Vol. 85 Friday, No. 31 February 14, 2020

Pages 8373–8716

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:54 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\14FEWS.LOC 14FEWS khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-1WS II Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) Subscriptions: and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Government Publishing Office, is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general (Toll-Free) applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published FEDERAL AGENCIES by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Email [email protected] issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents Phone 202–741–6000 currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration The Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115- authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication 120) placed restrictions on distribution of official printed copies established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, of the daily Federal Register to members of Congress and Federal the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. offices. Under this Act, the Director of the Government Publishing The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. Office may not provide printed copies of the daily Federal Register It is also available online at no charge at www.govinfo.gov, a unless a Member or other Federal office requests a specific issue service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. or a subscription to the print edition. For more information on how to subscribe use the following website link: https:// The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the www.gpo.gov/frsubs. authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 1, 1 (March 14, 1936) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512- 1800 (toll free). E-mail, gpocusthelp.com. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $860 plus postage, or $929, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $330, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Publishing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 85 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:54 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\14FEWS.LOC 14FEWS khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-1WS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 31

Friday, February 14, 2020

Agricultural Marketing Service Coast Guard NOTICES RULES Grain Fees for Official Inspection and Weighing Services Special Local Regulations: under the United States Grain Standards Act, 8536– Recurring Marine Events, Sector Miami, 8397–8404 8537 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zone: Agricultural Research Service Fireworks Displays, Upper Potomac River, Washington NOTICES Channel, DC, 8507–8509 Notices of Prospective Exclusive, Co-Exclusive or Partially Safety Zones: Exclusive Domestic or Foreign Licenses of Government- Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Owned Inventions, 8537 Safety Zones Update, 8509–8516 Special Local Regulation: Agriculture Department Tred Avon River, Between Bellevue and Oxford, MD, See Agricultural Marketing Service 8504–8507 See Agricultural Research Service Special Local Regulations: See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local See Forest Service Regulations, 8499–8504 See Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES See Rural Utilities Service Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations, NOTICES 8601–8602 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals, 8537–8539 Towing Safety Advisory Committee; March 2020 Teleconference, 8602 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Commerce Department Submissions, and Approvals: See Census Bureau Plum Pox Compensation, 8542–8543 See Economic Development Administration Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 8539–8542 See International Trade Administration See National Institute of Standards and Technology Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Board NOTICES Estimates of the Voting Age Population for 2019, 8557– PROPOSED RULES 8558 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles, 8516–8520 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Census Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 8575–8577 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2021 Government Units Survey, 8556–8557 Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Meetings: Registration of Foreign Boards of Trade, 8577–8578 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 8593 Requirements and Registration for the 2020 Million Hearts Defense Department Hypertension Control Challenge, 8593–8596 NOTICES Meetings: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Reserve Forces Policy Board, 8578–8579 RULES Medicare Program: Economic Development Administration Changes to Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and RULES Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and General Updates and Elimination of Certain Trade Quality Reporting Programs; Revisions of Organ Adjustment Assistance for Firms and Public Works and Procurement Organizations Conditions of Coverage, Economic Development Act Regulations, 8373–8383 etc., 8475–8477 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Energy Department Submissions, and Approvals, 8596–8597 See Western Area Power Administration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:23 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\14FECN.SGM 14FECN khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with CONTENTS IV Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Contents

RULES Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Concord, CA, 8388–8389 Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Federal Communications Commission Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial PROPOSED RULES Equipment, 8626–8711 Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall PROPOSED RULES Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: 8531–8533 Procedures for Evaluating Statutory Factors for Use in Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards, Proceeding, 8533–8534 8483–8490 NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 8586–8592 Submissions, and Approvals: Privacy Act; Matching Program, 8588 Weatherization Assistance Program, 8582–8583 Change In Control: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Mexico Pacific Limited LLC, 8581–8582 NOTICES Meetings: Appraisal Subcommittee Adoption of Grants Handbook, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, 8580 8592 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth, 8579–8580 Federal Maritime Commission Natural Gas Orders, 8580–8581 PROPOSED RULES Service Contracts, 8527–8531 Environmental Protection Agency RULES Federal Reserve System Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and NOTICES Promulgations: Change in Bank Control: Connecticut; Transport State Implementation Plan for the Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding 2008 Ozone Standard, 8405–8406 Company, 8592 New Hampshire; Approval of a Single Source Order, Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank 8408–8410 Holding Companies, 8593 Ohio; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 8406–8408 Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Texas; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area Redesignation PROPOSED RULES and Maintenance Plan for Revoked Ozone National Hardship Withdrawals for Expenses Related to Natural Ambient Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee Disasters, 8482–8483 Program, 8411–8428 Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Federal Trade Commission Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m- PROPOSED RULES tolyl) propionate], 8441–8447 Funeral Industry Practices Rule, 8490–8493 Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, 8428–8433 Final Approval and Incorporation by Reference of State Fish and Wildlife Service Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions: NOTICES Georgia, 8472–8475 Request for Nominations: Pesticide Tolerances: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 8605– Acetamiprid, 8433–8441 8606 Chlorfenapyr, 8468–8472 Cyantraniliprole, 8454–8457 Food and Drug Administration Difenoconazole, 8447–8454 NOTICES Flutriafol, 8461–8468 Guidance: Prohexadione Calcium, 8457–8461 Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device PROPOSED RULES Combination Products, 8597–8598 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Promulgations: Adulteration, 8599–8600 New Hampshire; Approval of Single Source Order, 8520– Withdrawal of Approval of 28 Abbreviated New Drug 8521 Applications: NOTICES Wockhardt Limited, et al., 8598–8599 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Forest Service Prevention of Significant Deterioration and NOTICES Nonattainment New Source Review, 8585–8586 Meetings: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 8585 Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee, 8543–8544 National Environmental Policy Act, Revised Procedures, Federal Aviation Administration 8544–8549 RULES Airworthiness Directives: Health and Human Services Department Airbus SAS Airplanes, 8383–8386 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 8386–8388 See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:23 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\14FECN.SGM 14FECN khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with CONTENTS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Contents V

See Food and Drug Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance Program: Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 8615–8616 B Reader Decertification and Autopsy Payment, 8521– Earth Science Advisory Committee, 8614 8527 Human Explorations and Operations Committee, 8613– 8614 Homeland Security Department Planetary Science Advisory Committee, 8615 See Coast Guard See U.S. Customs and Border Protection National Indian Gaming Commission RULES Housing and Urban Development Department Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty To Reflect NOTICES Inflation, 8395–8396 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Institute of Standards and Technology Evaluation of the Supportive Services Demonstration, NOTICES 8602–8604 Meetings: Strategies for Removing the Regulatory Impediments to Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, the Financing and Siting of Factory-Built Housing in 8567–8568 American Communities, 8604–8605 National Institutes of Health Interior Department NOTICES See Fish and Wildlife Service Meetings: See Land Management Bureau National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 8601 See National Indian Gaming Commission See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Internal Revenue Service Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: NOTICES Individual Fishing Quota Program; Modify Medical and Requests for Nominations: Beneficiary Transfer Provisions, 8477–8481 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 8621–8622 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Amendment 21 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and International Trade Administration Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, 8534–8535 NOTICES NOTICES Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Application: Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, 8562–8565 Marine Mammals; File No. 23203, 8572–8573 Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia, 8558–8560 Endangered and Threatened Species: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Republic of Korea, Take of Anadromous Fish, 8571–8572 8560–8562 Meetings: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Fisheries of the Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, Vietnam, 8565–8567 and Review, 8572 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 8574 Labor Department Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 8573 NOTICES New England Fishery Management Council, 8573–8575 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 8568–8570 Submissions, and Approvals: Provider Enrollment Form, 8609–8610 National Science Foundation NOTICES Land Management Bureau Meetings: NOTICES Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Engineering, 8616–8617 Haines Amendment to the Ring of Fire Resource Management Plan, 8606 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lewistown Proposed Resource Management Plan, NOTICES Montana, 8607–8608 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8617 Missoula Proposed Resource Management Plan, Montana, 8607 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Realty Action: RULES Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Big Horn Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; County, WY (Paint Rock), 8608–8609 Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 8396–8397

Management and Budget Office Presidential Documents NOTICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Considerations for Additional Measures of Poverty, 8610– Southern Border, U. S.; Continuation of the National 8613 Emergency (Notice of February 13, 2020), 8713–8715

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:23 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\14FECN.SGM 14FECN khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with CONTENTS VI Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Contents

Rural Business-Cooperative Service RULES NOTICES Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Requests for Applications: Ethnological Material from Ecuador, 8389–8395 Rural Business Development Grant Program to Provide NOTICES Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Meetings: Systems, 8549–8554 Financial Research Advisory Committee, 8622

Rural Utilities Service U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES NOTICES Record of Decision: Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Cardinal-Hickory Creek 345–kV Transmission Line Ethnological Material from Ecuador, 8389–8395 Project, 8554–8556 Veterans Affairs Department Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings; Sunshine Act, 8617 Submissions, and Approvals: Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Group 3), 8623–8624 State Department Meetings: Health Services Research and Development Service NOTICES Scientific Merit Review Board, 8623 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Submissions, and Approvals: Scientific Merit Review Board, 8622–8623 Birth Affidavit, 8617–8618 Medical Clearance Update, 8619–8620 Western Area Power Administration Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Foreign Persons, Including a Ban on U.S. Government NOTICES Rate Order: Procurement, 8618–8619 Provo River Project, 8583–8585 Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Pennsylvania Regulatory Program, 8494–8497 Separate Parts In This Issue West Virginia Regulatory Program, 8497–8499 Part II Surface Transportation Board Energy Department, 8626–8711 NOTICES Acquisition and Operation: Part III The Mahoning Valley Railway Co.; L.W.R., Inc. and OHI– Presidential Documents, 8713–8715 Rail Corp., 8620–8621 Control Exemption: 3i RR Holdings GP LLC, 3i Holdings Partnership L.P., 3i Reader Aids RR LLC, Regional Rail Holdings, LLC, and Regional Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Rail, LLC; Carolina Coastal Railway, Inc., 8620 phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Transportation Department To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents See Federal Aviation Administration electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/ accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail Treasury Department address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or See Internal Revenue Service manage your subscription.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:23 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\14FECN.SGM 14FECN khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with CONTENTS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR 50 CFR Administrative Orders: 679...... 8477 Notices: Proposed Rules: Notice of February 13, 648...... 8534 2020 ...... 8715 5 CFR Proposed Rules: 1650...... 8482 10 CFR 430...... 8626 431...... 8626 Proposed Rules: 430...... 8483 13 CFR 302...... 8373 315...... 8373 14 CFR 39 (2 documents) ....8383, 8386 71...... 8388 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 453...... 8490 19 CFR 12...... 8389 25 CFR 575...... 8395 29 CFR 4022...... 8396 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 938 (2 documents) ...... 8494, 8495 948...... 8497 33 CFR 100...... 8397 Proposed Rules: 100 (2 documents) ...... 8499, 8504 165 (2 documents) ...... 8507, 8509 36 CFR Proposed Rules: 1192...... 8516 40 CFR 52 (4 documents) ...8405, 8406, 8408, 8411 81...... 8411 180 (8 documents) ...... 8428, 8433, 8441, 8447, 8454, 8457, 8461, 8468 281...... 8472 282...... 8472 Proposed Rules: 52...... 8520 42 CFR 410...... 8475 Proposed Rules: 37...... 8521 46 CFR Proposed Rules: 530...... 8527 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 0...... 8531 54...... 8533 64...... 8531

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:05 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\14FELS.LOC 14FELS khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-2LS 8373

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 31

Friday, February 14, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: EDA received no comments equivalent to the petitioning firm’s as contains regulatory documents having general on the notice of proposed rulemaking ‘‘directly competitive or like,’’ as applicability and legal effect, most of which (‘‘NPRM’’) that preceded this final rule, written in the Trade Act, rather than are keyed to and codified in the Code of so there are no comments for EDA to simply ‘‘directly competitive.’’ In Federal Regulations, which is published under post to the Federal Rulemaking Portal, addition, EDA is clarifying all references 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. www.regulations.gov. For convenience, to ‘‘days’’ as ‘‘calendar days,’’ to reflect The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by after the final rule becomes effective, this usage in the Trade Act, a change the Superintendent of Documents. EDA plans to update the full text of that will also speed up the time within EDA’s regulations, as amended, and which EDA is required to make post it on EDA’s website at https:// determinations regarding firm eligibility DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE www.eda.gov/about/regulations.htm. and assistance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On August 19, 2019, EDA published Economic Development Administration Ryan Servais, Attorney Advisor, Office an NPRM in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the 13 CFR Parts 302 and 315 of the Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administration, U.S. general updates and elimination of [Docket No.: 191218–0119] Department of Commerce, 1244 Speer certain TAAF and PWEDA regulations contained in this final rule (84 FR RIN 0610–AA80 Boulevard, Suite 431, Denver, CO 80204; telephone: (303) 844–4403. 42831). The public comment period General Updates and Elimination of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: closed on September 18, 2019. EDA Certain TAAF and PWEDA Regulations received no comments in response to Background the NPRM. For this reason, this final AGENCY: Economic Development Through strategic grant investments rule contains no changes to the Administration, U.S. Department of that foster job creation and attract rulemaking that was proposed in the Commerce. private investment, EDA supports NPRM, apart from two technical ACTION: Final rule. development in economically distressed corrections. The first technical areas of the United States to prepare correction changes several instances of SUMMARY: The Economic Development these areas for growth and success in ‘‘Adjustment Plan’’ to ‘‘Adjustment Administration (‘‘EDA’’), U.S. the worldwide economy. Proposal.’’ ‘‘Adjustment Plan’’ is not a Department of Commerce (‘‘DOC’’), is EDA is issuing this final rule to defined term; ‘‘Adjustment Proposal’’ is issuing a final rule to update the update the agency’s regulations the correct term that should be used agency’s regulations implementing the implementing the TAAF program (Part throughout. The second technical Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms I) and PWEDA (Part II). The changes correction, to revised 13 CFR 315.15, (‘‘TAAF’’) provisions of the Trade Act of will ease the burden on firms and eliminates an improper citation to the 1974, as amended (‘‘Trade Act’’), and grantees by eliminating unnecessary and Tariff Act and is discussed below in Part the Public Works and Economic duplicative regulations and clarifying I. Development Act of 1965, as amended and reorganizing the regulations to Lastly, because this rule will remove (‘‘PWEDA’’). The changes to the TAAF make them easier to understand. certain regulations and will make it program regulations clarify the process The updates will also incorporate best easier for firms and EDA grantees to for import-impacted U.S. manufacturing practices. For example, EDA is adding a comply with the requirements for the firms, oil and natural gas production requirement that firms must begin TAAF and EDA grant programs, it is firms, and service firms to obtain implementation of their Adjustment considered a ‘‘deregulatory action’’ technical assistance—identified in the Proposal (‘‘AP’’) within six months after pursuant to the April 5, 2017, OMB Trade Act as ‘‘adjustment assistance’’— the AP is approved by EDA. Firms that guidance memorandum implementing through the TAAF program, reorganize do not begin implementation within six Executive Order 13771 (M–17–21). the regulations to make them easier to months after approval must update and Part I: Updates to TAAF Program read and understand, incorporate best re-submit their AP, and then request re- Regulations practices, and bring the regulations into approval before any Adjustment closer alignment with the program’s Assistance may be provided. EDA is Trade Act Background statutory requirements. The result will also incorporating changes that will Authorized under chapter 3 of title II be to ease the burden on firms seeking enable firms to amend their APs within of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. adjustment assistance through the two years of EDA approval and that will 2341–2355), the TAAF program assists TAAF program and make it easier for require firms to complete import-impacted U.S. manufacturing Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers implementation of the APs within five firms, oil and natural gas production (‘‘TAACs’’) to work with firms. EDA is years of approval. These are existing firms, and service firms with developing also eliminating certain TAAF and best practices and help to ensure that and implementing projects to regain PWEDA regulations that are APs reflect current conditions and are global competitiveness, expand markets, unnecessary or duplicative because they maximally effective. strengthen operations, and increase describe requirements already The updates will align the regulations profitability, thereby increasing U.S. established in other regulations or more closely with statutory jobs. award documentation. requirements. Specifically, EDA refers The TAAF program provides cost- DATES: This final rule is effective on to imported articles or services that sharing technical assistance to eligible March 16, 2020. compete with and are substantially import-impacted U.S. manufacturing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

