, in the Port of Goodhope Bay.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone due to safety concerns for personnel aboard the support vessels, mariners operating other vessels in the vicinity of Goodhope Bay, and to protect the environment. The proposed regulation would significantly reduce the threat of collisions, allisions, or other incidents which could endanger the safety of all vessels operating on the navigable waters of the Port of Goodhope Bay and the adjacent territorial sea. The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones that will prohibit entry into the zones unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska, or his designated on-scene representative.

    The proposed temporary safety zones would encompass the waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit. They would be in effect from July 1 through October 15, in order to encompass the expected period of operations.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The safety zone will have negligible economic impact, as there will be ample room for navigation around it.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the port of Goodhope Bay because of the limited area affected and the limited duration of the rule. The proposed safety zones are also designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel around the proposed safety zones without incurring additional costs.

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

    This proposed rule could affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or anchor in within a portion of the Port of Goodhope Bay or adjacent waters, from July 1, 2015 to October 15, 2015.

    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These safety zone restrictions are only effective from July 1, 2015 to October 15, 2015, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone, which is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0171.1.

    2. Add § 165.T17-0267 to read as follows:
    § 165.T17-0267 Safety Zone; Port of Goodhope Bay; Goodhope Bay, Alaska.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard radius of any underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located within the Port of Goodhope Bay, to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea.

    (b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at 12:01 a.m., July 1, 2015, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., October 15, 2015, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the area described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, the moored or anchored vessel must remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support vessel maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.

    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative, consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.

    (3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission prior to entering.

    (4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated on-scene representative.

    (5) The COTP, Western Alaska, will notify the maritime and general public by marine information broadcast during the period of time that the safety zones are in force by providing notice in accordance with § 165.7.

    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33. U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: April 14, 2015. Paul Mehler III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10234 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9927-12-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan; Extension of Comment Period and Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period; availability of supplemental information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for a proposed rule to establish a Clean Air Act (CAA) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze and visibility transport requirements for the State of Arkansas. EPA is extending the public comment period until July 15, 2015. The extension also is to allow comments on EPA supplemental modeling for the Entergy Independence plant.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18944), is extended. Written comments must be received on or before July 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Hand or Courier Delivery: Guy Donaldson at the address above. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Fax: Guy Donaldson at (214) 665-7263.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. Our 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 we 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 us 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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we 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: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dayana Medina, (214) 665-7241; [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Medina.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 8, 2015, we published in the Federal Register a proposal to establish a FIP for the State of Arkansas addressing regional haze and visibility transport (80 FR 18944). The proposed FIP includes emission limits for sources. Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received by May 16, 2015. We are extending the comment period until July 15, 2015. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    We are also announcing the availability in the docket of supplemental modeling performed by EPA since the proposed rule for the Entergy Independence plant. Below is a summary of the supplemental modeling performed by EPA.

    Summary of Supplemental Regional Haze Modeling for the Entergy Independence Plant Class I area Visibility
  • improvement
  • over baseline
  • (deciviews)
  • Dry flue gas desulfurization Visibility
  • improvement
  • of low NOX
  • burners/separated
  • overfire air
  • over baseline
  • (deciviews)
  • Low NOX burner
    Caney Creek 1.096 0.459 Upper Buffalo 1.178 0.198 Hercules-Glades 1.056 0.173 Mingo 1.045 0.148
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available control technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Wren Stenger, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Director, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10241 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050; FRL-9927-03-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 request to redesignate to attainment the Lancaster nonattainment area (Lancaster Area or Area) for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA is also proposing to determine that the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the associated maintenance plan that was submitted with the redesignation request, to show maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Area for both NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to approve for transportation conformity purposes. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the 2007 emissions inventory that is also included in the maintenance plan for the Area for both NAAQS. This rulemaking action to propose approval of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request and associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area is based on EPA's determination that Pennsylvania has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814-3409 or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA's Requirements A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan III. Summary of Proposed Actions IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions A. Effect of the Court Decision Regarding EPA's CSAPR B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal A. Redesignation Request B. Maintenance Plan C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets VI. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were established on July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). In the same rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published air quality area designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Lancaster Area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. at 1000. The Lancaster Area is comprised of Lancaster County in Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania).

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 μg/m3, but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 μg/m3, based again on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Lancaster Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania). This proposed rulemaking actions address the redesignations to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Lancaster Area.

    On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA made determinations that the Lancaster Area had attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on these determinations, the requirements for the Lancaster Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until such time as: The Area is redesignated to attainment for each standard, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the Area has again violated any of the standards, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. On July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA also determined, in accordance with section 179(c) of the CAA, that the Lancaster Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.

    On April 30, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a combined maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Also included in the maintenance plan is the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5, NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3).

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA also addresses the effects of several decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) and a decision of the United States Supreme Court: (1) The D.C. Circuit Court's August 21, 2012 decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR); (2) the Supreme Court's April 29, 2014 reversal of the vacature of CSAPR, and remand to the D.C. Circuit Court; (3) the D.C. Circuit Court's October 23, 2014 decision to lift the stay of CSAPR; and (4) the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    II. EPA's Requirements A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. Each of these requirements are discussed in Section V. of this proposed rulemaking action.

    EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the “General Preamble”) and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: (1) “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter the “1992 Calcagni Memorandum”); (2) “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and (3) “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

    B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5 violations.

    The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The Memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58; (4) verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation to attainment for a given NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans also create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.

    The maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area, which is comprised of Lancaster County in Pennsylvania, includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. The transportation conformity determination for the Area is further discussed in Section V.C. of this proposed rulemaking action and in a technical support document (TSD), “Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area,” dated 2/25/15, available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050.

    III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the redesignation of the Lancaster Area to attainment for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Lancaster Area meets the requirements for redesignation of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to change the legal designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for transportation conformity purposes. Approval of the maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the Area to attainment for both NAAQS. Pennsylvania's combined maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area for at least 10 years after redesignation.

    EPA previously determined that the Lancaster Area attained both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (see 74 FR 48863 (September 25, 2009) and 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012)), and EPA is proposing to find that the Area continues to attain both NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory submitted with Pennsylvania's maintenance plan that includes an inventory of PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 for the Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in order to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA's analysis of the proposed actions is provided in Section V. of this proposed rulemaking.

    IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions A. Effect of the Court Decision Regarding EPA's CSAPR 1. Background

    The D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court have issued a number of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading programs for transported air pollution, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. In 2008, the D.C, Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR.1 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern United States. Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

    1 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CSAPR addresses contributions from upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR.

    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and once again ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit Court subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).

    On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit Court to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. On

    December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). Consistent with that rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.

    2. Proposal on This Issue

    Because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for the Lancaster Area in 2009 (September 25, 2009, 74 FR 48863) and the air quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR, and Pennsylvania includes CAIR as one of the measures that helped to bring the Area into attainment. However, modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that “backed out” the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR 48223, projected that the Lancaster Area would have design values below the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA's “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,” (Pages B-57 and B-86), which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2011-2013 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for the Lancaster Area confirms that the PM2.5 annual design value for the Area remained well below the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2013.

    The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it created were scheduled to go into effect. As stated previously, EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015, subsequent to the emission reductions documented in the Commonwealth's April 30, 2014 request for redesignation. Therefore, the Area's attainment of the 1997 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS cannot have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In summary, neither the status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation request for the Lancaster Area.

    B. Effect of the D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA 1. Background

    On January 4, 2013, in NRD.C. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5” final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule”). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4).

    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance derived from subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. In response to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA took this history into account by setting a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be required for moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision regarding the applicability of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA.