firms, oil and natural gas production with TAACs to request and obtain consistent with the intent of the TAAF firms, and service firms in all 50 States, Adjustment Assistance. program as established in the Trade Act. the District of Columbia, and the Section 315.2 Decreased Absolutely Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Technical assistance is provided EDA is making changes to the EDA is making a minor change to the through a nationwide network of 11 definitions identified below. definition of Decreased Absolutely to TAACs, which are non-profit or add language clarifying that a firm’s Adjustment Assistance university-affiliated entities. sales or production must have declined TAACs provide eligible firms with EDA is making three revisions to the by a minimum of five percent relative to customized assistance from industry definition of Adjustment Assistance. its sales or production during the experts knowledgeable about the unique First, EDA is removing the reference to applicable time period and that the needs, challenges, and opportunities ‘‘or industries.’’ As explained further in decline is independent of industry or facing industries in their respective the discussion of the changes to market fluctuations and relative only to regions. Firms work with TAACs to § 315.17, EDA is eliminating its the previous performance of the firm apply for certification of eligibility for regulations related to the provision of unless EDA determines that such TAAF assistance. Firms demonstrate trade adjustment assistance to limitations would not be consistent with their eligibility by documenting that industries. EDA has historically not the purposes of the Trade Act. they have experienced a decline in sales provided separate industry-wide Directly Competitive or a decline or impending decline in assistance programs because firms EDA is revising the defined term employment or worker hours, and that within impacted industries have Directly Competitive to add the words an increase of imports of directly solicited help through TAAF on an ‘‘or Like’’ to the end, such that the term competitive goods or services individual basis and because there has will be Directly Competitive or Like. contributed importantly to such been no demand for industry-wide This change will more closely align this declines. EDA then renders a decision assistance. In addition, EDA provides term with the terminology of the Trade regarding the firms’ eligibility. expedited review of petitions and APs Act. EDA is further revising this TAACs work closely with eligible from firms within impacted industries. definition by adding language that firms’ management to identify the firms’ When the U.S. International Trade clarifies the linkage between this strengths and weaknesses and then Commission (‘‘ITC’’) makes an injury definition and the reference to firms that develop customized business recovery determination, in accordance with engage in exploring, drilling, or plans, APs, which are designed to chapter 3 of the Trade Act, EDA producing oil or natural gas. By adding stimulate recovery and growth. The provides expedited consideration to the phrase ‘‘For the purposes of this TAAF program pays up to 75 percent of petitions by firms in the affected term,’’ before the final sentence in this the costs of developing APs. EDA industry, as well as expedited assistance definition, EDA reinforces the reviews firms’ APs and determines in preparing and processing AP requirement in Section 251 of the Trade whether or not to approve them. When applications to such firms. EDA believes Act that firms that engage in these types an AP has been approved, firm this individualized approach has been of activities be considered as producing management and TAAC staff jointly effective in facilitating adjustments articles that are directly competitive identify consultants with the specific within both firms and industries. The with imported oil and natural gas for the expertise to help the firm implement the removal of regulations that reference purposes of TAAF eligibility. AP. If the cost exceeds the simplified trade adjustment assistance to industries acquisition threshold, consultants are will help prevent potential confusion Firm selected through a competitive regarding the availability of a parallel EDA is capitalizing the term, procurement process. industry program. In the event that EDA ‘‘Unjustifiable Benefits,’’ as referenced does determine it is appropriate to in this definition. This change is the Overview of Changes to the TAAF provide trade adjustment assistance for result of EDA adding a definition for Regulations industries, EDA will promulgate new Unjustifiable Benefits, as described The discussion that follows presents regulations to implement the program. below. EDA is further revising this an overview of substantive changes by Second, EDA is revising the definition definition by adding to the sub- subpart letter and section number. to clarify that Adjustment Assistance definition of Subsidiary, which is refers to technical assistance provided included as a category of firm that may Subpart A by TAACs. The current regulation is be considered jointly with another firm EDA is transferring §§ 315.4 and 315.5 ambiguous and could be interpreted that is requesting Adjustment from subpart A to subpart B. This such that EDA provides the technical Assistance pursuant to TAAF in an change will retain all general provisions assistance directly, which is not the effort to prevent Unjustifiable Benefits. within subpart A, while consolidating case. Third, EDA is adding to the EDA is qualifying the definition of the regulations regarding TAAC definition a statement that EDA Subsidiary by adding an explanation selection, operation, role, and coverage determines what type of assistance is that a firm acquired by another firm but within subpart B. provided and adding a list of the types which operates independently of the of assistance that this may include: acquiring firm is considered an Section 315.1 Preparing a firm’s petition for Independent Subsidiary and may be EDA is replacing this section with a certification of eligibility, developing an considered separately from the new programmatic description of AP, and implementing an AP. acquiring firm as eligible for Adjustment TAAF’s purpose. The revised section Assistance. This change reflects existing Adjustment Proposal more clearly lays out the process by practice and addresses a growing trend which EDA executes its responsibilities EDA is revising the definition for in petitions requesting Adjustment concerning the TAAF program, as Adjustment Proposal, clarifying that the Assistance for firms that have been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce, AP is a firm’s plan for improving its acquired by another firm but continue to and the process by which firms work competitiveness in the marketplace, operate independently after the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8375

acquisition, generally retaining the same Total Separation EDA is re-designating paragraphs management, maintaining control over EDA is streamlining and clarifying the (a)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (b) and (c), management decisions, and otherwise definition of Total Separation by respectively. EDA is also streamlining continuing operations without removing the phrase ‘‘with respect to newly re-designated paragraph (c) by significant change. any employment in a firm’’ and adding renumbering paragraphs (i) and (ii) as (1) and (2), respectively, and by Increase in Imports the words ‘‘in a firm’’ after ‘‘the laying off or termination of employment of an rewording newly re-designated EDA is modifying this definition by employee.’’ paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to provide moving the second sentence of this enhanced clarity on the types of definition to the revised subpart C Unjustifiable Benefits Adjustment Assistance a TAAC may (Certification of firms) as a new As noted above, EDA is also adding a provide to a firm. paragraph (c) in § 315.6 (Certification definition for Unjustifiable Benefits. EDA is removing existing paragraphs Requirements). EDA believes this Under this new definition, Unjustifiable (b), (c), and (d) in their entirety. EDA sentence is more appropriately located Benefits describe Adjustment Assistance believes these paragraphs are in subpart C as a description of one inappropriately accruing to the benefit unnecessary, as these provisions and method for a firm to demonstrate that it of (1) other firms that would not requirements will generally be covered meets the eligibility requirements for otherwise be eligible when provided to in the Notice of Funding Opportunity Certification to apply for Adjustment a firm or (2) any predecessor or used to announce the availability of Assistance. The sentence provides that successor firm, or any affiliated firm funding for TAAC awards. a firm may submit certifications from a controlled or substantially beneficially Subpart C firm’s customers that account for a owned by substantially the same person, significant percentage of the firm’s rather than treating these entities as a EDA is revising subpart C to decrease in sales or production, that the single firm. EDA believes that this is an consolidate all regulations regarding the customers increased their purchase of important concept that should be fully certification of firms. The revised imports of Directly Competitive or Like explained to help firms understand subpart C will include §§ 315.6 through Articles or Services from a foreign TAAF eligibility requirements. 315.10. country. Section 315.3 Section 315.6 Partial Separation EDA is not changing this section. EDA is changing the definition of EDA is moving the matching share Partial Separation by replacing language Subpart B requirements for APs as set forth in current paragraph (c)(2) to the new denoting that this definition is with EDA is revising this subpart to respect to any employment in a firm § 315.11 (‘‘Adjustment Proposal consolidate and clarify all regulations Process’’) in subpart D (‘‘Adjustment with language which clarifies that a regarding TAAC selection, operations, Partial Separation occurs when there Proposals’’). EDA is eliminating the and coverage. The revised subpart B, remaining requirements in § 315.6, has been no increase in overall entitled ‘‘TAAC Provisions,’’ would be employment at the firm and either of the which are duplicative of other inserted after § 315.3 and would include regulations in this part and provide no conditions currently described in this revised §§ 315.4 and 315.5, which definition exist: (1) A reduction in an additional guidance or clarity to TAACs would be transferred to subpart B from or firms. Finally, EDA is re-designating employee’s work hours to 80 percent or subpart A. less of the employee’s average weekly the current § 315.7 as § 315.6. hours during the year of such reductions Section 315.4 In addition to these revisions, as as compared to the preceding year; or EDA is revising paragraph (a) of this noted above in the discussion regarding (2) a reduction in the employee’s weekly section to better describe the TAAC revisions to the definition of Increase in wage to 80 percent or less of his/her selection process. Imports at § 315.2, EDA is adding a new average weekly wage during the year of EDA is revising paragraph (b) of this paragraph (c) to revised § 315.6 and such reduction as compared to the section to replace the existing language moving into this paragraph the language preceding year. EDA occasionally with an explanation that TAACs are formerly located in the definition of receives petitions submitted by firms awarded cooperative agreements that Increase in Imports that enabled firms to whose overall employment figures have are subject to all Federal laws and to help demonstrate that they meet the increased within the periods of time in Federal, Department, and EDA policies, eligibility requirements for Adjustment question and which, nonetheless, assert regulations, and procedures applicable Assistance by submitting certification that there has been a Partial Separation to Federal financial assistance awards, from the firm’s customers that account with regards to a certain portion of their including 2 CFR part 200, Uniform for a significant percentage of the firms’ workforce’s work hours or weekly Administrative Requirements, Cost decrease in sales or production, that the wages. EDA believes that this revision Principles, and Audit Requirements for customers increased their purchase of should resolve the apparent confusion Federal Awards, and that TAACs work imports of Directly Competitive or Like caused by the current wording and closely with EDA and import-impacted Articles or Services from a foreign clarify that a firm does not meet the firms. country. EDA is further adding to this eligibility criteria if its overall new paragraph (c) a sentence specifying Section 315.5 employment has increased during the that such certification from a firm’s relevant time period. EDA is re-designating paragraph (a)(1) customer must be submitted directly to as paragraph (a) and, in that same a TAAC or to EDA. EDA believes this Service Sector Firm paragraph, revising the third sentence in addition will ease some confusion by EDA is revising the definition of order to clarify that information firms, some of which have requested Service Sector Firm to remove the last regarding all of the TAACs’ service their customers to provide such two sentences of the definition because areas, rather than just particular certification directly to the firms which they are already included in the geographic areas, are available at the subsequently pass on the certifications definition of firm. websites listed in that section. to EDA through the TAACs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Section 315.7 of the word ‘‘days’’ in the introductory consolidate AP procedures within a EDA is re-designating the current paragraph to this section. single section. In order to more clearly § 315.8 as § 315.7. EDA is revising paragraph (b)(2) to reflect the requirements of the Trade EDA is revising paragraph (b)(5) to clarify that, when someone other than Act, EDA is moving the requirement clarify the additional requirements for the petitioner requests a public hearing established in the current § 315.16(a), publicly-owned corporations when on an accepted petition, the requester which says APs must be submitted to submitting financial information as part must include a statement describing the EDA for approval within two years after of their petitions for certification. EDA nature of the requester’s interest in the the date of Certification, to the new is revising the paragraph to clarify that proceedings. § 315.11(a). In addition to moving the publicly-owned corporations should EDA is also revising paragraph (d) of requirements that currently exist in submit copies of the most recent Form this section to clarify that EDA will publish a notice of a public hearing in § 315.6(a)(3) to the revised § 315.11(b), 10–K annual reports (or Form 10–Q EDA is adding language to these quarterly reports, as appropriate) filed the Federal Register only if EDA has made the determination that the requirements that will require firms to with the U.S. Securities and Exchange begin implementation of their approved Commission for the entire period requesting party has a substantial interest in the hearing. AP within six months after approval. covered by the petition. EDA is also adding a requirement that EDA is also revising paragraph (b)(6) Section 315.9 firms that do not begin implementation to make clear the information required EDA is re-designating the current within six months after approval must regarding a firm’s customers. § 315.10 as § 315.9. update and re-submit their AP for re- Specifically, EDA is replacing the EDA is also revising paragraphs (a), approval before any Adjustment qualifier that the description relates to (b), and (d) to replace the word Assistance may be provided. These the ‘‘major’’ customers of the firm with ‘‘Failure’’ at the beginning of each of additions reflect long-standing practice one that identifies the customers as those paragraphs with the words ‘‘The and will help firms to ensure that their ‘‘accounting for a significant percent of firm failed’’ to provide clarity regarding APs reflect the most up-to-date the firm’s decline.’’ EDA is further which entity’s omission triggers the loss economic conditions and financial revising this paragraph to clarify that of benefits. EDA is further revising situation and, consequently, that the firms should submit information paragraph (d) to read: ‘‘The firm failed firms will receive the most effective regarding those customers’ purchases or to diligently pursue an approved Adjustment Assistance. the firm’s unsuccessful bids if there are Adjustment Proposal, and five years EDA is adding a paragraph (c) to this no customers fitting the description have elapsed since the date of section that discusses how EDA will outlined in this paragraph. certification.’’ make a determination regarding an AP EDA is revising paragraph (f) to clarify no later than 60 calendar days after that, in order to withdraw a petition for Section 315.10 receipt of the AP, which incorporates certification, the petitioner must submit EDA is re-designating the current the requirement from Section 252(b)(2) a request for withdrawal before EDA § 315.11 as § 315.10. of the Trade Act. makes a determination regarding EDA is revising paragraphs (a) and (b) EDA is also adding a paragraph (d) to approval or denial of the certification. of this section by inserting the word this section. EDA is moving the EDA is revising paragraphs (g)(1) and ‘‘calendar’’ before the word ‘‘days’’ for matching share requirements for (2) of this section. EDA is revising the reasons mentioned above. Adjustment Assistance from the existing paragraph (g)(1) in order to make clear EDA is removing the designation of § 315.6(b)(2) to this paragraph. In that EDA may request additional paragraph (d) and adding the sentence addition, EDA is adding a sentence material from a firm beyond what was that formerly stood alone as paragraph stating that certified firms may request submitted with the firm’s original (d) to the end of paragraph (c) in this no more than the amount established by petition if necessary to make a same section. EDA believes this EDA for total Adjustment Assistance determination regarding the firm’s reorganization will reduce potential over the entire lifetime of the firm. This eligibility for Adjustment Assistance. In confusion by placing all requirements addition incorporates current practice, addition, EDA is revising paragraph regarding the steps EDA takes when it established to ensure that the maximum (g)(1) to insert the word ‘‘calendar’’ terminates a certification in a single number of eligible firms are able to before the word ‘‘days.’’ EDA is also paragraph. receive Adjustment Assistance and to making similar revisions to all encourage certified firms to references to ‘‘days’’ found throughout Subpart D appropriately plan and implement their part 315. EDA is making these changes EDA is not changing the designation Adjustment Proposals within to clarify that all references to ‘‘days’’ or heading of this subpart. However, established funding limits. within part 315 refer to calendar days as EDA is revising this subpart to include EDA is adding a paragraph (e) to this the current regulations are not clear on §§ 315.11 and 315.12. section and specifying within this whether these references to ‘‘days’’ are paragraph that firms may request EDA calendar or business days. EDA is Section 315.11 approval to amend their APs within two revising paragraph (g)(2) to clarify that Section 315.11 will be revised to years from the date of EDA approval of firms may not resubmit a petition combine requirements currently their initial APs. This new language within one year from the date of a contained in other sections of part 315 incorporates current practice and allows denial without a waiver from EDA and add new language to reflect best firms to update their APs as needed issued for good cause. practices. The section heading will be within the two-year time frame to revised to ‘‘Adjustment Proposal address any unexpected changes in their Section 315.8 Process.’’ situation, new information, or a need to EDA is re-designating the current EDA is moving paragraphs (a)(2) and re-direct resources to areas of greatest § 315.9 as § 315.8. (3) from the current § 315.6 to the need. For the reasons discussed above, EDA revised § 315.11 as paragraphs (a) and EDA is also adding a paragraph (f) to is inserting the word ‘‘calendar’’ in front (b) within this section in order to this section. Paragraph (f) requires firms

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8377

to complete implementation of their revised, subpart E will include designation ‘‘(a)’’ from the first APs within five years of EDA approval §§ 315.13 and 315.14. EDA is moving paragraph of this section and of their initial APs. This added language the requirements regarding persons eliminating paragraphs (b) and (c) to reflects current practice and EDA’s engaged by firms to expedite petitions reflect the fact that EDA, historically, expectation that firms who request and APs as found in the current § 315.14 has not provided Adjustment Assistance Adjustment Assistance are financially (Certifications) and the requirements for the establishment of industry-wide and operationally prepared to engage in regarding conflicts of interest that are programs for new product development, the TAAF program and will implement contained the current § 315.15 (Conflicts export development, or other uses their AP in a timely way. of interest), both of which are found in consistent with the purposes of the EDA is adding a paragraph (g) to this the current subpart C, to subpart E. EDA Trade Act because there has been no section to address what occurs if a believes this reorganization and new demand for such programs. As noted certified firm is transferred, sold, or location will make it easier for firms to above in the discussion regarding otherwise acquired by another firm read and understand the regulations and changes to the definition of Adjustment during the five-year period established will help clarify that these provisions Assistance in § 315.2, firms within in paragraph (f). Paragraph (g) requires apply to firms at all stages of the TAAF impacted industries have sought a certified firm that is transferred, sold, program. Adjustment Assistance through TAAF or otherwise acquired by another firm on an individual basis rather than Section 315.13 during the five-year period of through industry-wide solutions. EDA Adjustment Assistance to notify EDA no EDA is moving the requirements for also provides expedited review of later than 30 calendar days following firms to certify in writing to EDA the petitions and APs from firms within the transfer, sale, or acquisition. EDA names of any attorneys, agents, and industries for which the ITC has will then make a determination as to other Persons engaged by or on behalf determined that increased imports are a whether the firm remains eligible for of the firm for the purpose of expediting substantial cause of serious injury or Adjustment Assistance. This new Petitions for Adjustment Assistance and threat thereof under section 202(b) of language incorporates current practice the fees paid or to be paid to any such the Trade Act. This individualized and is designed to resolve any confusion Person, as found in the current § 315.14, approach enables EDA to support about how firms and TAACs should to § 315.13. EDA is further revising adjustments at the firm level, while handle this scenario. these requirements by clarifying, in having a cumulative impact at the Finally, EDA is adding a paragraph (h) paragraph (a), that they apply to both industry level. to this section. Paragraph (h) will Adjustment Assistance and APs. EDA is replacing within this require firms that receive Adjustment EDA is eliminating the current paragraph the language stating that EDA Assistance to provide data regarding the § 315.13 (Audit and examination). With will provide to firms in the identified firms’ sales, employment, and the proposed revisions to § 315.4(b), industry assistance in the preparation productivity upon completion of the which states that TAAC cooperative and processing of petitions and program and each year for the two-year agreements are subject to all Federal applications for benefits; EDA instead period following completion. This laws and to Federal, Department, and will include language establishing language incorporates into the EDA policies, regulations, and notification to TAACs and expedited regulations reporting requirements procedures applicable to Federal review of petitions and APs from firms established in Section 255A of the Trade financial assistance awards, including 2 within the specified industry. EDA Act, which requires EDA to report CFR part 200, the current § 315.13 is no believes these revisions more clearly annually to Congress on data regarding longer needed as audit and examination describe the assistance EDA provides to the TAAF program for the preceding requirements are adequately addressed industries in response to determinations fiscal year. in those materials. made by the ITC under the Trade Act. Section 315.12 Section 315.14 This revised section contains one EDA is re-designating the current EDA is moving the requirements technical correction to the proposed § 315.16 as § 315.12. As discussed found in the current § 315.15 to revision in the NPRM published in the above, EDA is eliminating paragraph (a) § 315.14. EDA is also revising these Federal Register on August 19, 2019 (84 of this section after moving the requirements by modifying the list of FR 42831). The correction is to requirement that firms must submit firm representatives subject to the eliminate an improper citation to the their APs to EDA within two years of conflicts of interest requirements to Tariff Act. The proposed revision to this the date of certification to § 315.11(a). parallel the list of firm representatives section provided that EDA would notify EDA is eliminating the current identified in the revised § 315.13. TAACs and provide expedited review of § 315.12 (Recordkeeping). With the petitions and APs from Firms within an proposed revisions to § 315.4(b), which Subpart F industry for which the ITC has made an states that TAAC cooperative EDA is adding subpart F, entitled affirmative finding under section 202(b) agreements are subject to all Federal ‘‘International Trade Commission of the Trade Act or under sections 705 laws and to Federal, Department, and Investigations.’’ Subpart F sets forth, or 735 of the Tariff Act. Determinations EDA policies, regulations, and through § 315.15, what actions EDA made under section 202(b) of the Trade procedures applicable to Federal takes when the ITC makes an affirmative Act concern serious injury or threat financial assistance awards, including 2 finding under section 202(b) of the thereof to a domestic injury, while CFR part 200, the current § 315.12 is no Trade Act regarding injury or threat of determinations made under sections 705 longer needed as recordkeeping injury to an industry. or 735 of the Tariff Act concern lesser requirements are adequately addressed material injury or threat thereof to a Section 315.15 in those materials. domestic industry. Pursuant to section EDA is re-designating the current 202(g) of the Trade Act, EDA is only Subpart E § 315.17 as § 315.15 and is revising the required to provide expedited review of EDA is revising the heading for this heading of this section to ‘‘Affirmative petitions submitted by firms in subpart to ‘‘Protective Provisions.’’ As Findings.’’ EDA is also removing the industries for which the ITC has made

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

an affirmative determination under Section 608 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3218), organizations, and all other stakeholders section 202(b) of the Trade Act. 2 CFR 200.333 and 200.336, and the to comply with the regulations Standard Terms and Conditions of an discussed in this notice of final rule. It Part II: Updates to PWEDA Regulations EDA award. is therefore considered to have a total PWEDA Background In addition, EDA is eliminating 13 incremental cost of zero pursuant to the PWEDA is EDA’s organic authority CFR 302.11. Beginning with the April 5, 2017, OMB guidance and the primary legal authority under enactment of the original section 502 of memorandum implementing Executive which EDA awards grants. Other legal PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3192) in 1998, Order 13771 (M–17–21). Congress has required EDA to maintain authorities include the Trade Act and Congressional Review Act the Stevenson-Wydler Technology an economic development information Innovation Act of 1980. Under PWEDA, clearinghouse on matters related to This final rule is not major under the EDA provides financial assistance to economic development, economic Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 both rural and urban distressed adjustment, disaster recovery, defense et seq.). conversion, and trade adjustment communities by fostering Executive Order No. 13132 entrepreneurship, innovation, and programs and activities. See Public Law productivity through investments in 105–393. With the EDA Reauthorization Executive Order 13132 requires infrastructure development, capacity Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–373 (Oct. 27, agencies to develop an accountable building, and business development in 2004)), Congress amended section 502 process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and order to attract private capital to require EDA to, among other things, timely input by State and local officials investments and new and better jobs to maintain this information clearinghouse in the development of regulatory regions experiencing substantial and online. The current regulation adds policies that have federalism persistent economic distress. nothing of value to the requirements implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have already in place under section 502 and federalism implications’’ is defined in Overview of Eliminated PWEDA consequently should be eliminated. Executive Order 13132 to include Regulations Classification regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct EDA is eliminating certain provisions effects on the States, on the relationship within part 302 of the PWEDA Regulatory Flexibility Act between the national government and regulations that are unnecessary or Prior notice and opportunity for the States, or on the distribution of already established in other regulations public comment are not required for power and responsibilities among the or award documentation. Specifically, rules concerning public property, loans, various levels of government.’’ This EDA is eliminating the regulations grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. final rule does not contain policies that located at 13 CFR 302.4, 302.5, and 553(a)(2)). EDA’s programs, including have federalism implications. 302.14. These regulations describe: The the TAAF program, are financial Paperwork Reduction Act responsibilities of EDA grant recipients assistance programs provided through to maintain records, how information grants and cooperative agreements. As The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 supplied to EDA may be subject to such, prior notice and an opportunity (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (‘‘PRA’’) public release under the Freedom of for public comment are not required requires that a Federal agency consider Information Act or Privacy Act, how pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other the impact of paperwork and other government auditors may need access to law, and the analytical requirements of information collection burdens imposed various records, and that grant the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. on the public and, under the provisions recipients are subject to the government- 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Although of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval wide relocation assistance and land EDA did choose to publish an NPRM in from OMB for each collection of acquisition policies. These regulations the Federal Register requesting public information it conducts, sponsors, or can be removed because notice of these comments on the content of this final requires through regulations. terms and conditions is already rule (84 FR 42831), EDA received no Notwithstanding any other provision of provided to grant recipients through comments in response to the NPRM, law, no person is required to respond to, other Department of Commerce-wide or and thus has received no input from the nor shall any person be subject to a government-wide regulations as well as public bearing on the analytical penalty for failure to comply with a in specific documentation EDA provides requirements of the Regulatory collection of information subject to the to each grant recipient. Specifically, Flexibility Act. For these reasons, a PRA unless that collection displays a recipients of EDA financial assistance regulatory flexibility analysis has not currently valid OMB Control Number. are already subject to the requirements been prepared. The following table provides the only related to the Freedom of Information collections of information (and Act or Privacy Act currently described Executive Orders No. 12866, 13563, and corresponding OMB Control Numbers) in § 302.4 through 15 CFR part 4 and the 13771 set forth in this final rule. These Standard Terms and Conditions of an This final rule was drafted in collections of information are necessary EDA award. Similarly, the relocation accordance with Executive Orders for the proper performance and and land acquisition policies currently 12866, 13563, and 13771. The Office of functions of EDA. This final rule does found in § 302.5 are already applicable Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has not include a new information to all EDA financial assistance determined that this final rule is not collection requirement and will, thus, recipients under government-wide significant for purposes of Executive use previously approved information regulations found at 49 CFR part 24. Order 12866 and Executive Order collections to collect information Finally, the record-keeping 13563. relevant to a petition for certification of requirements currently located in This rule is a deregulatory action that eligibility for trade adjustment § 302.14 duplicate the requirements of has a neutral effect on the costs to firms, assistance or an AP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8379

Part or section of this Nature of request Form/Title/OMB control No. final rule

315.7(b) ...... Firms seeking certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance must com- Form ED–840P, Petition by a plete Form ED–840P, which provides EDA with the information needed to determine if a firm for Certification of Eligi- firm is eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance. bility to Apply for Trade Ad- justment Assistance (0610– 0091). 315.12 ...... The information for Adjustment Proposals is collected pursuant to the same OMB control Adjustment Proposal (0610– number as Form ED–840P (0610–0091). Firms certified by EDA as eligible to apply for 0091). trade adjustment assistance must prepare an Adjustment Proposal and submit it to EDA for approval within two years after the date of certification. This provides EDA with the in- formation needed to determine whether the Adjustment Proposal meets the requirements of the Trade Act and 13 CFR part 315.

List of Subjects § 315.1 Purpose and scope. Adjustment Assistance means Chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act technical assistance provided to Firms 13 CFR Part 302 of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341–2355) by TAACs under chapter 3 of title II of Community development, Grant establishes the responsibilities of the the Trade Act. The type of assistance programs-business, Grant programs- Secretary of Commerce concerning the provided is determined by EDA and housing and community development, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms may include one or more of the Technical assistance. (TAAF) program. The regulations in this following: part lay out those responsibilities as (1) Assistance in preparing a Firm’s 13 CFR Part 315 delegated to EDA by the Secretary. EDA petition for certification of eligibility; Administrative practice and executes these responsibilities through (2) Assistance to a Certified Firm in procedure, Community development, cooperative agreements that support a developing an Adjustment Proposal for Grant programs-business, Reporting and network of Trade Adjustment the Firm; and recordkeeping requirements, Trade Assistance Centers (TAACs). The (3) Assistance to a Certified Firm in adjustment assistance. TAACs assist Firms in petitioning EDA implementing an Adjustment Proposal. for certification of eligibility to receive Adjustment Proposal means a For the reasons discussed above, EDA Adjustment Assistance. EDA certifies Certified Firm’s plan for improving the is amending 13 CFR chapter III as the eligibility of Firms. The TAACs then Firm’s competitiveness in the follows: provide Adjustment Assistance to Firms marketplace. PART 302–GENERAL TERMS AND through the development and * * * * * CONDITIONS FOR INVESTMENT implementation of Adjustment Decreased Absolutely means a Firm’s ASSISTANCE Proposals. sales or production has declined by a ■ 7. Amend § 315.2 by: minimum of five percent relative to its ■ ■ 1. The authority citation of part 302 a. Revising the introductory text and sales or production during the continues to read as follows: the definitions for ‘‘Adjustment applicable prior time period, and this Assistance’’ and ‘‘Adjustment decline is: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. Proposal’’; 3150; 42 U.S.C. 3152; 42 U.S.C. 3153; 42 * * * * * ■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Decreased Directly Competitive or Like means U.S.C. 3192; 42 U.S.C. 3193; 42 U.S.C. 3194; Absolutely’’, revising the introductory 42 U.S.C. 3211; 42 U.S.C. 3212; 42 U.S.C. imported articles or services that 3216; 42 U.S.C. 3218; 42 U.S.C. 3220; 42 text; compete with and are substantially ■ U.S.C. 5141; 15 U.S.C. 3701; Department of c. Removing the definition of equivalent for commercial purposes Commerce Delegation Order 10–4. ‘‘Directly Competitive’’ and adding the (i.e., are adapted for the same function definition of ‘‘Directly Competitive or §§ 302.4 and 302.5 [Removed] or use and are essentially Like’’ in its place; interchangeable) as the Firm’s articles or ■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Firm’’, revising ■ 2. Remove §§ 302.4 and 302.5. services. For the purposes of this term, the introductory text and paragraph (4); any Firm that engages in exploring or ■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Increase § 302.11 [Removed] drilling for oil or natural gas, or in Imports’’; ■ 3. Remove § 302.11. ■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Partial otherwise produces oil or natural gas, Separation’’, revising the introductory shall be considered to be producing § 302.14 [Removed] text; articles directly competitive with imports of oil and with imports of ■ 4. Remove § 302.14. ■ g. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Service Sector Firm’’ and ‘‘Total Separation’’; natural gas. PART 315—TRADE ADJUSTMENT and Firm means an individual ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS ■ h. Adding in alphabetical order a proprietorship, partnership, joint definition for ‘‘Unjustifiable Benefits’’. venture, association, corporation ■ 5. Revise the authority citation of part The revisions and additions read as (includes a development corporation), 315 to read as follows: follows: business trust, cooperative, trustee in bankruptcy or receiver under court Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2341–2356; 42 U.S.C. § 315.2 Definitions. decree, and includes fishing, 3211; Title IV of Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. In addition to the defined terms set agricultural or service sector entities 373; Department of Commerce Delegation Order 10–4. forth in § 300.3 of this chapter, the and those which explore, drill or following terms used in this part shall otherwise produce oil or natural gas. ■ 6. Revise § 315.1 to read as follows: have the meanings set forth below: See also the definition of Service Sector