    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA issued a final rule, “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS” (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule), which identifies the classification under subpart 4 as “moderate” for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule sets a deadline for states to submit attainment plans and meet other subpart 4 requirements. The rule specifies December 31, 2014 as the deadline for states to submit any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements in subpart 4.

    As explained in detail in the following section, since Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the Lancaster Area on April 30, 2014, any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed for the Lancaster Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not due at the time Pennsylvania submitted its request to redesignate the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2. Proposal on This Issue

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the redesignation requests for the Area. EPA is proposing to determine that the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, redesignation for this Area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the redesignation requests of the Area and disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion also takes into account the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling and the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the maintenance plans of the Area, which EPA views as approvable even when subpart 4 requirements are considered.

    a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation Request of the Area

    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address implementation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of evaluating Pennsylvania's redesignation requests for the Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not “applicable” for the purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of the areas. Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are “applicable” and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also “SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of “applicable” under the statute is “whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment”).2 In this case, at the time that Pennsylvania submitted its redesignation request for the 1997 and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements under subpart 4 were not due.3

    2 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.

    3 EPA found Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 submittal for redesignation of the Area complete on September 23, 2014. EPA's completeness determination is available in the docket for this rulemaking at regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050.

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the redesignation of the Pennsylvania portion of the Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time Pennsylvania submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA that “applicable requirements,” for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those rulemaking actions, EPA therefore, did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be “applicable” for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be redesignated, a state must meet “all requirements `applicable' to the area under section 110 and part D.” Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that EPA must have fully approved the “applicable” SIP for the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support EPA's interpretation of “applicable” as only those requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.

    First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 107(d)(3)(D). If “applicable requirements” were interpreted to be a continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.

    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP requirements coming due after the state submits its complete redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.

    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and EPA's June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule, compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the redesignation request is submitted. Pennsylvania submitted its redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on April 30, 2014 for the Lancaster Area, which is prior to the deadline by which the Area is required to meet the attainment plan and other requirements pursuant to subpart 4.

    To require Pennsylvania's fully-complete and pending redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply had not yet come prior to submission of its request, would be to give retroactive effect to such requirements and provide Pennsylvania a unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the basis of submitting its redesignation requests for the Area. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),4 where it upheld the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive EPA's determination that the areas did not meet their attainment deadlines. In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that applying it “would likely impose large costs on States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize Pennsylvania by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is already attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that met all applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because Pennsylvania did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements which came due after receipt of such request, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.

    4Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 (2011).

    b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Pennsylvania's Redesignation Request

    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision, or the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule, requires that, in the context of a pending redesignation request for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which were submitted prior to December 31, 2014, subpart 4 requirements must be considered as being due and in effect, EPA proposes to determine that the Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse particulate matter (PM10) 5 nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the General Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent “subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements” (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.

    5 PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller.

    For the purposes of this redesignation request, in order to identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, consistent with EPA's June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the areas to be “moderate” PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA provides that all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are initially to be classified by operation of law as “moderate” nonattainment areas, and remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a “serious” nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).

    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.6 In any event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

    6 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is discussed in this rulemaking action.

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under subpart 4,7 when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: “The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.”

    7 EPA refers here to attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, and contingency measures.

    The General Preamble also explained that: “[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these areas.” Id. EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni Memorandum that, “The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard.”

    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, or the June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule, to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 were either due prior to Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 redesignation request or became due subsequent to the April 30, 2014 redesignation request and must now be imposed retroactively,8 those requirements do not apply to areas that are attaining the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the areas to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret “applicable requirements” in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).

    8 As explained earlier, EPA does not believe that the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra.

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines are attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's prior “Clean Data Policy” rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See “Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,” (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-47, October 30, 2006). In short, EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.

    As stated previously in this proposed rulemaking action, on September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA made determinations that the Lancaster Area had attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on these determinations, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment of either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were, and continue to be, suspended until such time as: The Area is redesignated to attainment for each standard, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the Area has again violated any of the standards, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request.

    c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors

    The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, section 189(e) of the CAA specifically provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such precursors “do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.”

    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was “not required to address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3] emissions in the State for control measures.” EPA intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation of VOC and NH3 in specific areas where that was necessary.

    The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that, “In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that VOCs and NH3 are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly governs precursor presumptions.” NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.

    Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, however, the D.C. Circuit Court observed: “NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) [section 189(e)].” Id. at 21, n.7.

    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed redesignation of the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), stated that “for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively' regulated,” the D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule provisions regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion to reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation request.

    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the Area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Lancaster Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Lancaster Area has attained the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS without any specific additional controls of NH3 and VOC emissions from any sources in the Area.

    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors.9 Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of NH3 and VOC. Thus EPA must address here whether additional controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA does not believe that any additional controls of NH3 and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.

    9 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking action, proposes to determine that the Pennsylvania SIP revision has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOC as precursors. These proposed determinations are based on EPA's findings that: (1) The Lancaster Area contains no major stationary sources of NH3; and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.10 In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, at present NH3 and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 57 FR 13539-42.

    10 The Area has reduced VOC emissions through the implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations and various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control programs.

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision as calling for “presumptive regulation” of NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring Pennsylvania to address precursors differently than it has already would result in a substantively different outcome.

    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control purposes.11 Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10.12 EPA believes that application of this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable. Because the Area has already attained the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to revisit an attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is construed to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's approval here of Pennsylvania's request for redesignation of the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of a redesignation, Pennsylvania has shown that the Area has attained the standards. Moreover, Pennsylvania has shown, and EPA proposes to determine, that attainment of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for continued attainment of the standards. See Section V.A.3 of this rulemaking action. It follows logically that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.

    11See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM10 Standards,” (69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or NH3 emissions).

    12See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).

    In summary, even if, prior to submitting its April 30, 2014 redesignation request submittal or subsequent to such submission and prior to December 31, 2014, Pennsylvania was required to address precursors for the Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, EPA would still conclude that the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA.

    V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal

    EPA is proposing several rulemaking actions for the Lancaster Area: (1) To redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP the associated maintenance plan for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory into the Pennsylvania SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation. EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are based upon EPA's determination that the Area continues to attain both standards, which EPA is proposing in this rulemaking action, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Area. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs included in the maintenance plan for the Area for transportation conformity purposes. The following is a description of how Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 submittal satisfies the requirements of the CAA including specifically section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    A. Redesignation Request 1. Attainment

    On September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and July 29, 2011 (76 FR 45424), EPA determined that the Lancaster Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2006-2008 and attained by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010 based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 2007-2009, respectively. In a separate rulemaking action dated March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922), EPA determined that the Lancaster Area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 2008-2010. The basis and effect of these determinations of attainment for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS were discussed in the notices of the proposed (74 FR 38158 (July 31, 2009) and 77 FR 2941 (January 20, 2012), respectively) and final (74 FR 48863 and 77 FR 18922, respectively) rulemakings which determined the Area attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality PM2.5 monitoring data in the Lancaster Area, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), including quality-assured, quality-controlled, and state-certified data for the monitoring periods 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013. This data, provided in Tables 1 and 2, shows that the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Table 1—Lancaster Area's Annual Design Values for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard for the 2007-2013 Monitoring Periods, in μg/m 3 Monitor ID No. 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 42-071-0007 13.8 12.6 12.0 12.1 12.0 Table 2—Lancaster Area's 24-Hour Design Values for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard for the 2007-2013 Monitoring Periods, in μg/m 3 Monitor ID No. 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 42-071-0007 35 33 31 31 31

    EPA's review of the monitoring data from 2007 through 2013 supports EPA's previous determinations that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the Area continues to attain both standards. In addition, as discussed subsequently, with respect to the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania has committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, based upon analysis of currently available data, EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)

    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), the SIP revision for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Lancaster Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) and all the requirements applicable to the Lancaster Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.

    a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; (3) implementation of a minor source permit program and provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions for air pollution modeling; and (6) provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision for various NAAQS, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants in accordance with EPA's Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), also known as the NOX SIP Call; amendments to the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and CSAPR. However, section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Lancaster Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that the section 110(a)(2) and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that section 110(a)(2) elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). For additional discussion on this issue, see the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).