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Firm. Pursuant to section 259 of chapter Subpart B—TAAC Provisions provide Adjustment Assistance through 3 of title II of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. TAACs whenever EDA determines that 2351), a Firm, together with any 315.4 TAAC selection and operation. such assistance can be provided most predecessor or successor firm, or any 315.5 The role and geographic coverage of effectively in this manner. Requests for affiliated firm controlled or the TAACs. Adjustment Assistance will be made substantially beneficially owned by Subpart C—Certification of Firms through TAACs. (c) A TAAC generally provides substantially the same person, may be 315.6 Certification requirements. considered a single Firm where 315.7 Processing petitions for certification. Adjustment Assistance by: necessary to prevent Unjustifiable 315.8 Hearings. (1) Helping a Firm to prepare its Benefits. For purposes of receiving 315.9 Loss of certification benefits. petition for eligibility certification; and benefits under this part, when a Firm 315.10 Appeals, final determinations, and (2) Assisting Certified Firms with owns or controls other Firms, the Firm termination of certification. diagnosing their strengths and and such other Firms may be considered Subpart D—Adjustment Proposals weaknesses, and with developing and a single Firm when they produce or implementing an Adjustment Proposal. 315.11 Adjustment Proposal process. supply like or Directly Competitive 315.12 Adjustment Proposal requirements. articles or services or are exerting Subpart C—Certification of Firms Subpart E—Protective Provisions essential economic control over one or § 315.6 Certification requirements. more production facilities. Accordingly, 315.13 Persons engaged by Firms to (a) General. Firms apply for expedite petitions and Adjustment such other Firms may include a(n): certification through a TAAC by * * * * * Proposals. 315.14 Conflicts of interest. completing a petition for certification. (4) Subsidiary—a company (either The TAAC will assist Firms in foreign or domestic) that is wholly Subpart F—International Trade Commission completing such petitions at no cost to owned or effectively controlled by Investigations the Firms. EDA evaluates Firms’ another company. A Firm that has been 315.15 Affirmative findings. petitions based on the requirements set acquired by another Firm but which forth in § 315.7. EDA may certify a Firm maintains operations independent of the Subpart B—TAAC Provisions as eligible to apply for Adjustment acquiring Firm is considered an § 315.4 TAAC selection and operation. Assistance under section 251(c) of the Independent Subsidiary and may be (a) EDA solicits applications from Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2341) if it considered separately from the organizations interested in operating a determines that the petition for acquiring Firm as eligible for TAAF TAAC through Notice of Funding certification meets one of the minimum assistance. Opportunity announcements laying out certification thresholds set forth in Increase in Imports means an increase selection and award criteria. The paragraph (b) of this section. In order to in imports of Directly Competitive or following entities are eligible to apply: be certified, a Firm must meet the Like Articles or Services with articles (1) Universities or affiliated criteria listed under any one of the five produced or services supplied by a organizations; circumstances described in paragraph Firm. (2) States or local governments; or (b) of this section. * * * * * (3) Non-profit organizations. (b) Minimum certification Partial Separation occurs when there (b) Entities selected to operate the thresholds—(1) Twelve-month decline. has been no increase in overall TAACs are awarded cooperative Based upon a comparison of the most employment at the Firm and either of agreements and work closely with EDA recent 12-month period for which data the following applies: and import-impacted firms. TAAC are available and the immediately * * * * * cooperative agreements are subject to all preceding 12-month period: Service Sector Firm means a Firm Federal laws and to Federal, (i) A Significant Number or engaged in the business of supplying Department, and EDA policies, Proportion of Workers in the Firm has services. regulations, and procedures applicable undergone Total or Partial Separation or a Threat of Total or Partial Separation; * * * * * to Federal financial assistance awards, including 2 CFR part 200. (ii) Either sales or production, or both, Total Separation means the laying off of the Firm has Decreased Absolutely; or or termination of employment of an § 315.5 The role and geographic coverage sales or production, or both, of any employee in a Firm for lack of work. of the TAACs. article or service that accounted for not Unjustifiable Benefits means (a) TAACs are available to assist less than 25 percent of the total Adjustment Assistance inappropriately Firms in obtaining Adjustment production or sales of the Firm during accruing to the benefit of: Assistance in all 50 U.S. States, the the 12-month period preceding the most (1) Other Firms that would not District of Columbia, and the recent 12-month period for which data otherwise be eligible when provided to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. TAACs are available have Decreased a Firm; or provide Adjustment Assistance in Absolutely; and (2) Any predecessor or successor accordance with this part either through (iii) An Increase in Imports has Firm, or any affiliated Firm controlled their own staffs or by arrangements with Contributed Importantly to the or substantially beneficially owned by outside consultants. Information applicable Total or Partial Separation or substantially the same person, rather concerning TAACs and their coverage Threat of Total or Partial Separation, than treating these entities as a single areas may be obtained from the TAAC and to the applicable decline in sales or Firm. website at http://www.taacenters.org or production or supply of services. §§ 315.4, 315.5, and 315.6 [Removed] from EDA at http://www.eda.gov. (2) Twelve-month versus twenty-four (b) Prior to submitting a petition for month decline. Based upon a ■ 8. Sections 315.4 through 315.6 are Adjustment Assistance to EDA, a Firm comparison of the most recent 12-month removed. should determine the extent to which a period for which data are available and ■ 9. Revise subparts B through E and TAAC can provide the required the immediately preceding 24-month add subpart F to read as follows: Adjustment Assistance. EDA will period:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8381

(i) A Significant Number or an Increase in Imports has Contributed (3) Description of imported Directly Proportion of Workers in the Firm has Importantly to the applicable Total or Competitive or Like Articles or Services undergone Total or Partial Separation or Partial Separation or Threat of Total or with those produced or supplied; a Threat of Total or Partial Separation; Partial Separation, and to the applicable (4) Data on its sales, production and (ii) Either average annual sales or decline in sales or production or supply employment for the applicable 24- production, or both, of the Firm has of services. month, 36-month, or 48-month period, Decreased Absolutely; or average annual (5) Interim employment decline. as required under § 315.6(b); sales or production, or both, of any Based upon an interim employment (5) One copy of a complete auditor’s article or service that accounted for not decline: certified financial report for the entire less than 25 percent of the total (i) A Significant Number or period covering the petition, or if not production or sales of the Firm during Proportion of Workers in such Firm has available, one copy of the complete the 24-month period preceding the most undergone Total or Partial Separation or profit and loss statements, balance recent 12-month period for which data a Threat of Total or Partial Separation sheets and supporting statements are available have Decreased during, at a minimum, the most recent prepared by the Firm’s accountants for Absolutely; and six-month period during the most recent the entire period covered by the (iii) An Increase in Imports has 12-month period for which data are petition. In addition, publicly-owned Contributed Importantly to the available as compared to the same six- corporations should also submit copies applicable Total or Partial Separation or month period during the immediately of the most recent Form 10–K annual Threat of Total or Partial Separation, preceding 12-month period; and reports (or Form 10–Q quarterly reports, and to the applicable decline in sales or (ii) Either sales or production of the as appropriate) filed with the U.S. production or supply of services. Firm has Decreased Absolutely during Securities and Exchange Commission (3) Twelve-month versus thirty-six the 12-month period preceding the most for the entire period covered by the month decline. Based upon a recent 12-month period for which data petition; comparison of the most recent 12-month are available; and (6) Information concerning customers period for which data are available and accounting for a significant percent of (iii) An Increase in Imports has the immediately preceding 36-month the Firm’s decline and the customers’ Contributed Importantly to the period: purchases (or the Firm’s unsuccessful applicable Total or Partial Separation or (i) A Significant Number or bids, if there are no customers fitting Threat of Total or Partial Separation, Proportion of Workers in the Firm has this description); and and to the applicable decline in sales or undergone Total or Partial Separation or (7) Such other information as EDA production or supply of services. a Threat of Total or Partial Separation; considers material. (ii) Either average annual sales or (c) Evidence of an increase in imports. (c) EDA shall determine whether the production, or both, of the Firm has EDA may consider as evidence of an petition has been properly prepared and Decreased Absolutely; or average annual Increase in Imports a certification from can be accepted. Promptly thereafter, sales or production, or both, of any the Firm’s customers that account for a EDA shall notify the petitioner that the article or service that accounted for not significant percentage of the Firm’s petition has been accepted or advise the less than 25 percent of the total decrease in sales or production, that TAAC that the petition has not been production or sales of the Firm during they have increased their purchase of accepted, but may be resubmitted at any the 36-month period preceding the most imports of Directly Competitive or Like time without prejudice when the recent 12-month period for which data Articles or Services from a foreign specified deficiencies have been are available have Decreased country, either absolutely or relative to corrected. Any resubmission will be Absolutely; and their acquisition of such Like Articles or treated as a new petition. (iii) An Increase in Imports has Services from suppliers located in the (d) EDA will publish a notice of Contributed Importantly to the United States. Such certification from a acceptance of a petition in the Federal applicable Total or Partial Separation or Firm’s customer must be submitted Register. Threat of Total or Partial Separation, directly to a TAAC or to EDA. (e) EDA will initiate an investigation and to the applicable decline in sales or § 315.7 Processing petitions for to determine whether the petitioner production or supply of services. certification. meets the requirements set forth in (4) Interim sales or production section 251(c) of the Trade Act (19 decline. Based upon an interim sales or (a) Firms shall consult with a TAAC U.S.C. 2341) and § 315.6. production decline: for guidance and assistance in the (f) A petition for certification may be (i) Sales or production has Decreased preparation of their petitions for withdrawn if EDA receives a request for Absolutely for, at minimum, the most certification. withdrawal submitted by the petitioner recent six-month period during the most (b) A Firm seeking certification shall before EDA makes a certification recent 12-month period for which data complete a Petition by a Firm for determination or denial. A Firm may are available as compared to the same Certification of Eligibility to Apply for submit a new petition at any time six-month period during the Trade Adjustment Assistance (Form thereafter in accordance with the immediately preceding 12-month ED–840P or any successor form) with requirements of this section and § 315.6. period; the following information about such (g) Following acceptance of a petition, (ii) During the same base and Firm: EDA will: comparative period of time as sales or (1) Identification and description of (1) Make a determination based on the production has Decreased Absolutely, a the Firm, including legal form of Record as soon as possible after the Significant Number or Proportion of organization, economic history, major petitioning Firm or TAAC has submitted Workers in such Firm has undergone ownership interests, officers, directors, all requested material. In no event may Total or Partial Separation or a Threat management, parent company, the determination period exceed 40 of Total or Partial Separation; and Subsidiaries or Affiliates, and calendar days from the date on which (iii) During the same base and production and sales facilities; EDA accepted the petition; and comparative period of time as sales or (2) Description of goods or services (2) Either certify the petitioner as production has Decreased Absolutely, supplied or sold; eligible to apply for Adjustment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Assistance or deny the petition. In implementation or modify its request for Subpart D—Adjustment Proposals either event, EDA shall promptly give Adjustment Assistance consistent with written notice of action to the petitioner. its Adjustment Proposal within six § 315.11 Adjustment Proposal process. Any written notice to the petitioner of months after approval of the Adjustment (a) Firms certified in accordance with a denial of a petition shall specify the Proposal, where two years have elapsed the procedures described in §§ 315.6 reason(s) for the denial. A petitioner since the date of certification. If the and 315.7 must prepare an Adjustment shall not be entitled to resubmit a Firm anticipates needing a longer period Proposal and submit it to EDA for petition within one year from the date to submit documentation, it should approval within two years after the date of denial unless EDA waives the one- indicate the longer period in its of certification. year limitation for good cause. Adjustment Proposal. If the Firm is (b) EDA determines whether to unable to submit its documentation approve the Adjustment Assistance § 315.8 Hearings. within the allowed time, it should requested in the Adjustment Proposal EDA will hold a public hearing on an notify EDA in writing of the reasons for based upon the evaluation criteria set accepted petition if the petitioner or any the delay and submit a new schedule. forth in § 315.12. Upon approval, a interested Person found by EDA to have EDA has the discretion to accept or Certified Firm may submit a request to a Substantial Interest in the proceedings refuse a new schedule. the TAAC for Adjustment Assistance to submits a request for a hearing no later (c) EDA has denied the Firm’s request implement an approved Adjustment than 10 calendar days after the date of for Adjustment Assistance, the time Proposal. Firms must begin publication of the notice of acceptance implementation within six months after in the Federal Register, under the period allowed for the submission of approval. Firms that do not begin following procedures: any documentation in support of such implementation within six months after (a) The petitioner or any interested request has expired, and two years have Person(s) shall have an opportunity to elapsed since the date of certification. approval must update, re-submit their be present, to produce evidence and to (d) The Firm failed to diligently Adjustment Proposal, and request re- be heard. pursue an approved Adjustment approval before any Adjustment (b) A request for public hearing must Proposal, and five years have elapsed Assistance may be provided. be delivered by hand or by registered since the date of certification. (c) EDA will make a determination mail to EDA. A request by a Person regarding the Adjustment Proposal no § 315.10 Appeals, final determinations, later than 60 calendar days upon receipt other than the petitioner shall contain: and termination of certification. (1) The name, address and telephone of the Adjustment Proposal. number of the Person requesting the (a) Any petitioner may appeal in (d) Adjustment Assistance is subject hearing; and writing to EDA from a denial of to matching share requirements. Each (2) A complete statement of the certification, provided that EDA Certified Firm must pay at least 25 relationship of the Person requesting the receives the appeal by personal delivery percent of the cost of preparing its hearing to the petitioner and the subject or by registered mail within 60 calendar Adjustment Proposal. Each Certified matter of the petition, and a statement days from the date of notice of denial Firm requesting $30,000 or less in total of the nature of the requesting party’s under § 315.7(g). The appeal must state Adjustment Assistance in its approved interest in the proceedings. the grounds on which the appeal is Adjustment Proposal must pay at least (c) If EDA determines that the based, including a concise statement of 25 percent of the cost of that requesting party does not have a the supporting facts and applicable law. Adjustment Assistance. Each Certified Substantial Interest in the proceedings, The decision of EDA on the appeal shall Firm requesting more than $30,000 in a written notice of denial shall be sent be the final determination within the total Adjustment Assistance in its to the requesting party. The notice shall Department. In the absence of an appeal approved Adjustment Proposal must specify the reasons for the denial. by the petitioner under this paragraph pay at least 50 percent of the cost of that (d) If EDA determines that the (a), the determination under § 315.7(g) Adjustment Assistance. Certified Firms requesting party does have a Substantial shall be final. may request no more than the amount Interest in the proceedings, EDA shall (b) A Firm, its representative, or any as established by EDA for total publish a notice of a public hearing in other interested domestic party Adjustment Assistance over the entire the Federal Register, containing the aggrieved by a final determination lifetime of the firm. subject matter, name of petitioner, and under paragraph (a) of this section may, (e) Firms may request EDA approval date, time and place of the hearing. within 60 calendar days after notice of to amend their Adjustment Proposals (e) EDA shall appoint a presiding such determination, begin a civil action within two years from the date of EDA officer for the hearing who shall in the United States Court of approval of their initial Adjustment respond to all procedural questions. International Trade for review of such Proposal. § 315.9 Loss of certification benefits. determination, in accordance with (f) Firms must complete EDA may terminate a Firm’s section 284 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. implementation of their Adjustment certification or refuse to extend 2395). Proposals within five years of EDA Adjustment Assistance to a Firm for any (c) Whenever EDA determines that a approval of their initial Adjustment of the following reasons: Certified Firm no longer requires Proposal. (a) The Firm failed to submit an Adjustment Assistance or for other good (g) If a Certified Firm is transferred, acceptable Adjustment Proposal within cause, EDA will terminate the sold, or otherwise acquired by another two years after date of certification. certification and promptly publish Firm during the five-year period of While approval of an Adjustment notice of such termination in the Adjustment Assistance, the Firm must Proposal may occur after the expiration Federal Register. The termination will notify EDA no later than 30 calendar of such two-year period, a Firm must take effect on the date specified in the days following the transfer, sale, or submit an acceptable Adjustment published notice. EDA shall acquisition. EDA will then make a Proposal before such expiration. immediately notify the petitioner and determination as to whether the Firm (b) The Firm failed to submit shall state the reasons for any remains eligible for Adjustment documentation necessary to start termination. Assistance. EDA will make this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8383

determination no later than 60 calendar Subpart E—Protective Provisions DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION days following notification by the Firm. (h) In accordance with Section 255A § 315.13 Persons engaged by Firms to Federal Aviation Administration of chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act expedite petitions and Adjustment (19 U.S.C. 2345a), Firms that receive Proposals. 14 CFR Part 39 Adjustment Assistance must provide EDA will provide no Adjustment data regarding the Firms’ sales, Assistance to any Firm unless the [Docket No. FAA–2019–0673; Product employment, and productivity upon Identifier 2019–NM–101–AD; Amendment owners, partners, members, directors, or 39–19832; AD 2020–02–20] completion of the program and each officers thereof certify in writing to year for the two-year period following EDA: RIN 2120–AA64 completion. (a) The names of any attorneys, Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS § 315.12 Adjustment Proposal agents, and other Persons engaged by or Airplanes requirements. on behalf of the Firm for the purpose of EDA evaluates Adjustment Proposals expediting petitions for such AGENCY: Federal Aviation based on the following: Adjustment Assistance or Adjustment Administration (FAA), Department of (a) The Adjustment Proposal must Proposals; and Transportation (DOT). include a description of any Adjustment (b) The fees paid or to be paid to any ACTION: Final rule. Assistance requested to implement such such Person. proposal, including financial and other SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding supporting documentation as EDA § 315.14 Conflicts of interest. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–24– determines is necessary, based upon 07, which applied to certain Airbus SAS either: EDA will provide no Adjustment Model A318 series airplanes; Model (1) An analysis of the Firm’s Assistance to any Firm under this part A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, problems, strengths, and weaknesses unless the owners, partners, members, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes; A320– and an assessment of its prospects for directors, or officers thereof execute an 211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 recovery; or agreement binding them and the Firm airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, (2) If EDA so determines, other for a period of two years after such –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 available information; Adjustment Assistance is provided, to airplanes. AD 2014–24–07 required (b) The Adjustment Proposal must: refrain from employing, tendering any repetitive rototest inspections for (1) Be reasonably calculated to office or employment to, or retaining for cracking; corrective actions if necessary; contribute materially to the economic professional services any Person who, and modification of the torsion box, adjustment of the Firm (i.e., that such on the date such assistance or any part which terminates the repetitive proposal will constructively assist the thereof was provided, or within one inspections. This AD continues to Firm to establish a competitive position year prior thereto, shall have served as require the actions in AD 2014–24–07, in the same or a different industry); an officer, attorney, agent, or employee with certain revised compliance times, (2) Give adequate consideration to the occupying a position or engaging in as specified in a European Union interests of a sufficient number of activities which involved discretion Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, separated workers of the Firm, by with respect to the provision of such which is incorporated by reference. This providing, for example, that the Firm Adjustment Assistance. AD was prompted by a report of a crack will: found in the side box beam flange of the (i) Give a rehiring preference to such Subpart F—International Trade fuselage at the frame (FR) 43 level workers; Commission Investigations during a fatigue test campaign. The FAA (ii) Make efforts to find new work for is issuing this AD to address the unsafe a number of such workers; and § 315.15 Affirmative findings. condition on these products. (iii) Assist such workers in obtaining Whenever the International Trade DATES: This AD is effective March 20, benefits under available programs; and Commission makes an affirmative 2020. (3) Demonstrate that the Firm will finding under section 202(b) of the The Director of the Federal Register make all reasonable efforts to use its Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252) that approved the incorporation by reference own resources for its recovery, though increased imports are a substantial of certain publication listed in this AD under certain circumstances, resources cause of serious injury or threat thereof as of March 20, 2020. of related Firms or major stockholders with respect to an industry, EDA will ADDRESSES: For the material will also be considered; and notify the TAACs and provide incorporated by reference (IBR) in this (c) The Adjustment Assistance expedited review of petitions and AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- identified in the Adjustment Proposal Adjustment Proposals from Firms Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, must consist of specialized consulting within the specified industry. Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 services designed to assist the Firm in 1000; email [email protected]; becoming more competitive in the Dated: January 6, 2020. internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may global marketplace. For purposes of this John Fleming, find this IBR material on the EASA paragraph (c), Adjustment Assistance Assistant Secretary of Commerce for website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. generally consists of knowledge-based Economic Development. You may view this IBR material at the services such as market penetration [FR Doc. 2020–00453 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 studies, customized business BILLING CODE 3510–24–P South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For improvements, and designs for new information on the availability of this products. Adjustment Assistance does material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. not include expenditures for capital It is also available in the AD docket on improvements or for the purchase of the internet at https:// business machinery or supplies. www.regulations.gov by searching for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– proposed to continue to require Request To Clarify the Applicability 0673. repetitive rototest inspections for Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that cracking; corrective actions if necessary; Examining the AD Docket certain language be added to the and modification of the torsion box, applicability paragraph of the proposed You may examine the AD docket on which would terminate the repetitive AD. DAL stated that paragraph (c) of the the internet at https:// inspections. The NPRM also proposed proposed AD applies to certain Model www.regulations.gov by searching for to require certain revised compliance A310, A320, and A321 family airplanes and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– times. The FAA is issuing this AD to as identified in EASA AD 2019–0122. 0673; or in person at Docket Operations address cracking in the side box beam DAL stated that EASA AD 2019–0122 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday flange of the fuselage, which could provides additional applicability through Friday, except Federal holidays. affect the structural integrity of the details, namely exclusions of The AD docket contains this final rule, airplane. manufacturer serial numbers based the regulatory evaluation, any upon a certain Airbus modification comments received, and other Comments embodied in production. DAL suggested information. The address for Docket that similar language be added to Operations is U.S. Department of The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. Transportation, Docket Operations, M– The FAA agrees to clarify the this final rule. The following presents 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room applicability of this AD. By the comments received on the NPRM W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, incorporation by reference of EASA AD and the FAA’s response to each Washington, DC 20590. 2019–0122 into this AD, the same comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: production modification applicability Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Support for the NPRM exceptions identified in EASA AD International Section, Transport 2019–0122 apply to this AD. These Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South United Airlines stated its support for exceptions are addressed by the 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; the NPRM. statement ‘‘. . . as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency telephone and fax 206–231–3223. Request To Use a Certain Revision of (EASA) AD 2019–0122’’ in paragraph (c) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Service Information of this AD. We have not changed this Discussion JetBlue requested that Airbus Service AD in this regard. The EASA, which is the Technical Bulletin A320–53–1251, Revision 03, In addition, this AD and EASA AD Agent for the Member States of the dated September 19, 2016, and not 2019–0122 are not applicable to Model European Union, has issued EASA AD Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1251, A310 airplanes as the commenter stated. 2019–0122, dated June 4, 2019 (‘‘EASA Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019, be This AD has not been changed in this AD 2019–0122’’) (also referred to as the used for accomplishing the actions regard. Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness specified in the proposed AD and Conclusion Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct paragraphs (2) and (3) of EASA AD The FAA reviewed the relevant data, an unsafe condition for certain Airbus 2019–0122. JetBlue stated that Airbus considered the comments received, and SAS Model A318 airplanes; Model Service Bulletin A320–53–1251, determined that air safety and the A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019, does public interest require adopting this –131, –132, and –133 airplanes; A320– not require any additional work final rule as proposed, except for minor 211, –212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and compared to Airbus Service Bulletin editorial changes. The FAA has –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, A320–53–1251, Revision 03, dated determined that these minor changes: –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and September 19, 2016. • Are consistent with the intent that –232 airplanes. Model A320–215 was proposed in the NPRM for airplanes are not certified by the FAA The FAA disagrees with the commenter’s request. Paragraph (2) of addressing the unsafe condition; and and are not included on the U.S. type • Do not add any additional burden certificate data sheet; this AD therefore EASA AD 2019–0122 specifically requires compliance in accordance with upon the public than was already does not include those airplanes in the proposed in the NPRM. applicability. Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1251, The FAA issued a notice of proposed Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019, due to Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR changes highlighted in the 51 part 39 to supersede AD 2014–24–07, Accomplishment Instructions for certain EASA AD 2019–0122 describes Amendment 39–18040 (79 FR 72124, configurations. However, paragraph (5) procedures for repetitive rototest December 5, 2014) (‘‘AD 2014–24–07’’). of EASA AD 2019–0122 provides credit inspections for cracking; corrective AD 2014–24–07 applied to certain for Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53– actions if necessary; and modification of Airbus SAS Model A318 series 1251, dated November 16, 2012; Airbus the torsion box, which terminates the airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, –113, Service Bulletin A320–53–1251, repetitive inspections. This material is –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 Revision 01, dated October 18, 2013; reasonably available because the airplanes; A320–211, –212, –214, –231, Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1251, interested parties have access to it –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model Revision 02, dated February 11, 2016; through their normal course of business A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53– or by the means identified in the –213, –231, –232 airplanes. The NPRM 1251, Revision 03, dated September 19, ADDRESSES section. published in the Federal Register on 2016; if the actions are accomplished September 6, 2019 (84 FR 46900). The before the effective date of the AD. This Costs of Compliance NPRM was prompted by a report of a AD provides the same allowance for The FAA estimates that this AD crack found in the side box beam flange credit since EASA AD 2019–0122 is affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry. of the fuselage at the FR 43 level during incorporated by reference. This AD has The FAA estimates the following costs a fatigue test campaign. The NPRM not been changed in this regard. to comply with this AD:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8385

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators

Retained actions from AD 2014–24–07 ...... 178 work-hours × $85 per hour = $15,130 .... $31,334 $46,464 $39,540,864

The new requirements of this AD add the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019–0122 no new economic burden. follows: (1) For purposes of determining The FAA has received no definitive compliance with the requirements of this AD: data that would enable the agency to PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Where EASA AD 2019–0122 refers to its provide cost estimates for the on- DIRECTIVES effective date, this AD requires using the condition actions specified in this AD. effective date of this AD. However, where ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Table 1 of EASA AD 2019–0122 provides Authority for This Rulemaking continues to read as follows: compliance times for group 1B airplanes as Title 49 of the United States Code Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. ‘‘[w]ithin 3,000 FC or 6,000 FH’’ after a given specifies the FAA’s authority to issue date, this AD requires that those compliance rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, § 39.13 [Amended] times be calculated 3,000 flight cycles or section 106, describes the authority of ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 6,000 flight hours, ‘‘whichever occurs first’’ the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) after January 9, 2015 (the effective date of AD Aviation Programs, describes in more 2014–24–07). 2014–24–07, Amendment 39–18040 (79 (2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD detail the scope of the Agency’s FR 72124, December 5, 2014), and 2019–0122 does not apply to this AD. authority. adding the following new AD: (i) Other FAA AD Provisions The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 2020–02–20 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– under the authority described in 19832; Docket No. FAA–2019–0673; The following provisions also apply to this Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section Product Identifier 2019–NM–101–AD. AD: 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance that section, Congress charges the FAA (a) Effective Date (AMOCs): The Manager, International with promoting safe flight of civil This AD is effective March 20, 2020. Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this aircraft in air commerce by prescribing (b) Affected ADs AD, if requested using the procedures found regulations for practices, methods, and This AD replaces AD 2014–24–07, procedures the Administrator finds in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR Amendment 39–18040 (79 FR 72124, 39.19, send your request to your principal necessary for safety in air commerce. December 5, 2014) (‘‘AD 2014–24–07’’). inspector or local Flight Standards District This regulation is within the scope of (c) Applicability Office, as appropriate. If sending information that authority because it addresses an directly to the International Section, send it unsafe condition that is likely to exist or This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes to the attention of the person identified in specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of develop on products identified in this paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be this AD, certificated in any category, as emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@ rulemaking action. identified in European Aviation Safety faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, Regulatory Findings Agency (EASA) AD 2019–0122, dated June 4, 2019 (‘‘EASA AD 2019–0122’’). notify your appropriate principal inspector, This AD will not have federalism (1) Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 or lacking a principal inspector, the manager implications under Executive Order airplanes. of the local flight standards district office/ 13132. This AD will not have a (2) Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, certificate holding district office. substantial direct effect on the States, on –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any the relationship between the national (3) Model A320–211, –212, –214, –216, requirement in this AD to obtain instructions –231, –232, and –233 airplanes. from a manufacturer, the instructions must government and the States, or on the be accomplished using a method approved distribution of power and (4) Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. by the Manager, International Section, responsibilities among the various Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; levels of government. (d) Subject or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Organization For the reasons discussed above, I Air Transport Association (ATA) of Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, certify that this AD: America Code 53, Fuselage. the approval must include the DOA- (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory authorized signature. (e) Reason action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation This AD was prompted by a report of a service information referenced in EASA AD in Alaska, and crack found in the side box beam flange of 2019–0122 that contains RC procedures and (3) Will not have a significant the fuselage at the frame (FR) 43 level during tests, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) a fatigue test campaign. The FAA is issuing of this AD, RC procedures and tests must be economic impact, positive or negative, this AD to address cracking in the side box on a substantial number of small entities done to comply with this AD; any procedures beam flange of the fuselage, which could or tests that are not identified as RC are under the criteria of the Regulatory affect the structural integrity of the airplane. recommended. Those procedures and tests Flexibility Act. (f) Compliance that are not identified as RC may be deviated List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Comply with this AD within the from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator’s maintenance or Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation compliance times specified, unless already done. inspection program without obtaining safety, Incorporation by reference, approval of an AMOC, provided the Safety. (g) Requirements procedures and tests identified as RC can be Adoption of the Amendment Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this done and the airplane can be put back in an AD: Comply with all required actions and airworthy condition. Any substitutions or Accordingly, under the authority compliance times specified in, and in changes to procedures or tests identified as delegated to me by the Administrator, accordance with, EASA AD 2019–0122. RC require approval of an AMOC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(j) Related Information SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new Discussion For more information about this AD, airworthiness directive (AD) for certain On January 17, 2020, the FAA issued contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, General Electric Company (GE) GE90– Emergency AD 2020–01–55, which International Section, Transport Standards 110B1 and GE90–115B model turbofan requires the removal from service of the Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des engines. This AD was sent previously as interstage seal, part number Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206– an emergency AD to all known U.S. 231–3223. 2505M72P01 or 2448M33P01, from owners and operators of the GE GE90– certain serial-numbered GE90–110B1 (k) Material Incorporated by Reference 110B1 and GE90–115B model turbofan and GE90–115B model turbofan (1) The Director of the Federal Register engines with certain engine serial engines. That emergency AD was sent approved the incorporation by reference numbers. This AD requires the removal previously to all known U.S. owners (IBR) of the service information listed in this from service of the interstage seal, part and operators of these affected engines. paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR number 2505M72P01 or 2448M33P01, That action was prompted by part 51. from the affected engines. This AD was investigative findings of an event that (2) You must use this service information prompted by a recent event involving an occurred on October 20, 2019, in which as applicable to do the actions required by uncontained high-pressure turbine this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. a Boeing Model 777–300ER airplane, (3) The following service information was (HPT) failure that resulted in an aborted powered by GE GE90–115B model approved for IBR on March 20, 2020. takeoff. The FAA is issuing this AD to turbofan engines, experienced an (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency address the unsafe condition on these uncontained HPT failure resulting in an (EASA) AD 2019–0122, dated June 4, 2019. products. aborted takeoff. This condition, if not (ii) [Reserved] DATES: This AD is effective March 2, addressed, could result in uncontained (4) For information about EASA AD 2019– 2020 to all persons except those persons HPT failure, release of high-energy 0122, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer- to whom it was made immediately debris, damage to the engine, damage to Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone the airplane, and possible loss of the +49 221 89990 6017; email ADs@ effective by Emergency AD 2020–01–55, easa.europa.eu; internet issued on January 17, 2020, which airplane. www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this contained the requirements of this FAA’s Determination EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// amendment. ad.easa.europa.eu. The FAA must receive comments on The FAA is issuing this AD because (5) You may view this material at the FAA, this AD by March 30, 2020. we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information condition described previously is likely using the procedures found in 14 CFR on the availability of this material at the to exist or develop in other products of 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following FAA, call 206–231–3195. This material may the same type design. be found in the AD docket on the internet at methods: https://www.regulations.gov by searching for • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to AD Requirements and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–0673. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the This AD requires the removal from (6) You may view this material that is instructions for submitting comments. • service of the interstage seal, part incorporated by reference at the National Fax: 202–493–2251. number 2505M72P01 or 2448M33P01, Archives and Records Administration • Mail: U.S. Department of from the affected engines. (NARA). For information on the availability Transportation, Docket Operations, M– of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room Interim Action nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The FAA considers this AD interim Washington, DC 20590. action. The root cause of the HPT failure • Issued on January 29, 2020. Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail is still being investigated and the FAA Gaetano A. Sciortino, address above between 9 a.m. and 5 will consider further rulemaking Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, p.m., Monday through Friday, except depending on the results of the Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Federal holidays. investigation. Aircraft Certification Service. Examining the AD Docket [FR Doc. 2020–02974 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] FAA’s Justification and Determination BILLING CODE 4910–13–P You may examine the AD docket on of the Effective Date the internet at https:// An unsafe condition exists that www.regulations.gov by searching for required the immediate adoption of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– Emergency AD 2020–01–55, issued on 0063; or in person at Docket Operations January 17, 2020, to all known U.S. Federal Aviation Administration between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday owners and operators of these engines. through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FAA found that the risk to the 14 CFR Part 39 The AD docket contains this final rule, flying public justified waiving notice the regulatory evaluation, any and comment prior to adoption of this [Docket No. FAA–2020–0063; Product comments received, and other Identifier 2020–NE–01–AD; Amendment 39– rule because the interstage seal must be 19838; AD 2020–01–55] information. The street address for removed within 5 flight cycles from the Docket Operations is listed above. effective date of AD 2020–01–55. RIN 2120–AA64 Comments will be available in the AD Therefore, the FAA finds good cause docket shortly after receipt. that notice and opportunity for prior Airworthiness Directives; General FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public comment are impracticable. Electric Company Turbofan Engines Matthew C. Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Additionally, the FAA has found the AGENCY: Federal Aviation ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District risk to the flying public justifies waiving Administration (FAA), DOT. Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: notice and comment prior to adoption of 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238–7199; this rule because no domestic operators ACTION: Final rule; request for Email: [email protected]. use this product. It is unlikely that the comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FAA will receive any adverse comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8387