    EPA has reviewed the Pennsylvania SIP and has concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania's SIP addressing section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing PM2.5. See 77 FR 58955 September 25, 2012 (approving infrastructure submittals for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). These requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Lancaster Area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the Commonwealth's PM2.5 redesignation request.

    b. Subpart 1 Requirements

    Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and must meet a variety of other requirements.

    EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning requirements “have no meaning” for an area that has already attained the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).13 Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1)'s “reasonably available” control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).

    13 This regulation was promulgated as part of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule that was subsequently challenged and remanded in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), as discussed in Section IV.B of this rulemaking. However, the Clean Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was not at issue in that case.

    Therefore, because attainment has been reached for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Lancaster Area (see September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48863) and March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18922)), no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the Area continues to attain both standards until redesignation. Section 172(c)(2)'s requirement that nonattainment plans contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because the Lancaster Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.

    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA was not suspended by EPA's clean data determination for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 to be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Area. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. To satisfy the 172(c)(3) requirement for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS contains a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory. The 2007 emissions inventory was the most current accurate and comprehensive emissions inventory of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3 for the Area when the Area attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, as part of this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as satisfying the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both standards. Final approval of the 2007 base year emissions inventory will satisfy the emissions inventory requirement under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory addresses the general source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. A summary of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory is shown in Table 3. For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2007 emissions inventory, see the TSD prepared by the EPA Region III Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis dated February 5, 2015, “Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster, PA 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area” (Inventory TSD), available in the docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov. See Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050.

    Table 3—2007 Emissions for the Lancaster Area, in Tons per Year (tpy) Sector PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3 Point 254 102 1,147 2,691 8 Area 2,691 3,030 1,827 6,675 15,551 Onroad 480 102 13,895 5,529 207 Nonroad 290 148 3,173 4,627 3 Total 3,715 3,382 20,041 19,522 15,769

    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Nevertheless, Pennsylvania currently has an approved NSR program codified in Pennsylvania's regulations at 25 Pa. Code 127.201 et seq. See 77 FR 41276 (July 13, 2012) (approving NSR program into the SIP). See also 49 FR 33127 (August 21, 1984) (approving Pennsylvania's PSD program which incorporates by reference the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21). However, Pennsylvania's PSD program will become effective in the Lancaster Area upon redesignation to attainment.

    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted previously, EPA believes the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) that are applicable for purposes of redesignation.

    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” On April 30, 2014, in conjunction with its request to redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for at least 10 years after redesignation, throughout 2025. Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve the maintenance plan to meet the requirement of section 175A of the CAA for both NAAQS. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the Area will ensure that the SIP for Pennsylvania meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of the maintenance plan is provided in Section V.B. of this proposed rulemaking action.

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA approved Pennsylvania's transportation conformity SIP requirements on April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19541).

    EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under CAA section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation, and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation) and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (discussing Tampa, Florida).

    Thus, for purposes of redesignating to attainment the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory as proposed in this rulemaking action, Pennsylvania will meet all the applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA for purposes of redesignating the Area to attainment for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    c. The Lancaster Area has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Upon final approval of the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory as proposed in this rulemaking action, EPA will have fully approved all applicable requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP for the Lancaster Area for purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA.

    3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. Pennsylvania has calculated the change in emissions between 2002, a year showing nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Lancaster Area, and 2007, one of the years for which the Lancaster Area monitored attainment for both standards.

    A summary of the emissions reductions of PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3 from 2002 to 2007 in the Lancaster Area, submitted by PADEP, is provided in Table 4. For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2007 emissions inventories, see EPA's Inventory TSD, dated February 5, 2015, available in the docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov.

    Table 4—Emission Reductions From 2002 to 2007 in the Lancaster Area (tpy) Sector 2002 2007 Net reduction 2002-2007 Percent
  • reduction
  • 2002-2007
  • PM2.5 Point 380 254 127 33 Area 3,612 2,691 922 26 On-road 541 480 60 11 Non-road 322 290 −2 −1 Total 4,856 3,715 1,140 23 NOX Point 1,368 1,147 221 16 Area 1,739 1,827 −87 −5 On-road 17,466 13,895 3,572 20 Non-road 4,001 3,173 828 21 Total 24,575 20,041 4,534 18 SO2 Point 498 102 395 79 Area 2,735 3,030 −295 −11 On-road 362 102 260 72 Non-road 295 148 147 50 Total 3,890 3,382 508 13 VOC Point 3,188 2,691 497 16 Area 9,887 6,675 3,212 32 On-road 6,481 5,529 953 15 Non-road 5,009 4,627 382 8 Total 24,566 19,522 5,044 21 NH3 Point 12 8 4 33 Area 15,994 15,551 444 3 On-road 222 207 15 7 Non-road 3 3 0 0 Total 16,231 15,769 462 3

    The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality from 2002 to 2007 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, in the Lancaster Area can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that have been implemented in the Area and contributing areas in recent years.

    a. Federal Measures Implemented

    Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future.

    Control of NOX and SO2

    PM2.5 concentrations in the Lancaster Area are impacted by the transport of sulfates and nitrates, and the Area's air quality is strongly affected by regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions from power plants.

    NO X SIP Call—On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution.14 Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable. By imposing an emissions cap regionally, the NOX SIP Call reduced NOX emissions from large EGUs and large non-EGUs such as industrial boilers, internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. In response to the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania adopted its NOX Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs and large industrial boilers, with emission reductions starting in May 2003. Pennsylvania's NOX Budget Trading Program regulation was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). To meet other requirements of the NOX SIP Call, Pennsylvania adopted NOX control regulations for cement plants and internal combustion engines, with emission reductions starting in May 2005. These regulations were approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57428).

    14 Although the NOX SIP Call was issued in order to address ozone pollution, reductions of NOX as a result of that program have also impacted PM2.5 pollution, for which NOX is also a precursor emission.

    CAIR—As previously noted, CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. EPA approved the Commonwealth's CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446). In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program superseded the NOX Budget Trading Program, although the emission reduction obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for EGUs. As discussed previously, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court's October 23, 2014 Order, the stay of CSAPR has been lifted and implementation of CSAPR commenced in January 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the maintenance period.

    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards

    These emission control requirements result in lower NOX emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. EPA estimated that, after phasing in the new requirements, the following vehicle NOX emission reductions will have occurred nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). Some of the emissions reductions resulting from new vehicle standards occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment period; however, additional reductions will continue to occur throughout the maintenance period as new vehicles replace older vehicles. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles.

    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule

    EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This rule included standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007 which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 parts per million (ppm). Standards for gasoline engines were phased in starting in 2008. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions for new engines using low sulfur diesel fuel.

    Nonroad Diesel Rule

    On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule for large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in construction, agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and 2014. The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in sulfur content prevents damage to the more advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards. It will also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. The combined engine standards and the sulfur in fuel reductions will reduce NOX and PM emissions from large nonroad engines by over 90 percent, compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel.

    Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine Standards

    In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards from large spark-ignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle emission standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. With full implementation of all of the nonroad spark-ignition engine and recreational engine standards, an overall 80 percent reduction in NOX is expected by 2020. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 2002-2007 attainment period and additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period as the fleet turns over.

    Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

    As required by the CAA, EPA developed Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) Standards to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from a published list of industrial sources referred to as “source categories.” The MACT standards have been adopted and incorporated by reference in Section 6.6 of Pennsylvania's Air Pollution Control Act and implementing regulations in 25 Pa. Code § 127.35 and are also included in Federally enforceable permits issued by PADEP for affected sources. The Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boiler MACT standards (69 FR 55217, September 13, 2004, and 76 FR 15554, February 21, 2011) are estimated to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, and VOCs from major source boilers and process heaters nationwide. Also, the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) MACT will reduce NOX and PM emissions from engines located at facilities such as pipeline compressor stations, chemical and manufacturing plants, and power plants.

    b. State Measures Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program

    In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program for model years starting in May 2004. The program incorporates California standards by reference and required model year 2005 and beyond heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be certified to the California standards, which were more stringent than the Federal standards for model years 2005 and 2006. After model year 2006, Pennsylvania required implementation of the Federal standards that applied to model years 2007 and beyond, discussed in the Federal measures section of this proposed rulemaking action. This program reduced emissions of NOX statewide.

    Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program

    Pennsylvania's Vehicle Emission I/M program was expanded to the Lancaster area in early 2004 and applies to model year 1975 and newer gasoline-powered vehicles that are 9,000 pounds and under. The program, approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313), consists of annual on-board diagnostics and gas cap test for model year 1996 vehicles and newer, and an annual visual inspection of pollution control devices and gas cap test for model year 1995 vehicles and older. This program reduces emissions of NOX from affected vehicles.

    Consumer Products Regulation

    Pennsylvania regulation “Chapter 130, Subchapter B. Consumer Products” established, effective January 1, 2005, VOC emission limits for numerous categories of consumer products, and applies statewide to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures such consumer products on or after January 1, 2005 for use in Pennsylvania. It was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70895).

    Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents Regulation

    Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 2010 to control VOC emissions from adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents. This regulation was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090).

    Based on the information summarized above, Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the improvements in air quality in the Lancaster Area are due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. The reductions result from Federal and State requirements and regulation of precursors within Pennsylvania that affect the Lancaster Area.

    B. Maintenance Plan

    On April 30, 2014, PADEP submitted a combined maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing approval of the maintenance plan is provided in this section.

    1. Attainment Emissions Inventories

    An attainment inventory is comprised of the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year for the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 2007, one of the years in the periods during which the Lancaster Area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. PADEP determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year for the maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 2007, one of the years in the periods during which the Lancaster Area monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 inventory included in the maintenance plan contains primary PM2.5 emissions (including condensables), SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3.

    In its redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, PADEP described the methods used for developing its 2007 inventory. EPA reviewed the procedures used to develop the inventory and found them to be reasonable. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP and found the 2007 emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan to be approvable. For more information on EPA's analysis of the 2007 emissions inventory, see EPA's Inventory TSD, dated February 5, 2015, available in the docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov.

    2. Maintenance Demonstration

    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of ten years following redesignation.” The Federal and State measures described in Section V.A.3 of this proposed rulemaking action demonstrate that the reductions in emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the Area has occurred and will continue to occur through 2025. In addition, the following State and Federal regulations and programs ensure the continuing decline of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the Area during the maintenance period and beyond:

    Non-EGUs Previously Covered Under the NOX SIP Call

    Pennsylvania established NOX emission limits for the large industrial boilers that were previously subject to the NOX SIP Call, but were not subject to CAIR. For these units, Pennsylvania established an allowable ozone season NOX limit based on the unit's previous ozone season's heat input. A combined NOX ozone season emissions cap of 3,418 tons applies for all of these units.

    CSAPR (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208)

    EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR as an emission trading program for EGUs. As discussed previously, implementation of CSAPR commenced in January 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the maintenance period.

    Regulation of Cement Kilns

    On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 52558), EPA approved amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145 Subchapter C to further reduce NOX emissions from cement kilns. The amendments established NOX emission rate limits for long wet kilns, long dry kilns, and preheater and precalciner kilns that are lower by 35 percent to 63 percent from the previous limit of 6 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker that applied to all kilns. The amendments were effective on April 15, 2011.

    Stationary Source Regulations

    Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter D for Adhesives, Sealers, Primers, and Solvents was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090). The regulation established VOC content limits for various categories of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvent, and became applicable on January 1, 2012.

    Amendments to Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter B established, effective January 1, 2009, new or more stringent VOC standards for consumer products. The amendments were approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717).

    Pennsylvania's Clean Vehicle Program

    The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (formerly, New Motor Vehicle Control Program) incorporates by reference the California Low Emission Vehicle program (CA LEVII), although it allowed automakers to comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this program until Model Year (MY) 2006. The Clean Vehicles Program, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter D, was modified to require CA LEVII to apply to MY 2008 and beyond, and was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386). The Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by reference the emission control standards of CA LEVII, which, among other requirements, reduces emissions of NOX by requiring that passenger car emission standards and fleet average emission standards also apply to light duty vehicles. Model year 2008 and newer passenger cars and light duty trucks are required to be certified for emissions by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), in order to be sold, leased, offered for sale or lease, imported, delivered, purchased, rented, acquired, received, titled or registered in Pennsylvania. In addition, manufacturers are required to demonstrate that the California fleet average standard is met based on the number of new light-duty vehicles delivered for sale in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's submittal for the January 24, 2012 rulemaking projected that, by 2025, the program will achieve approximately 75 tons more NOX reductions than Tier II for the Lancaster Area.

    Two Pennsylvania regulations—the Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act (August 1, 2011, 76 FR 45705) and the Outdoor Wood-Fired Boiler regulation (September 20, 2011, 76 FR 58114)—were not included in the projection inventories, but may also assist in maintaining the standard. Also, the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 29, 2014) establishes more stringent vehicle emissions standards and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017. The fuel standard will achieve NOX reductions by further increasing the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls for both existing and new vehicles.

    The State and Federal regulations and programs described above ensure the continuing decline of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and VOC emissions in the Area during the maintenance period and beyond. A summary of the projected reductions from these measures from 2007 to 2025 is shown in Table 5. Table 5 incorporates the expected emissions from potential emissions increases from Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs), which are also included in Tables 6a-6e.

    Table 5—Emission Reductions (Tons) From 2007 to 2025 Due to Control Measures PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3 Point −18 −238 −18 −355 −3 Area 81 122 1,264 249 −2,821 On-Road 295 9,447 63 3,661 63 Non-Road 158 1,862 142 2,388 −1 Totals 516 11,194 1,451 5,942 −2,762

    Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10. For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of future growth and controls; however, the demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100 and 68 FR 25430-32. PADEP uses projection inventories to show that the Lancaster Area will remain in attainment and developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of NOX, SO2, PM2.5, and VOC will remain at or below the attainment year 2007 attainment-level emissions levels, for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, throughout the Lancaster Area through the year 2025. Although emissions of NH3 are projected to increase from 2007 to 2017 and from 2007 to 2025, the increase will not affect the Area's ability to maintain the standard because such increases are more than compensated by the significant reductions of the other precursors that are projected during the maintenance period.