or useful information about this AD specifically invites comments on the comments responsive to this AD contain from U.S. operators. Therefore, the FAA overall regulatory, economic, commercial or financial information finds good cause that notice and environmental, and energy aspects of that is customarily treated as private, opportunity for prior public comment this final rule. The FAA will consider that you actually treat as private, and are unnecessary. These conditions still all comments received by the closing that is relevant or responsive to this AD, exist and the AD is hereby published in date and may amend this final rule it is important that you clearly designate the Federal Register as an amendment because of those comments. the submitted comments as CBI. Please to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Except for Confidential Business mark each page of your submission Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it Information (CBI) as described in the containing CBI as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA effective to all persons. For the reasons following paragraph, and other will treat such marked submissions as stated above, the FAA finds that good information as described in 14 CFR confidential under the FOIA, and they cause exists for making this amendment 11.35, the FAA will post all comments will not be placed in the public docket effective in less than 30 days. received, without change, to https:// of this AD. Submissions containing CBI www.regulations.gov, including any should be sent to Matthew Smith, Comments Invited personal information you provide. The Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, This AD is a final rule that involves FAA will also post a report 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, requirements affecting flight safety and summarizing each substantive verbal 01803. Any commentary that the FAA was not preceded by notice and an contact received about this AD. receives which is not specifically opportunity for public comment. designated as CBI will be placed in the Confidential Business Information However, the FAA invites you to send public docket for this rulemaking. any written data, views, or arguments Confidential Business Information about this final rule. Send your (CBI) is commercial or financial Costs of Compliance comments to an address listed under the information that is both customarily and The FAA estimates that this AD ADDRESSES section. Include the docket actually treated as private by its owner. affects 0 engines installed on airplanes number FAA–2020–0063 and Product Under the Freedom of Information Act of U.S. registry. Identifier 2020–NE–01–AD at the (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt The FAA estimates the following beginning of your comments. The FAA from public disclosure. If your costs to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators

Remove interstage seal ...... 100 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8,500 ...... $509,600 $518,100 $0

Authority for This Rulemaking period, the Executive Director has the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as delegated the authority to issue ADs follows: Title 49 of the United States Code applicable to engines, propellers, and specifies the FAA’s authority to issue associated appliances to the Manager, PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, DIRECTIVES section 106, describes the authority of Policy and Innovation Division. the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Aviation Programs’’ describes in more Regulatory Findings continues to read as follows: detail the scope of the Agency’s This AD will not have federalism Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. authority. implications under Executive Order § 39.13 [Amended] The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 13132. This AD will not have a under the authority described in substantial direct effect on the States, on ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section the relationship between the national the following new airworthiness 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under government and the States, or on the directive (AD): that section, Congress charges the FAA distribution of power and 2020–01–55 General Electric Company: with promoting safe flight of civil responsibilities among the various Amendment 39–19838; Docket No. aircraft in air commerce by prescribing levels of government. FAA–2020–0063; Product Identifier regulations for practices, methods, and For the reasons discussed above, I 2020–NE–01–AD. procedures the Administrator finds certify that this AD: (a) Effective Date necessary for safety in air commerce. (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory This AD is effective March 2, 2020 to all This regulation is within the scope of action’’ under Executive Order 12866, that authority because it addresses an persons except those persons to whom it was and made immediately effective by Emergency unsafe condition that is likely to exist or (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation AD 2020–01–55, issued on January 17, 2020, develop on products identified in this in Alaska. which contained the requirements of this rulemaking action. amendment. This AD is issued in accordance with List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (b) Affected ADs authority delegated by the Executive Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Director, Aircraft Certification Service, safety, Incorporation by reference, None. as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. Safety. (c) Applicability In accordance with that order, issuance Adoption of the Amendment This AD applies to all General Electric of ADs is normally a function of the Company (GE) GE90–110B1 and GE90–115B Compliance and Airworthiness Accordingly, under the authority model turbofan engines with engine serial Division, but during this transition delegated to me by the Administrator, number 907150, 907152, 907176, 907179,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

907192, 907266, 907270, 907301, 907320, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION promulgated under the authority 907337, 907344, 907370, 907371, 907405, described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 907686, or 907687. Federal Aviation Administration Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that (d) Subject section, the FAA is charged with 14 CFR Part 71 Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) prescribing regulations to assign the use Code 7250, Turbine Section. [Docket No. FAA–2019–0678; Airspace of airspace necessary to ensure the Docket No. 18–AWP–27] safety of aircraft and the efficient use of (e) Unsafe Condition airspace. This regulation is within the This AD was prompted by investigative RIN 2120–AA66 scope of that authority as it would findings from an event involving an amend Class D and establish Class E Amendment of Class D and Class E uncontained high-pressure turbine (HPT) airspace at Buchanan Field, Concord, failure, resulting in debris penetrating the Airspace; Concord, CA CA, to ensure the safety and fuselage and the other engine. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT. AGENCY: Federal Aviation management of Instrument Flight Rules The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could Administration (FAA), DOT. (IFR) operations at the airport. result in uncontained HPT failure, release of ACTION: Final rule. History high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of SUMMARY: This action amends the Class The FAA published a notice of the airplane. D airspace and establishes Class E proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 56390; October 22, (f) Compliance airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at 2019) for Docket No. FAA–2019–0678 to Comply with this AD within the Buchanan Field, Concord, CA. This amend Class D and Class E airspace at compliance times specified, unless already Buchanan Field, Concord, CA. done. action also removes the Concord VOR/ DME and the city listed before the Interested parties were invited to (g) Required Actions airport name in the legal description participate in this rulemaking effort by Within 5 flight cycles after the effective header information. submitting written comments on the date of this AD, remove from service the DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 21, proposal to the FAA. Seven comments interstage seal, part number 2505M72P01 or 2020. The Director of the Federal were received. 2448M33P01, with serial number Register approves this incorporation by Three comments contained only the GWN0PDTR, GWN0PE7T, GWN0PGEL, reference action under Title 1 Code of Docket number, the airspace docket GWN0PL3N, GWN0PEFH, GWN0R4H0, number and the FAA’s RIN number GWN0R4GW, GWN0R8G8, GWN0RAD1, Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order with no additional text or comment. GWN0RDNM, GWN0RCMT, GWN0RJ69, Two comments questioned why the 7400.11 and publication of conforming GWN0RHRM, GWN0RN5A, GWN0W153, or airspace is being established, since the GWN0W03P. amendments. San Francisco Sectional already appears (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, to contain the proposed airspace within (AMOCs) Airspace Designations and Reporting an existing Class E airspace area (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has Points, and subsequent amendments can extending upward from 700 feet above the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, be viewed online at https:// _ the surface. This new airspace area is if requested using the procedures found in 14 www.faa.gov//air traffic/publications/. being established for Buchanan Field to CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, For further information, you can contact ensure the airport has independent send your request to your principal inspector the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Class E airspace to contain arriving IFR or local Flight Standards District Office, as Aviation Administration, 800 appropriate. If sending information directly aircraft when descending below 1,500 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, feet above the surface. Additionally, one to the manager of the certification office, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783. send it to the attention of the person commenter stated that they could not identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. You The Order is also available for find the proposed Class E area in FAA may email your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@ inspection at the National Archives and Order 7400.11D. This action establishes faa.gov. Records Administration (NARA). For the Class E airspace for the airport and (2) Before using any approved AMOC, information on the availability of FAA the airspace will be published in the notify your appropriate principal inspector, Order 7400.11D at NARA, email next iteration of FAA Order 7400.11 or lacking a principal inspector, the manager [email protected] or go to https:// which will be effective September 15, of the local flight standards district office/ www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ certificate holding district office. 2020. ibr-locations.html. One comment asked how this change (i) Related Information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: would affect local pilot’s knowledge of For more information about this AD, Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation the local area. This change will be contact Matthew C. Smith, Aerospace Administration, Western Service Center, charted on subsequent editions of the Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Operations Support Group, 2200 S. San Francisco Sectional. This Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; respondent also asked about ADSB 238–7735; fax: 781–238–7199; Email: telephone (206) 231–3695. equipage and access to airports in the [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: area, below the SFO Class B veil. This (j) Material Incorporated by Reference airspace action does not impact the Authority for This Rulemaking None. equipment requirements for aircraft The FAA’s authority to issue rules operations within a Class B veil. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on regarding aviation safety is found in One comment discussed IFR February 7, 2020. Title 49 of the United States Code. operations and airspace but did not Robert J. Ganley, Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the provide a specific concern or support Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards authority of the FAA Administrator. for the proposal. Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Class D and Class E5 airspace [FR Doc. 2020–02865 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] describes in more detail the scope of the designations are published in BILLING CODE 4910–13–P agency’s authority. This rulemaking is paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8389

of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, Designations and Reporting Points, is effective September 15, 2019, is 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, published yearly and effective on amended as follows: which is incorporated by reference in 14 September 15. Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace Regulatory Notices and Analyses designation listed in this document will * * * * * be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this AWP CA D Concord, CA regulation only involves an established Availability and Summary of Buchanan Field, CA body of technical regulations for which ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ Documents for Incorporation by (Lat. 37 59 23 N, long. 122 03 25 W) frequent and routine amendments are Reference That airspace extending upward from the necessary to keep them operationally surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL This document amends FAA Order current, is non-controversial and within a 2.6-mile radius of the airport from 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and unlikely to result in adverse or negative the 205° bearing from the airport clockwise Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a to the 314° bearing, thence extending to a 4.1- and effective September 15, 2019. FAA ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under mile radius of the airport from the 314° Order 7400.11D is publicly available as Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a bearing clockwise to the 205° bearing from listed in the ADDRESSES section of this ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Buchanan Field. This Class D airspace area document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 is effective during the specific dates and Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, times established in advance by a Notice to FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Airmen. The effective date and time will air traffic service routes, and reporting does not warrant preparation of a thereafter be continuously published in the points. regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Chart Supplement. The Rule impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas This amendment to Title 14 Code of Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More traffic procedures and air navigation, it Above the Surface of the Earth. Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 is certified that this rule, when * * * * * modifies Class D airspace at Buchanan promulgated, would not have a Field extending upward from the significant economic impact on a AWP CA E5 Concord, CA surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL substantial number of small entities Buchanan Field, CA within a 2.6-mile radius of the airport under the criteria of the Regulatory (Lat. 37°59′23″ N, long. 122°03′25″ W) from the 205° bearing from the airport Flexibility Act. That airspace extending upward from 700 clockwise to the 314° bearing, thence Environmental Review feet above the surface within a 4.1-mile extending to a 4.1-mile radius of airport radius of Buchanan Field and within 2.5 ° from the 314 bearing from the airport The FAA has determined that this miles each side of the 009° bearing from the ° clockwise to the 205 bearing of action qualifies for categorical exclusion airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to Buchanan Field. This Class D airspace under the National Environmental 11 miles north of the airport and within 2.5 ° area is effective during the specific dates Policy Act in accordance with FAA miles each side of the 023 bearing from the and times established in advance by a Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 11 miles northeast of Buchanan Field. Notice to Airmen. The effective date and Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ time will thereafter be continuously paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February published in the Chart Supplement. is not expected to cause any potentially 3, 2020. Additionally, this action establishes significant environmental impacts, and Byron Chew, Class E5 airspace extending upward no extraordinary circumstances exist Group Manager, Western Service Center, from 700 feet above the surface within that warrant preparation of an Operations Support Group. a 4.1-mile radius of Buchanan Field and environmental assessment. [FR Doc. 2020–02448 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] ° within 2.5 miles each side of the 009 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P bearing from the airport extending from List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 the 4.1-mile radius to 11 miles north of Airspace, Incorporation by reference, the airport, and within 2.5 miles each Navigation (air). ° DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND side of the 023 bearing from the airport SECURITY extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 11 Adoption of the Amendment miles northeast of Buchanan Field. In consideration of the foregoing, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Further, this action removes the Federal Aviation Administration Concord VOR/DME and the associated amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY extensions from the legal description to simplify how the airspace is described. PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 19 CFR Part 12 Lastly, this action removes the city B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR listed before the airport name in the TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND [CBP Dec. 20–03] legal description header information to REPORTING POINTS comply with airspace policy guidance. RIN 1515–AE52 ■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Class D and Class E5 airspace Import Restrictions Imposed on part 71 continues to read as follows: designations are published in Archaeological and Ethnological paragraphs 5000, and 6005, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, Material From Ecuador respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, dated August 8, 2019, and effective 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border September 15, 2019, which is Protection, Department of Homeland § 71.1 [Amended] incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Security; Department of the Treasury. ■ 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace 2. The incorporation by reference in ACTION: Final rule. designations listed in this document 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D, will be published subsequently in the Airspace Designations and Reporting SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Points, dated August 8, 2019, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(CBP) regulations to reflect the by the Cultural Property Advisory Restrictions and Amendment to the imposition of import restrictions on Committee, made the determinations Regulations certain archaeological and ethnological required under the statute with respect In accordance with the Agreement, material from Ecuador. These to certain archaeological and importation of material designated restrictions are being imposed pursuant ethnological material originating in below is subject to the restrictions of 19 to an agreement between the United Ecuador that are described in the U.S.C. 2606 and § 12.104g(a) of title 19 States and Ecuador that has been designated list set forth below in this of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 entered into under the authority of the document. CFR 12.104g(a)) and will be restricted Convention on Cultural Property These determinations include the from entry into the United States unless Implementation Act. The final rule following: (1) That the cultural the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. amends CBP regulations by adding patrimony of Ecuador is in jeopardy 2606 and § 12.104c of the CBP Ecuador to the list of countries which from the pillage of archaeological or regulations (19 CFR 12.104c) are met. have a bilateral agreement with the ethnological material representing CBP is amending § 12.104g(a) of the CBP United States that imposes cultural Ecuador’s cultural heritage dating from Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a)) to property import restrictions. The final approximately 12,000 B.C. up to 250 indicate that these import restrictions rule also contains the designated list years old, including material starting in have been imposed. that describes the types of the Pre-ceramic period and going into Import restrictions listed at 19 CFR archaeological and ethnological material the Colonial period (19 U.S.C. 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than to which the restrictions apply. 2602(a)(1)(A)); (2) that the Ecuadorean five years beginning on the date on DATES: Effective February 12, 2020. government has taken measures which the Agreement enters into force FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For consistent with the Convention to with respect to the United States. This legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, protect its cultural patrimony (19 U.S.C. period may be extended for additional Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted 2602(a)(1)(B)); (3) that import periods of not more than five years if it Merchandise Branch, Regulations and restrictions imposed by the United is determined that the factors which Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325– States would be of substantial benefit in justified the Agreement still pertain and 0300, ot-otrrculturalproperty@ deterring a serious situation of pillage no cause for suspension of the cbp.dhs.gov. For operational aspects, and remedies less drastic are not Agreement exists. Pursuant to the MOU, Genevieve S. Dozier, Management and available (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(C)); and the import restrictions entered into force Program Analyst, Commercial Targeting (4) that the application of import upon delivery of the U.S. diplomatic and Analysis Center, Trade Policy and restrictions as set forth in this final rule note to Ecuador on May 22, 2019. Programs, Office of Trade, (202) 945– is consistent with the general interests Therefore, the import restrictions will 2942, [email protected]. of the international community in the expire on May 22, 2024, unless extended. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and Designated List of Archaeological and Background educational purposes (19 U.S.C. Ethnological Material of Ecuador The Convention on Cultural Property 2602(a)(1)(D)). The Assistant Secretary also found that the material described in The Agreement includes, but is not Implementation Act, Public Law 97– limited to, the categories of objects 446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (‘‘the the determinations meets the statutory definition of ‘‘archaeological or described in the designated list set forth Cultural Property Implementation Act’’) below. Importation of material on this ethnological material of the State Party’’ implements the 1970 United Nations list is restricted unless the material is (19 U.S.C. 2601(2)). Educational, Scientific and Cultural accompanied by documentation Organization (UNESCO) Convention on The Agreement certifying that the material left Ecuador the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing legally and not in violation of the export the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of On May 22, 2019, the United States laws of Ecuador. Ownership of Cultural Property and Ecuador entered into a bilateral The designated list includes (hereinafter, ‘‘the Convention’’ (823 agreement, ‘‘Memorandum of archaeological and ethnological U.N.T.S. 231 (1972))). Pursuant to the Understanding between the Government material. Archaeological material of Cultural Property Implementation Act, of the United States of America and the ceramic, stone, metal, and organic tissue the United States entered into a bilateral Government of the Republic of Ecuador ranges in date from approximately agreement with Ecuador to impose Concerning the Imposition of Import 12,000 B.C. to A.D. 1769, which is 250 import restrictions on certain Restrictions on Categories of years from the signing of the Agreement. Ecuadorean archaeological and Archaeological and Ethnological Ethnological material includes Colonial ethnological material. This rule Material of Ecuador’’ (‘‘the Agreement’’), period ecclesiastical paintings, announces that the United States is now pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. sculpture, furniture, metalwork, textiles, imposing import restrictions on certain 2602(a)(2). The Agreement enables the documents, and manuscripts. In archaeological and ethnological material promulgation of import restrictions on addition, ethnological material includes from Ecuador. categories of archaeological and secular Colonial period paintings, ethnological material representing documents, and manuscripts. Determinations Ecuador’s cultural heritage that are at Under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1), the least 250 years old, dating as far back as Additional Resource United States must make certain the Pre-ceramic period (approximately National Institute of Cultural determinations before entering into an 12,000 B.C.) through the Formative, Patrimony, Ecuador, Guı´a de agreement to impose import restrictions Regional development, Integration, and identificacio´ n de bienes culturales under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). On October Inka periods and into the Colonial patrimoniales (Guide for identification 19, 2018, the Assistant Secretary for period. A list of the categories of of cultural patrimony goods) (2d ed. Educational and Cultural Affairs, United archaeological and ethnological material 2011), http://patrimoniocultural.gob.ec/ States Department of State, after subject to the import restrictions is set guia-de-identificacion-de-bienes- consultation with and recommendation forth later in this document. culturales-patrimoniales/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8391

Categories of Materials 1. Chipped stone tools—Projectile modelling, etc. Pre-Columbian vessels I. Archaeological Material points and tools for scraping, cutting, or are never glazed; shiny surfaces are A. Stone perforating are made primarily from created only by burnishing. Pre- B. Ceramic basalt, quartzite, chert, chalcedony, or Columbian potters did not use a pottery C. Metal obsidian and are 5–8 cm long. wheel, so vessels do not have the D. Bone, Shell, and Other Organic Tissue 2. Polished stone tools—Axes or hoes regular striations or perfectly spherical II. Ethnological Material are typically made in basalt or andesite shapes characteristic of wheel-made A. Paintings and are about 12 cm long and 8–9 cm pottery. Examples of archaeological B. Sculpture wide with a cutting edge on one end ceramic objects covered in the C. Furniture and a flat or slightly grooved edge with Agreement include the following D. Metalwork ‘‘ears’’ on the other side to attach a objects: E. Textiles handle. Some axes have a hole used to 1. Vessels—There are three basic F. Documents and Manuscripts attach the handle with cord. Ceremonial types of vessels: Plates, bowls, and jars. I. Archaeological Material axes are highly polished and lack use Forms and decoration vary among archaeological styles and over time. Archaeological material covered by marks. Hooks, in the shape of small anvils or birds, and weights for spear- Some of the most well-known types are the Agreement is associated with the throwers (i.e., atlatls) are made from highlighted below. diverse cultural groups that resided in quartzite, chalcedony, and serpentine. a. Plates have flat or slightly convex this region from the earliest human Mace heads and stone shields are made bases, occasionally with annular settlement of the Pre-ceramic period and from polished stone. support. Rims are everted, inverted, or into the Colonial period (approximately 3. Receptacles—Polished stone bowls vertical, sometimes with zoomorphic 12,000 B.C. to A.D. 1769). may be undecorated or decorated with modelled applique´ or masks on the Approximate Chronology of Well- incisions or notches about 10–20 cm in exterior. The interior surface is often Known Archaeological Styles diameter. Mortars made from volcanic painted with geometric, rock may be undecorated or carved in anthropomorphic, or zoomorphic (a) Pre-ceramic period: El Cubila´n the shape of animals, including felines designs (e.g., Carchi style plates). Most (12,606 B.C.), Montequinto (11,858 (e.g., Valdivia style mortars). Inka style plates from Tomebamba have B.C.), Las Mercedes (11,500 B.C.), El 4. Ornaments—Beads are made of handles and vertical walls without Inga (11,000 B.C.), Guagua Canoayacu quartz, turquoise, and other stone. interior paint and some are flat with (9905 B.C.), Gran Cacao (9386 B.C.), Round or oval obsidian mirrors are handles in the form of a bird or llama. Chobshi (9000–6500 B.C.), and Las relatively thin with one unworked side Napo culture platters (fuentes) often Vegas (8800–4500 B.C.). and one polished side. Earrings and ear have polychrome designs. (b) Formative period: Valdivia (3800– plugs are made from quartz or obsidian. b. Bowls and cups may have everted 1500 B.C.), Mayo Chinchipe (3000–2000 5. Figurines—Valdivia style human or inverted rims, and they may have B.C.), Cerro Narrio (2000–400 B.C.), figurines are small (3–5 cm tall) and annular or polypod bases. Interior and/ Cotocollao (1800–350 B.C.), Machalilla range from simple plaques to detailed or exterior decorations may be made (1600–800 B.C.), and Chorrera (1000– three-dimensional statuettes. These with incisions, negative painting, 100 B.C.). figurines are made from calcium iridescent paint, etc. Bowls with (c) Regional development period: La carbonate and often combine feminine pedestal bases are known as Tolita (600 B.C.–A.D. 400), Tiaone (600 and masculine attributes. Quitu- compoteras. Carchi style compoteras B.C.–A.D. 400), Bahı´a (500 B.C.–A.D. Chaupicruz monoliths are stone posts have anthropomorphic and zoomorphic 650), Cosanga (500 B.C.–A.D. 1532), up to 90 cm tall with tapered bases negative paint designs. A llipta box or Jama Coaque I (350 B.C.–A.D. 100), topped with anthropomorphic figures. poporo is a very small bowl decorated Upano (300 B.C.–A.D. 500), and 6. Sculpture—Terminal Valdivia style with incisions or paint in round, Guangala (100 B.C.–A.D. 800). rectangular or square plaques and zoomorphic, or anthropomorphic (d) Integration period: Puruha´ (A.D. blocks are made of white or gray shapes. [Note: Llipta is a mixture of lime 300–1500), Can˜ ari (A.D. 400–1500), volcanic tuff or other stone with smooth and/or ash used when chewing coca Atacames (A.D. 400–1532), Jama-Coaque faces or faces decorated with lines or leaves.] Related to bowls, cups may II (A.D. 400–1532), Milagro Quevedo circles depicting human or avian have everted rims (e.g., Azuay style and (A.D. 400–1532), Manten˜ o-Huancavilca imagery. Manten˜ o style seats are Can˜ ar style cups and Inka keros) or (A.D. 500–1532), Pasto (A.D. 700–1500), monolithic sculptures with U-shaped inverted rims (e.g., Puruha´ style Napo (A.D. 1200–1532), and Caranqui seats resting on zoomorphic, timbales). Milagro-Quevedo style tripod (A.D. 1250–1500). anthropomorphic, or undecorated or pedestal bowls known as cocinas de (e) Inka period: A.D. 1470–1532. pedestals on a rectangular base. brujos sometimes have handles and are (f) Colonial period: A.D. 1532–1822. often decorated with modelled reliefs of B. Ceramic snake heads, toads, serpents, and nude A. Stone The earliest-known pottery in human figures. Early chipped stone tools mark the Ecuador dates to the Formative period c. Jars are globular vessels with short appearance of the first people to inhabit (about 4400 B.C.). Highly skilled potters necks, sometimes with exterior the region and continued to be used in the region created diverse and decoration on the entire vessel or only throughout history. Polished stone axes elaborate vessels, figurines, sculptural on the upper half. Jars sometimes have became common in the Formative pottery, musical instruments, and other feet, usually three. Bottles are a type of period. Highly skilled stoneworkers utilitarian and ceremonial items. jar with a long spout attached to the created elaborately carved mortars, Ceramics vary widely between body by a handle. Some bottles have figurines, seats, and other items for use archaeological styles. Decorations stirrup handles. Some bottles have an in daily and ceremonial life. Examples include paint (red, black, white, green, interior mechanism that regulates of archaeological stone objects covered and beige) or surface decorations such movement of air and liquid to create a in the Agreement include the following as incisions, excisions, punctations, whistling sound. Very large jars are objects: combing, fingernail marks, corrugations, called ca´ ntaros. Ca´ ntaros have wide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

mouths and typically have convex or hunters carrying or slaughtering their zoomorphic motifs. Small conical clay conical bases; in a few cases, bases are prey, masked figures, dancers with spindle whorls called torteros or flat and small. Carchi style ca´ ntaros or wings or fancy dress, and characters in fusaiolas have similar designs and a botijuelas are ovoid in shape, have long costumes that indicate privileged hole in the middle to be attached to a necks, are decorated with red or status). spindle. negative paint, and sometimes have a d. Figurines from Bahı´a are generally 6. Beads—Beads are small round modelled human face attached to the medium-sized (about 25 cm tall). The pieces of ceramic with polished edges neck. Puruha´ style ca´ ntaros are rounder, ‘‘giants of Bahı´a’’ are up to 50 cm tall and a hole in the center. with bodies covered in negative paint and typically depict shaman figures or 7. Graters—Graters are long thin designs and an everted rectilinear neck elite personages seated cross-legged or plates, often in the shape of a fish, with that is usually decorated with handles standing with elaborate attire, a concentration of embedded sharp and a modelled human face. Chicha jars adornment, and headdresses. They often stones on one side for scraping or or tinajas are very large, usually exhibit a necklace adorned with a one grating. Some scrapers lack embedded undecorated jars. Funerary urns may be to three white tusk-like ornaments. stones but are decorated with deep various sizes depending on whether e. Tolita figurines include individuals incisions in the scraping surface. Bowls they contained skeletal remains or of high status and representations of occasionally contain embedded scraping ashes. There are two types of Napo style daily life as well as anthropomorphic stones. funerary urns with polychrome figures with mammal or bird heads. 8. Neck rests—Bahı´a style and Jama- decorations: Large, elongated vessels Tolita style heads and small figures Coaque style neck rests, called with a bulge at the base and without slip and detailed facial descansanucas, are made from a slightly anthropomorphic, ceramic statues. Inka expressions are common. Some hollow concave, rectangular, ceramic slab style arı´balos have long necks with heads have perforations and may have resting on a pedestal made from a flat everted rims and bulging bodies with been suspended from cords, similar to slab of the same size supporting two handles near the base, a modelled the tzantzas (shrunken heads) of the columns or a wide pillar in the shape of zoomorphic knob near the neck, and a Shuar. a house or human face. pointed base. Imperial style arı´balos f. Manten˜ o style figurines are 9. House models—House models, or have primarily geometric, polychrome standardized with polished, black maquetas, from the coastal region have painting. Local style arı´balos have the surfaces, almost always standing and slightly concave roofs and walls that same shape but are roughly made and with body adornments. There are some rest on a base that contains stairs and, undecorated. seated figures, including Manten˜ o style sometimes, human figures guarding the 2. Figurines—Figurine manufacturing incense burners depicting men, entrance. In some cases, the interior was common in pre-Columbian apparently entranced, with wide plates columns supporting the roof are visible. Ecuador. Anthropomorphic figurines are on their heads and elaborate incisions These are typically found in the Jama- solid or hollow clay with diverse depicting body tattoos. Coaque and La Tolita cultures, and representations of the body. The size of g. Carchi coquero figurines depict a many of them are functioning bottle the figurines varies from less than 10 cm seated individual in a hallucinogenic forms used in drinking rituals. In the tall to statues over 50 cm tall. Some of trance with a bulging cheek indicating northern highlands, models of round the best-known types are described that the individual is chewing coca. The houses represent typical domestic below: bulging cheek is also common in structures of the region. a. Valdivia style ceramic ‘‘Venus Cosanga figurines from Amazonia. Other C. Metal figures’’ are small, female figurines in figurines from Amazonia are rough and fired clay with detailed treatment of the their typology is not well known. Objects of gold, platinum, silver, torso and head. Machalilla and Chorrera 3. Musical instruments—During the copper, and tumbaga (an alloy of copper figures are larger (up to 40 cm) and Integration period, flutes—typically and gold) were common in pre- usually mold-made and decorated with with four finger holes—were common in Columbian Ecuador. Several pre- white slip and red painted designs with the northern Sierra. Throughout the Columbian cultures practiced humans (more often women than men) coast and highlands, whistles in human metalwork on the coast (e.g., Guangala, depicted in the nude with arms by the or animal form, frequently birds, were Bahı´a, Jama-Coaque, La Tolita, Manten˜ o side or slightly raised. common. Ceramic whistles in the form and Milagro-Quevedo), in the highlands b. Low-relief, mold-made figurines of sea shells (sometimes called ocarinas) (e.g., Capulı´, Piartal, Puruha´ and were common, including Chorrera style are often decorated with geometric, Can˜ ari), and in Amazonia (e.g., figurines in zoomorphic and anthropomorphic, and zoomorphic Cosanga). The Inka introduced bronze, phytomorphic shapes (e.g., squashes, designs. an alloy of copper and tin. Metallurgists babacos, monkeys, canines, opossums, 4. Masks—Human and zoomorphic were skilled at creating alloys and gold- felines, and birds). masks made of clay, shell, and metal and copper-plating. Objects were made c. Guangala style and Jama-Coaque with varied facial expressions were by using melted metal or hammering style figurines use modeled clay to common in pre-Columbian Ecuador. metal sheets. Parts of compound objects depict body adornments or clothing of Many masks have small holes along the were made separately and assembled men and women. Bodies and ornaments upper edge so that they can be mechanically. Examples of may be painted black, green, red, or suspended as pectorals. Rectangular, archaeological metal objects covered in yellow. Jama-Coaque figurines, some up clay plaques depicting humans, the Agreement include the following to 30 cm tall, with abundant molded sometimes in erotic motifs, have similar objects: decorations and rich painting depict holes for suspension. 1. Tools—Chisels are flat copper individuals’ occupations and social 5. Stamps—Stamps are made from strips about 7 cm long and are beveled statuses (e.g., seated shamans with llipta solid clay, including cylindrical roller on one end. Copper needles vary in size boxes, farmers with bags of seeds and stamps and flat stamps with a small from 3 to 8 cm long. There are also digging sticks, warriors with helmets, handle on one side. Low relief copper fish hooks, cylindrical punches, spear-throwers and shields, seated geometric designs include stylized and long-handled spoons. Functional jewelry makers with jewels in their laps, anthropomorphic, phytomorphic, and copper axes are similar in shape to stone