    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by PADEP for developing annual 2017 and 2025 emissions inventories for the Lancaster portion of the Area. See Appendix C-2 and C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal. EPA has determined that the 2017 and 2025 projected emissions inventories provided by PADEP are approvable. For more information on EPA's analysis of the emissions inventories, see EPA's Inventory TSD, dated February 5, 2015 available in the docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov.

    Tables 6a through 6e provide a summary of the inventories in tpy for the 2007 attainment year, as compared to projected inventories for the 2017 interim year and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Area.

    Table 6a—Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of PM2.5 for the Lancaster Area PM2.5 Sector 2007 2017 2025 2007-2017 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • 2007-2025 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • Point 254 267 272 −13 −5 −18 −7 Area 2,691 2,649 2,610 42 2 81 3 On-Road 480 249 185 231 48 295 61 Non-Road 290 182 132 108 37 158 54 ERC 0 0 Total 3,715 3,348 3,200 368 10 516 14
    Table 6b—Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of NOX for the Lancaster Area NOX Sector 2007 2017 2025 2007-2017 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • 2007-2025 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • Point 1,147 1,314 1,383 −167 −15 −236 −21 Area 1,827 1,702 1,704 125 7 123 7 On-Road 13,895 6,916 4,447 6,979 50 9,448 68 Non-Road 3,173 1,775 1,310 1,398 44 1,863 59 ERC 2 2 −2 −2 Total 20,041 11,710 8,847 8,333 42 11,196 56
    Table 6c—Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of SO2 for the Lancaster Area SO2 Sector 2007 2017 2025 2007-2017 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • 2007-2025 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • Point 102 115 120 −13 −13 −18 −18 Area 3,030 2,449 1,766 581 19 1,264 42 On-Road 102 37 39 65 64 63 62 Non-Road 148 5 5 143 97 143 97 ERC 0 0 Total 3,382 2,605 1,930 776 23 1,452 43
    Table 6d—Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of VOC for the Lancaster Area VOC Sector 2007 2017 2025 2007-2017 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • 2007-2025 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • Point 2,691 2,808 2,874 −117 −4 −183 −7 Area 6,675 6,459 6,426 216 3 249 4 On-Road 5,529 2,965 1,868 2,564 46 3,661 66 Non-Road 4,627 2,753 2,240 1,874 41 2,387 52 ERC 172 172 Total 19,522 15,157 13,580 4,537 23 6,114 31
    Table 6e—Comparison of 2007, 2017, and 2025 Emissions of NH3 for the Lancaster Area NH3 Sector 2007 2017 2025 2007-2017 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • 2007-2025 Reduction Percent
  • reduction
  • Point 8 10 11 −2 −25 −3 −38 Area 15,551 17,152 18,372 −1,601 −10 −2,821 −18 On-Road 207 148 144 59 29 63 30 Non-Road 3 4 4 −1 −33 −1 −33 ERC 0 0 Total 15,769 17,314 18,531 −1,545 −10 −2,762 −18

    As shown in Tables 6a-6b, the projected levels for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and VOC are under the 2007 attainment levels for each of these pollutants. While the emissions of NH3 are projected to be higher than the 2007 inventory for this pollutant for both the interim year and the end-year, the decreases in the other precursors, particularly the significant reductions in NOX, more than compensate for the increase, therefore, the increase in NH3 is not considered to affect the Area's ability to maintain the NAAQS. The projected emissions inventories show that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year maintenance period. Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the annual PM2.5 design value for this Area is expected to continue to decline through 2020. Given the significant decrease in overall precursor emissions projected through 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also continue to decrease through 2025. Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    3. Monitoring Network

    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan includes a commitment by PADEP to continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Pennsylvania currently operates a PM2.5 monitor in the Lancaster Area. In its April 30, 2014 submittal, Pennsylvania stated that it will consult with EPA prior to making any necessary changes to the network and will continue to operate the monitoring network in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.

    4. Verification of Continued Attainment

    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Area, PADEP will: (a) Evaluate annually the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) data and the annual emissions reported from stationary sources to compare them with the assumptions used in the maintenance plan; and (b) evaluate the periodic emissions inventory for all PM2.5 precursors prepared every three years in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) to determine whether there is an exceedance of more than ten percent over the 2007 inventories. Also, as noted in the previous subsection, PADEP will continue to operate its monitoring system in accordance with 40 CFR 58 and remains obligated to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the AQS in accordance with federal requirements. PADEP will use this data in considering whether additional control measures are needed to assure continuing attainment in the Area.

    5. Contingency Measures

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct any violation of the 1997 annual and/or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in the Lancaster Area after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).

    Pennsylvania's maintenance plan describes the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce emissions should a violation occur. Pennsylvania's contingency measures include a first level response and a second level response. A first level response is triggered when the annual mean PM2.5 concentration exceeds 15.5 μg/m3 in a single calendar year within the Area, when the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration exceeds 35.0 μg/m3, or when the periodic emissions inventory for the Area exceed the attainment year inventory (2007) by more than ten percent. The first level response will consist of a study to determine if the emissions trends show increasing concentrations of PM2.5, and whether this trend is likely to continue. If it is determined through the study that action is necessary to reverse a trend of emissions increases, Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as possible, implement necessary and appropriate control measures to reverse the trend.

    A second level response will be prompted if the two-year average of the annual mean concentration exceeds 15.0 μg/m3 or if the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration exceeds 35.0 μg/m3within the Area. This would trigger an evaluation of the conditions causing the exceedance, whether additional emission control measures should be implemented to prevent a violation of the standard, and analysis of potential measures that could be implemented to prevent a violation. Pennsylvania would then begin its adoption process to implement the measures as expeditiously as practicable. If a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS occurs, PADEP will propose and adopt necessary additional control measures in accordance with the implementation schedule in the maintenance plan.

    Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets, idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities; (4) promotion of accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, focusing on commercial equipment; and (5) promotion of alternative fuels for fleets, home heating and agricultural use. Pennsylvania's rulemaking process and schedule for adoption and implementation of any necessary contingency measure is shown in the SIP submittals as being 18 months from PADEP's approval to initiate rulemaking. For all of the reasons discussed in this section, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

    C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to “conform to” the goals of SIPs. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.

    On April 30, 2014, Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions that contain the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad mobile source budgets for Lancaster County. Pennsylvania did not provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it concluded, consistent with the presumptions regarding these precursors in the Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and were not disturbed by the litigation on the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). That decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The MVEBs are presented in Table 7.

    Table 7—MVEBs for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 24-Hour NAAQS, in tpy Year PM2.5 NOX 2017 249 6,916 2025 185 4,447

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will achieve its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is also initiating the process for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this proposed rulemaking action starts a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs. This comment period is concurrent with the comment period on this proposed rulemaking action and comments should be submitted to the docket for this rulemaking. EPA may choose to make its determination on the adequacy of the budgets either in the final rulemaking on this maintenance plan and redesignation request or by informing Pennsylvania of the determination in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal Register and posting a notice on EPA's adequacy Web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).15

    15 For additional information on the adequacy process, please refer to 40 CFR 93.118(f) and the discussion of the adequacy process in the preamble to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule. See 69 FR at 40039-40043.

    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and finds that the submitted MVEBs are consistent with the maintenance plan and meet the criteria for adequacy and approval in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Lancaster County for transportation conformity purposes. Additional information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the TSD dated February 25, 2015, “Adequacy Findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Areas,” available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050.

    VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to redesignate the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that the Area meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The monitoring data demonstrates that the Lancaster Area attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as determined by EPA in a prior rulemaking actions and, for reasons discussed herein, that it will continue to attain both NAAQS. Final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA as described previously in this proposed rulemaking. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 emissions inventory as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Lancaster County for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this action proposing to approve Pennsylvania's redesignation request, maintenance plan, 2007 emissions inventory for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS, 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 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 20, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10049 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 84 Friday, May 1, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0013] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Domestic Quarantine Notices AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the domestic quarantine regulations to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases within the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0013.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0013, 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-2015-0013 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:

    For information on the domestic quarantine regulations to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases, contact Ms. Lynn Evans-Goldner, National Policy Manager, PHP, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 160, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2286. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Domestic Quarantine Notices.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0088.

    Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S. C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, means of conveyance, or other article to prevent a plant pest or noxious weed from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

    APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 301, “Domestic Quarantine Notices,” prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of certain articles from infested areas to noninfested areas to prevent the spread of plant pests. Federal and State quarantines are necessary to regulate the movement of articles from infested areas to noninfested areas. For example, if an area in the United States has been placed under quarantine due to the Asian longhorned beetle, then certain plant products (regulated articles) that are susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle can be moved from the quarantined area only under certain conditions (i.e., after inspection and issuance of a certificate or limited permit). These measures help prevent the Asian longhorned beetle from spreading from the quarantined area to noninfested areas of the United States.

    Administering these regulations requires APHIS to collect information from a variety of individuals who are involved in growing, packing, handling, and transporting plants and plant products. The information serves as supporting documentation required for the issuance of forms and documents that authorize the movement of regulated plants and plant products and is vital to help prevent the spread of injurious plant pests within the United States. Collecting this information requires us to use a number of forms and documents, including certificates, limited permits, transit permits, and outdoor household article documents.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate 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;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.31 hours per response.

    Respondents: State plant regulatory officials, State cooperators, and individuals involved in growing, packing, handling, and transporting plants and plant products.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 27,464.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 60.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 1,640,893.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 512,491 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.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10194 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0024] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Volunteer Service Agreements and Volunteer Service Time and Attendance Record AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    New information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of a new information collection associated with volunteer service agreements and volunteer service time and attendance record.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0024.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0024, 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-2015-0024 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:

    For information on volunteer service agreements and volunteer service time and attendance record, contact Ms. Beverly Cassidy, HR Specialist, HR Policy, HRD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 21, Riverdale, MD, 20737; (301) 851-2914. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Volunteer Service Agreements and Volunteer Service Time and Attendance Record.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection.

    Abstract: Section 1526 of the Food and Agricultural Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 2272) permits the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to use volunteers to carry out U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. Departmental Regulation No. 4230-1, Volunteer Programs, provides the guidelines USDA agencies must use for acceptance of volunteers and sets a requirement for agencies to publish their guidelines. Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in 5 CFR part 308 provide agencies with the authority to establish programs designed to provide educationally related work assignments for students in nonpay status.

    The Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) mission area of USDA uses several information collection activities to assist MRP program officials, administrative personnel, and USDA Human Resources offices in determining a volunteer's eligibility and suitability for volunteer service. The information is necessary to facilitate establishment of guidelines for acceptance of volunteer services; make a determination of an individual's eligibility and suitability to serve as a volunteer in MRP; and comply with OPM regulations requiring documentation of volunteer service and maintenance of records. The information collection activities include a Student Volunteer Service Agreement, Nonstudent Volunteer Service Agreement, and Volunteer Time and Attendance Record.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate 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;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.22 hours per response.

    Respondents: Individuals engaged in activities for which they are not paid, except for authorized expenses associated with performance of volunteer activities.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 85.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 170.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 38 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.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10193 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0026] General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan.

    DATES:

    The General Conference Committee meeting will be held on July 23, 2015, 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Little America Hotel, 500 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Denise Brinson, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.

    Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:

    1. Approved tests,

    2. National Veterinary Services Laboratories avian influenza update,

    3. Salmonella update,

    4. Mycoplasma update, and

    5. U.S. Department of Agriculture updates.

    The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Statements filed with the Committee should specify that they pertain to the July 2015 Committee meeting. Written statements may also be filed at the meeting.

    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10196 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for Flathead National Forest and an Amendment of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans To Incorporate Relevant Direction From the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register on March 6, 2015, initiating a 60-day comment period on the proposed action to revise the land and resource management plan (forest plan) of the Flathead National Forest and amend the forest plans of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans to incorporate relevant direction from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. The closing date for that 60-day comment period is May 5, 2015; the Agency is extending the comment period for an additional 10 days.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send or deliver written comments to the Flathead National Forest Supervisor's Office, Attn: Forest Plan Revision, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] or via facsimile to (406) 758-5379. Further instructions for providing comments that will assist the planning team in reviewing comments can be found on the Flathead National Forest Web site www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Krueger, Forest Planner, Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901, (406) 758-5243, or at [email protected] Information regarding the Flathead NF plan revision is available on the Forest's Plan Revision Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr; information about the amendment is available at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/gbamend.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is preparing the Flathead National Forest's revised forest plan and an amendment to provide relevant direction from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into the forest plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests. The Forest Service will prepare a single environmental impact statement (EIS) for its revised forest plan and the amendment.

    The revised Flathead forest plan will supersede the existing forest plan that was approved by the Regional Forester in 1986, and amended more than 20 times since. The existing Flathead forest plan will remain in effect until the revised forest plan takes effect. The management direction pertaining to grizzly bear within the current forest plans of the Helena National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986; Kootenai National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 2015; Lewis and Clark National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986; and Lolo National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986, as amended, will remain in effect until the proposed amendment takes effect.

    In response to this notice, we are asking for comments on the proposed action so we may refine the proposed action and identify possible alternatives to the proposed action. Comments concerning the scope of the proposed action must be received by May 15, 2015. The draft EIS is expected in January 2016 and the final EIS is expected in June 2017.

    The Flathead National Forest plan revision Web site (www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/fpr) provides the full text of the proposed action, describing preliminary desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and other plan content; the 2014 Assessment; summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials; and public comments. The forest plan amendment component of the proposed action for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests is located at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/flathead/gbamend, which can be linked from the individual Forest's Web sites as well. The material available on these sites may be updated or revised at any time as part of the planning process.

    The 2012 Planning Rule is explained in more detail on the Forest Service's Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5359471. The draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy is currently available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/continentalindex.html.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Sharon LaBrecque, Acting Forest Supervisor, Flathead National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10213 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-673-9216, or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Motorized Travel/Over Snow Working Group Update; and

    (2) Black Backed Woodpecker Update; and

    (3) Northern Long Eared Bat Listing Update; and

    (4) Recreation Facility/Enterprise Team Update.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by May 4, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10290 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-24-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7—Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Neolpharma, Inc.; Subzone 7O; (Pharmaceutical Products); Caguas, Puerto Rico

    The Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, grantee of FTZ 7, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Neolpharma, Inc. (Neolpharma), operator of Subzone 7O in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 20, 2015.

    Neolpharma already has authority to produce clarithromycin, azithromycin, levothyroxine, hydroxyzine pamoate and hydroxyzine hydrochloride. The current request would add finished products and foreign-status materials to the scope of authority. Neolpharma may produce its own products or provide contract manufacturing operations for other companies.

    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Neolpharma from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials and components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Neolpharma would be able to choose the duty rate (duty-free) during customs entry procedures that applies to the final products (whether in brand name or generic form)—Doxycycline capsules; Calan SRTM; CelebrexTM; Geodon HFCTM; Ziprasidone HFC; Norpace CRTM and Norpace IRTM—for the foreign status materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The materials sourced from abroad include: Microcrystalline cellulose; disopyramide phosphate USP; and, lactose monohydrate (duty rate ranges from 5.2% to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 10, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10168 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-59-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 154—Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 154, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Syngenta Crop Protection LLC located in St. Gabriel and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 27, 2015.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (300 acres)—St. Gabriel Plant, 3905 Highway 75, St. Gabriel; Site 2 (9.6 acres)—Ace Warehouse, 1849 River Road South, Baton Rouge; Site 3 (1 acre)—Ace Warehouse, 125 S. 14th Street, Baton Rouge; and, Site 4 (4.15 acres)—Baton Rouge Warehouse, 1565 River Road South, Baton Rouge. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 154. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and will be published separately for public comment.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 10, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 25, 2015.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10254 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for June 2015

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in June 2015 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, (A-570-962) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. Steel Grating from China, (A-570-947) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. Tissue Paper Products from China, (A-570-894) (2nd Review) David Goldberger, (202) 482-4136. Countervailing Duty Proceedings Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, (C-570-963) (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Steel Grating from China, (C-570-948) (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482-5255. Suspended Investigations

    No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in June 2015.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10249 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity Seminar AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, DOC.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity Seminar.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the proposed agenda for a Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity Seminar.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 11, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Washington Athletic Club, 1325 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, ITA, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the purpose of this event is to provide a forum for U.S. Government (USG) officials to brief companies on recent developments in U.S. civil nuclear export controls, 123 Agreements for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation, and export market opportunities. There will also be a Question and Answer session regarding these topics. This is an opportunity to hear from USG experts on these topics to get information on U.S. civil nuclear export opportunities. Additional Export Opportunity Seminars will be scheduled in other U.S. cities in the next few months.

    Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Monday, May 11, 2015 Civil Nuclear Energy Export Opportunity Seminar is as follows:

    1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. 1:00-1:15—Introduction—USG Support for the U.S. Civil Nuclear Industry U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), Office of Energy & Environmental Technologies 1:15-1:45—123 Agreements for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Richard Stratford—Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Safety & Security—U.S. Department of State 1:45-2:30—Part 810 Export Control Rule Rich Goorevich/Katie Strangis—U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 2:30-3:00—Part 110 Export Control Rule Brooke Smith—Chief, Export Controls & Nonproliferation Branch, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 3:00-3:30—Export Administration Regulations Steven Clagett—Director, Nuclear and Missile Technology Division, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce 3:30-4:00—Demonstration of Part 810 e-licensing system (e810) 4:00-5:00—Question & Answer Session

    The meeting will be disabled-accessible. Seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    How to RSVP

    Email your name, title and organization to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday May 8. The event is free but space is limited. Light refreshments will be provided.

    Edward A. O'Malley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10172 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC) Meeting AGENCY:

    ITA, DOC.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the CINTAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 15, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Room 4830, U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, ITA, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand United States exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities will affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry's competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.

    Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Friday, May 15, 2015 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

    9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. 1. International Trade Administration's Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative Update 2. Civil Nuclear Trade Promotion Activities Discussion 3. Public comment period

    The meeting will be disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 8, 2015 in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 8, 2015. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 20 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting.

    Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 8, 2015. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

    Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Edward A. O'Malley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10173 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of 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.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after May 2015, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of May 2015,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in May for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings Belgium: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-423-808 5/1/14-4/30/15 Brazil: Iron Construction Castings, A-351-503 5/1/14-4/30/15 Canada: Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, A-122-853 5/1/14-4/30/15 India: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-533-502 5/1/14-4/30/15 Silicomanganese, A-533-823 5/1/14-4/30/15 Indonesia: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-560-822 5/1/14-4/30/15 Japan: Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products, A-588-869 11/19/13-4/30/15 Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker, A-588-815 5/1/14-4/30/15 Kazakhstan: Silicomanganese, A-834-807 5/1/14-4/30/15 Republic of Korea: Polyester Staple Fiber, A-580-839 5/1/14-4/30/15 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Polyester Retail Carrier Bags, A-552-806 5/1/14-4/30/15 South Africa: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-791-805 5/1/14-4/30/15 Taiwan: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-583-008 5/1/14-4/30/15 Polyester Staple Fiber, A-583-833 5/1/14-4/30/15 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-583-843 5/1/14-4/30/15 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, A-583-830 5/1/14-4/30/15 Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents, A-583-848 5/1/14-4/30/15 The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, A-570-967 5/1/14-4/30/15 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe, A-570-935 5/1/14-4/30/15 Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, A-570-937 5/1/14-4/30/15 Iron Construction Castings, A-570-502 5/1/14-4/30/15 Oil Country Tubular Goods, A-570-943 5/1/14-4/30/15 Pure Magnesium, A-570-832 5/1/14—4/30/15 Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents, A-570-972 5/1/14-4/30/15 Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-489-501 5/1/14-4/30/15 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, A-489-815 5/1/14-4/30/15 United Arab Emirates: Steel Nails, A-520-804 5/1/14-4/30/15 Venezuela: Silicomanganese, A-307-820 5/1/14-4/30/15 Countervailing Duty Proceedings Brazil: Iron Construction Castings,C-351-504 1/1/14-12/31/14 Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, C-552-805 1/1/14-12/31/14 South Africa: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils, C-791-806 1/1/14-12/31/14 The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, C-570-968 1/1/14-12/31/14 Citric Acid and Citrate Salt, C-570-938 1/1/14-12/31/14 Suspension Agreements None.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of May 2015. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of May 2015, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: April 22, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10225 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth 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).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-475-820 731-TA-770 Italy Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-588-843 731-TA-771 Japan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-580-829 731-TA-772 Republic of Korea Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-570-007 731-TA-149 PRC Barium Chloride (4th Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. A-570-888 731-TA-1047 PRC Floor-Standing Metal Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof (2nd Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-570-945 731-TA-1160 PRC Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. C-570-946 701-TA-464 PRC Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand (1st Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-469-807 731-TA-773 Spain Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. A-583-828 731-TA-775 Taiwan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (3rd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136.

    With respect to the countervailing duty order on Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, we have advanced the initiation date of this Sunset Review upon determining that initiation of the Sunset Reviews for both of the Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand orders on the same date would promote administrative efficiency.

    Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 of the Department's regulations expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: April 22, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10244 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD711 Marine Mammals; File No. 18881 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Texas Sealife Center, 14220 South Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78418, [Responsible Party: Tim Tristan] to conduct research on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman or Howard Goldstein, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 13, 2015, notice was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 8060) that a request for a permit to conduct research on the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant has been issued a permit to conduct research on bottlenose dolphins in the bay, sound, estuary and near-shore coastal waters of Texas in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the research is to: (1) Develop and maintain standardized photo-identification catalogs; (2) characterize fine-scale population structure and dynamics; (3) estimate abundance for strategic stocks; (4) establish baseline patterns of distribution, habitat use, site-fidelity, diet, and contaminant loads; (5) analyze dolphin behavior in relation to anthropogenic activities; and (6) identify potential risks to the population. Researchers may conduct vessel surveys for photographic identification, focal follows, behavioral observation, and biopsy sampling. The permit is valid through April 30, 2020.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10185 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD924 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting via webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of its Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT). Information on how to participate will be posted to the Pacific Council's Web site (www.pcouncil.org) in advance of the webinar.

    DATES:

    The webinar meeting will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    A listening station will be available at the Pacific Council office: 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss agenda items on the June 2015 Pacific Council meeting, plan for completion of the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document, and discuss future meeting plans.

    Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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 CPSMT's and CPSAS's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10188 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Ad Hoc Reef Fish Headboat Advisory Panel (AP).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza New Orleans hotel, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130; (504) 962-0560.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630; fax: (813) 348-1711; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

    Ad Hoc Reef Fish Headboat Advisory Panel (AP) Agenda, Tuesday, May 19, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 5 p.m. I. Adoption of Agenda II. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair III. Data Collection for the Southeast Headboat Survey IV. Overview of the Headboat Component V. Reef Fish Species To Consider VI. Management Objectives for the Headboat Component VII. Management Approaches To Consider VIII. Recommendations to the Council IX. Other Business —Adjourn—

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted on the Council's file server. For meeting materials see folder “Ad Hoc Reef Fish Headboat” on the Gulf Council file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the Internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working 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 28, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10190 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD900 Marine Mammals; File No. 18786 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP; Responsible Party: Teri Rowles, D.V.M., Ph.D.), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, has applied in due form for a permit to take, import, and export marine mammals and marine mammal parts for research and enhancement purposes.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 18786 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

    The MMHSRP proposes to: (1) Carry out response, rescue, rehabilitation and release of threatened and endangered marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction (Cetacea and Pinnipedia [excluding walrus]), and disentanglement of all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction, pursuant to sections 109(h), 112(c), and Title IV of the MMPA; and, carry out such activities as enhancement pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA; (2) Conduct health-related, bona fide scientific research studies on marine mammals and marine mammal parts under NMFS jurisdiction pursuant to sections 104(c) and Title IV of the MMPA and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, including research related to emergency response that may involve compromised animals, and research on healthy animals that have not been subject to emergency response (e.g., baseline health studies); (3) Conduct Level B harassment on all marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction incidental to MMHSRP activities in the U.S.; and (4) Collect, salvage, receive, possess, transfer, import, export, analyze, and curate marine mammal specimens under NMFS jurisdiction for purposes delineated in numbers (1) and (2) above.

    Procedures proposed to carry out the activities include but are not limited to: Close approach via ground, vessel, and aerial surveys (manned and unmanned); hazing and attractants; capture, restraint, and handling; administration of drugs including anesthesia, medical treatments, vaccinations; attachment of scientific instruments; marking (temporary and permanent including freeze- and hot-branding); disentanglement and de-hooking; rehabilitation, transport, and release; biological sampling and analyses; auditory brainstem response/auditory evoked potential; active acoustic playbacks; unintentional mortality and euthanasia; and import and export activities. The permit is requested for a 5-year period.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the majority of activities proposed are consistent with the Preferred Alternative in the 2009 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. Also, a draft environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with NEPA to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from permitting new activities (hot branding, UAS, and vaccinations), which were not considered in the Final PEIS. The draft EA is available for review and comment simultaneously with the permit application.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: April 28, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10186 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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 Scientific & Statistical Committee 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 20, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 407 Squire Road, Revere, MA 02151; telephone: (781) 284-7200; fax: (781) 289-3176.

    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: Agenda Items

    The Committee will review the results of the recent operational stock assessment for Atlantic herring and develop recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the 2016-18 fishing years, as well as other related recommendations. The Committee may not develop all of the recommendations for this stock at one meeting.

    They will review/discuss progress of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Plan Development Team (PDT) towards developing ecological guidance for the Council to consider when developing alternatives for the Atlantic herring ABC control rule in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP. The committee may review and add to the comments it provided the Council on the proposed revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Guidelines 1, 3, 5 and 7. They will address other business as necessary.

    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 this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    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 28, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10189 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza New Orleans hotel, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone: (504) 962-0560.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630; fax: (813) 348-1711; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion in the individual meeting agenda are as follows:

    Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC) Agenda, Wednesday, May 20, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 5 p.m. I. Introductions and Adoption of Agenda II. Approval of the Standing and Special Reef Fish Portion of the March 10-12, 2015 Standing, Special Spiny Lobster and Special Reef Fish SSC Minutes III. Selection of SSC Representative at June, 2015 Council Meeting IV. Analysis of Alternative FMSY Proxies for Red Snapper V. Review of the Effect of Recalibrated Recreational Removals and Recreational Selectivity on Estimates of Overfishing Limits (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for Gulf Red Snapper VI. Evaluation of Recent Trends in Gag Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) Indices VII. Hogfish OFL and ABC a. OFL and ABC Recommendations for Gulf Stock b. Review of South Atlantic SSC OFL and ABC Recommendations for Florida Keys/South Atlantic stock VIII. Mutton Snapper OFL and ABC a. Review of Age-Length Keys vs. Direct Age Sensitivity Runs b. Review of South Atlantic SSC OFL and ABC Recommendations c. Gulf SSC Concurrence or Selection of Alternative OFL and ABC IX. Other Business —Adjourn—

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “SSC meeting—2015-05”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working 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 28, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10191 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective: 6/1/2015.

    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: Deletions

    On 3/27/2015 (80 FR 16363-16364), 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 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 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 deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products Product Name/NSN(s): Tray, Desk, Plastic, 7520-01-466-0483, 7520-01-094-4310—Side Loading, Stackable, Legal, Beige Mandatory Source of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10211 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and delete services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments Must be Received on or before: 6/1/2015.

    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:

    For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products Product Name/NSN: File Folder, Single Tab, 1/3 Cut. 7530-00-NIB-1104—Letter, Position 1 Distribution: A-List Mandatory Purchase for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Product Name/NSN(s): Pen, Retractable Gel 7520-00-NIB-2235—Black Ink, Fine Point 7520-00-NIB-2236—Blue Ink, Fine Point 7520-00-NIB-2135—Black Ink, Medium Point 7520-00-NIB-2136—Blue Ink, Medium Point Distribution: A-List 7520-00-NIB-2237—Black Ink, Bold Point 7520-00-NIB-2238—Blue Ink, Bold Point Distribution: B-List Mandatory Purchase for: Total and Broad Government Requirements Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Product Name/NSN(s): Bag, Shopping Tote, Laminated MR 400—Small, “Live Spicy” MR 401—Small, “Live Fresh” MR 402—Small, “Live Sweet” MR 403—Small, “Live Well” MR 404—Large, “Live Spicy” MR 405—Fresh, “Live Fresh” MR 406—Large, “Live Sweet” MR 407—Large, “Live Well” Distribution: C-List Mandatory Purchase for: Requirements of military commissaries and exchanges as aggregated by the Defense Commissary Agency Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Service Service Type: Contract Management Support Service Mandatory Purchase for: National Institutes of Health (NIH), Rockville, MD Mandatory Source of Supply: Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind, Washington, DC Contracting Activity: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Logistics and Acquisition Operations, Rockville, MD Deletions

    The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory Purchase for: Ballsfield, Fort Ord, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Office, Fort Belvoir, VA Service Type: Shelf Stocking & Custodial Service Mandatory Purchase for: Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, HI Mandatory Source of Supply: Trace, Inc., Boise, ID Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10210 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2015-ICCD-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate AGENCY:

    Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0011 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected]. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Wiegman, 202-453-6039.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Assurance of Compliance—Civil Rights Certificate.

    OMB Control Number: 1870-0503.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4.

    Abstract: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has enforcement responsibilities under several civil rights laws, including Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. To meet these responsibilities, OCR collects assurances of compliance from applicants for Federal financial assistance from, and applicants for funds made available through, the Department of Education, as required by regulations. These entities include, for example, State educational agencies, local education agencies, and postsecondary educational institutions. If a recipient violates one or more of these civil rights laws, OCR and the Department of Justice can used the signed assurances of compliance in an enforcement proceeding.

    Dated: April 27, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-10159 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0056] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; An Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B) AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DA