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8393

axes. Ceremonial copper axes lack a 1. Tools—Sharp bone awls are made casta paintings depicting racial cutting edge, are sometimes silver from long bones and are often fired to classifications used in the Spanish plated, and are decorated on both faces strengthen them. Various bone tools colonial empire. used for weaving include spatulas, in high and low relief, often in B. Sculpture geometric designs. needles, combs, shuttles, pick-up sticks, A tumi is a type of axe with a long etc. Ritual long-handled spoons are Ecclesiastical sculpture from the handle and a semicircular or rectilinear made from bone. Spoons also are made Colonial period includes images of blade. Axe-monies (hachas monedas) from shell. Shell fish hooks are 3–5 cm religious content carved in wood during are thin, axe-shaped sheets of arsenical in diameter. the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. copper that are 7–8 cm long and often 2. Musical instruments—Flutes and Sculpture may also incorporate silver, found in bundles or carefully grouped. whistles with a single finger-hole are gold, bronze, gesso, vegetal ivory 2. Body ornaments—Copper ear made from bone. Large gastropod sea (tagua), ivory, porcelain, glass eyes, or piercers may have a hollow handle to shells (e.g., Strombus sp.) were used as human hair. Quito School artists facilitate insertion of the post. Gold, trumpets beginning in Early Valdivia produced the finest and most sought- silver, and copper crowns and diadems times (around 3000 B.C.). after sculpture in Colonial period Latin America. Quito School 18th-century are decorated with engraved or 3. Body ornaments—Ornamental sculptures are the most famous, embossed designs. Pre-Columbian clothing pins (tupos or tupus) made including works by Manuel Chili, also people in the region used a wide variety from bone usually are topped with a known as Caspicara. Examples of of nose ornaments including oval or zoomorphic ornament. Shell bracelets, ethnological sculpture covered in the circular plates open at the top for nose rings, and small earrings are Agreement include, but are not limited insertion into the nasal septum, common. Ucuyayas are human figures made from Spondylus shell. to, the following objects: ornaments with tubular bodies, and 1. Ecclesiastical statues— scroll or zoomorphic ornaments. Solid 4. Human remains—Skeletal remains, soft tissue, and ash from the human Ecclesiastical statues carved in wood or hollow ear ornaments, sometimes represent virgins, saints, crucified with hanging decorations, and labrets body may be preserved in burials and other contexts. Christ, baby Jesus, angels and are also common. Concave copper disc archangels, and figures for nativity pectorals with embossed human faces II. Ethnological Material scenes. The images are usually life-size. often have holes at the mouth suggesting Ethnological material covered by the Most statues include the body, face, the existence of a tongue that would Agreement includes Colonial period hands, and clothing sculpted in wood. have functioned as a rattle. Ornamental ecclesiastical paintings, sculpture, To give the flesh a luminescent, life-like clothing pins (tupos or tupus) made of furniture, metalwork, textiles, appearance, artists used the technique copper, silver, and gold are topped with documents, and manuscripts. In of encarnacio´ n, a process of painting, a circular or semicircular plate. Gold addition, ethnological material includes varnishing, and sanding the sculpture masks are made of embossed thin gold secular Colonial period paintings, several times. Clothing is decorated in sheets. Some masks are a single piece of documents, and manuscripts. Quito high relief using techniques such as gold, others have additional elements School artists incorporated into mostly graffito and estofado that includes such as diadems, pendants, and religious art of the Catholic Church layering of paint, lacquer, and gold or platinum eyes. Necklaces vary and often particularities of the Andes such as silver leaf. Other statues include only combine metal, Spondylus shell, and local costumes, indigenous customs, carved face and hands attached to a semi-precious stones. local flora and fauna, and placement simple wood frame that is covered in 3. Weapons—Bronze star-shaped within the Andean countryside or cities. robes made from fabric, brocade, or mace heads typically have six points. cloth stiffened with gum or paste. Most A. Paintings Spear or lance points are made from statues have silver accessories; in the silver sheets rolled into cones leaving a Colonial period paintings are made on case of the Virgin Mary, these hole for the shaft. Manten˜ o style spear canvas, copper, marble, or wood panels. accessories may be halos or coronas, or lance points have a hollow, Pigments are typically made from small hearts crossed by a dagger, or cylindrical stem to attach the shaft. Gold pulverized minerals mixed with linseed earrings or other jewelry. and silver helmets were made for high- or almond oil. Early 16th-century 2. Ecclesiastical relief carvings—Low ranking individuals or ceremonial use. paintings use muted color palates of reliefs or nearly flat sculptures depict 4. Figurines—Small Inka style reddish browns and grays. By the 18th saints. figurines depict male, female, and century, paintings display greater 3. Portable altars or triptychs—Small animal figures in solid gold or silver. movement, illumination, and color, altars of gilded wood or different- D. Bone, Shell, and Other Organic including intense blues, reds, and colored wood close like boxes, and Tissue greens. Some paintings are decorated smaller religious sculptures are stored with gold leaf rays, stars, or floral inside. Ceremonial use and trade of designs. Most paintings are anonymous C. Furniture Spondylus princeps, a bivalve mollusk works, but a few are signed. Examples native to the coastal Pacific Ocean from of ethnological paintings covered in the Colonial period ecclesiastical modern Panama to the Gulf of Agreement include, but are not limited furniture was created by teams of Guayaquil, began during the Formative to, the following objects: designers, carpenters, cabinetmakers, period. Although preservation of 1. Colonial period ecclesiastical and craftspeople specializing in leather, organic material is poor in most of paintings—Ecclesiastical paintings veneers, or inlaid wood. Additionally, Ecuador, utilitarian tools, instruments, depict religious subjects including these teams of artisans included carvers, and body ornaments made in bone, Christ, saints, virgins, angels, bishops, weavers, bronze smiths, locksmiths, and shell, and other materials may be found. popes, and others. artistic blacksmiths. Examples of Examples of archaeological organic 2. Colonial period secular paintings— ecclesiastical ethnological furniture objects covered in the Agreement Secular paintings include landscapes, covered in the Agreement include, but include the following objects: portraits, allegorical paintings, and are not limited to, the following objects:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8394 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

1. Altarpieces or retablos—Elaborate 2. Coverings and hangings—Textiles Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 ornamental structures placed behind the used for liturgical celebrations include altar include attached paintings, altar cloths, towels, and tabernacle veils. CBP has determined that this sculptures, or other religious objects. document is not a regulation or rule 2. Reliquaries and coffins—Containers F. Documents and Manuscripts subject to the provisions of Executive made from wood, glass, or metal hold Original handwritten texts or printed Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771 and exhibit sacred objects or human texts of limited circulation made during because it pertains to a foreign affairs remains. the Colonial period are primarily on function of the United States, as 3. Church furnishings—Furnishings paper, parchment, and vellum. They described above, and therefore is used for liturgical rites include pulpits, include books, single folios, or specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) tabernacles, lecterns, confessionals, collections of related documents bound of Executive Order 12866 and section pews, choir stalls, chancels, baldachins, with string. Documents may contain a 4(a) of Executive Order 13771. and palanquins. wax, clay, or ink seals or stamps Signing Authority D. Metalwork denoting a public or ecclesiastical institution. Seals may be affixed to the This regulation is being issued in Colonial period ecclesiastical objects accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) made of silver, gold, and other metals document or attached with cords or ribbons. Because many of these pertaining to the Secretary of the were crafted in silversmiths’ workshops Treasury’s authority (or that of his/her for use in religious ceremonies. Designs documents are of institutional or official nature, they may have multiple delegate) to approve regulations related relate to the Eucharist, such as the Lamb to customs revenue functions. of God, a fish, a dove, a cross, fruit, and signatures, denoting scribes, witnesses, vine leaves. These ecclesiastical metal and other authorities. Documents are List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12 objects incorporate precious stones and generally written in Spanish, but may be jewels. Examples of ecclesiastical composed in an indigenous language Cultural property, Customs duties and ethnological metalwork covered in the such as Quichua. Examples of inspection, Imports, Prohibited Agreement include, but are not limited ethnological documents and merchandise, Reporting and to, the following objects: manuscripts covered in the Agreement recordkeeping requirements. 1. Sacred vessels—Pyxes, goblets, include, but are not limited to, the Amendment to CBP Regulations chalices, and patens were commonly following objects: used for religious ceremonies. Urns and 1. Colonial period ecclesiastical For the reasons set forth above, part custodia (monstrances) were used to documents and manuscripts—These 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal display the communion wafer. include religious texts, hymnals, and Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is 2. Altar furnishings—Candlesticks, church records. amended as set forth below: candelabra, and processional or 2. Colonial period secular documents PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF stationary crosses were used in religious and manuscripts—These include, but MERCHANDISE ceremonies. Decorative plaques were are not limited to, notary documents affixed to altars. (e.g., wills, bills of sale, contracts) and ■ 3. Statue accoutrements—Crowns, documents of the city councils, 1. The general authority citation for radiations, wings, garment pins, and Governorate of New Castile, Royal part 12 and the specific authority jewelry adorned many ecclesiastical Audience of Quito, Viceroyalty of Peru, citation for § 12.104g continue to read as statues. Viceroyalty of New Granada, or the follows: E. Textiles Council of the Indies. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Textiles used to perform religious Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), services are often made from fine cotton Effective Date 1624. or silk and may be embroidered with * * * * * metallic or silk thread, brocades, prints, This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also lace, fabrics, braids, and bobbin lace. issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612; Examples of textiles covered in the is, therefore, being made without notice * * * * * Agreement include, but are not limited or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). to, the following objects: For the same reason, a delayed effective ■ 2. In § 12.104g, the table in paragraph 1. Religious vestments—Garments date is not required under 5 U.S.C. (a) is amended by adding Ecuador to the worn by the priest and/or other 553(d)(3). list in alphabetical order to read as ecclesiastics include cloaks, tunics, Regulatory Flexibility Act follows: surplices, chasubles, dalmatics, albs, amices, stoles, maniples, cinctures, Because no notice of proposed § 12.104g Specific items or categories rochets, miters, bonnets, and humeral rulemaking is required, the provisions designated by agreements or emergency actions. veils complemented by the so-called of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 blancos or ‘‘whites.’’ U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. (a) * * *

State party Cultural property Decision No.

******* Ecuador ...... Archaeological and ethnological material representing Ecuador’s cultural heritage that is at least CBP Dec. 20–03. 250 years old, dating from the Pre-ceramic (approximately 12,000 B.C.), Formative, Regional development, Integration, Inka periods and into the Colonial period to A.D. 1769.

*******

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8395

* * * * * multiplier for 2020 is 1.01764, based on Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Consumer Price Index for the month Mark A. Morgan, This final rule does not impose an of October 2019, not seasonally unfunded mandate of more than $100 Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and adjusted. Border Protection. million per year on state, local, or tribal Pursuant to this guidance, the governments or the private sector. The Approved: February 11, 2020. Commission has calculated the annual Timothy E. Skud, rule also does not have a significant or adjustment level of the civil monetary unique effect on state, local, or tribal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4 the Treasury. governments or the private sector. (‘‘The Chairman may assess a civil fine, Therefore, a statement containing the [FR Doc. 2020–03118 Filed 2–12–20; 4:15 pm] not to exceed $52,596 per violation, information required by the Unfunded BILLING CODE 9111–14–P against a tribe, management contractor, Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et or individual operating Indian gaming seq.) is not required. for each notice of violation . . .’’). The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2020 adjusted level of the civil Takings monetary penalty is $53,524 ($52,596 x Under the criteria in Executive Order National Indian Gaming Commission 1.01764). 12630, this final rule does not affect III. Regulatory Matters individual property rights protected by 25 CFR Part 575 the Fifth Amendment nor does it Regulatory Planning and Review Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary involve a compensable ‘‘taking.’’ Thus, Penalty To Reflect Inflation This final rule is not a significant rule a takings implication assessment is not under Executive Order 12866. required. AGENCY: National Indian Gaming (1) This rule will not have an effect of Federalism Commission. $100 million or more on the economy or ACTION: Final rule. will not adversely affect, in a material Under the criteria in Executive Order way, the economy, productivity, 13132, this final rule has no substantial SUMMARY: In compliance with the competition, jobs, the environment, direct effect on the states, on the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation public health or safety, or state, local, or relationship between the national Adjustment Act Improvements Act of tribal governments or communities. government and the states, or on the 2015 (the Act) and Office of (2) This rule will not create a serious distribution of power and Management and Budget (OMB) inconsistency or otherwise interfere responsibilities among the various guidance, the National Indian Gaming with an action taken or planned by levels of government. Commission (NIGC or Commission) is another agency. Civil Justice Reform amending its civil monetary penalty (3) This rule does not involve This final rule complies with the rule to reflect an annual adjustment for entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan inflation in order to improve the requirements of Executive Order 12988. programs or the rights or obligations of Specifically, this rule has been reviewed penalty’s effectiveness and maintain its recipients. deterrent effect. The Act provides that to eliminate errors and ambiguity and (4) This regulatory change does not written to minimize litigation. It is the new penalty level must apply to raise novel legal or policy issues. penalties assessed after the effective written in clear language and contains date of the increase, including when the Regulatory Flexibility Act clear legal standards. penalties whose associated violation The Commission certifies that this Consultation With Indian Tribes predate the increase. rule will not have a significant In accordance with the President’s DATES: Effective February 14, 2020. economic effect on a substantial number memorandum of April 29, 1994, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of small entities under the Regulatory Government-to-Government Relations Armando J. Acosta, Senior Attorney, Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with Native American Tribal Office of General Counsel, National because the rule makes annual Governments, Executive Order 13175 Indian Gaming Commission, at (202) adjustments for inflation. (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), the 632–7003; fax (202) 632–7066 (not toll- Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Commission has determined that free numbers). Fairness Act consultations with Indian gaming tribes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: is not practicable, as Congress has This final rule is not a major rule mandated that annual civil penalty I. Background under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small adjustments in the Act be implemented Business Regulatory Enforcement On November 2, 2015, the President no later than January 15th of each year. signed into law the Federal Civil Fairness Act. It will not result in the Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act expenditure by state, local, or tribal Paperwork Reduction Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of governments, in the aggregate, or by the This final rule does not affect any Public Law 114–74). Beginning in 2017, private sector of $100 million or more information collections under the the Act requires agencies to make in any one year. The rule will not result Paperwork Reduction Act. annual inflationary adjustments to their in a major increase in costs or prices for civil monetary penalties by January 15th consumers, individual industries, National Environmental Policy Act of each year, in accordance with annual federal, state, or local government This final rule does not constitute a OMB guidance. agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will major federal action significantly this rule have significant adverse effects affecting the quality of the human II. Calculation of Annual Adjustment on competition, employment, environment. In December of every year, OMB investment, productivity, innovation, or issues guidance to agencies to calculate the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises Information Quality Act the annual adjustment. According to to compete with foreign-based In developing this final rule, the OMB, the cost-of-living adjustment enterprises. Commission did not conduct or use a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8396 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

study, experiment, or survey requiring PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY to provide the rates for March 2020 peer review under the Information CORPORATION measurement dates. Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). The March 2020 lump sum interest 29 CFR Part 4022 Effects on the Energy Supply assumptions will be 0.00 percent for the Benefits Payable in Terminated Single- period during which a benefit is (or is This final rule is not a significant assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 energy action under the definition in Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits percent during any years preceding the Executive Order 13211. A Statement of benefit’s placement in pay status. In Energy Effects is not required. AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty comparison with the interest Clarity of This Regulation Corporation. assumptions in effect for February 2020, ACTION: Final rule. these assumptions represent a decrease The Commission is required by of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and SUMMARY: This final rule amends the and are otherwise unchanged. by the Presidential Memorandum of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain PBGC updates appendices B and C regulation on Benefits Payable in language. This means that each rule that each month. PBGC has determined that Terminated Single-Employer Plans to the Commission publishes must: notice and public comment on this prescribe certain interest assumptions (a) Be logically organized; amendment are impracticable and under the regulation for plans with contrary to the public interest. This (b) use the active voice to address valuation dates in March 2020. These finding is based on the need to issue readers directly; interest assumptions are used for paying new interest assumptions promptly so (c) use clear language rather than certain benefits under terminating that they are available for plans that rely jargon; single-employer plans covered by the on our publication of them each month (d) be divided into short sections and pension insurance system administered to calculate lump sum benefit amounts. sentences; and by PBGC. Because of the need to provide (e) use lists and tables wherever DATES: Effective March 1, 2020. immediate guidance for the payment of possible. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: benefits under plans with valuation Required Determinations Under the Gregory Katz ([email protected]), dates during March 2020, PBGC finds Administrative Procedure Act Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this In accordance with the Act, agencies Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, amendment effective less than 30 days are to annually adjust civil monetary 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC after publication. penalties without providing an 20005, 202–326–4400 ext. 3829. (TTY opportunity for notice and comment, users may call the Federal relay service PBGC has determined that this action and without a delay in its effective date. toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Therefore, the Commission is not be connected to 202–326–4400, ext. under the criteria set forth in Executive required to complete a notice and 3829.) Order 12866. comment process prior to promulgation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s Because no general notice of proposed List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 575 regulation on Benefits Payable in rulemaking is required for this Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Administrative practice and CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. procedure, Gaming, Indian lands, assumptions—including interest 601(2). Penalties. assumptions—for paying plan benefits List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022 For the reasons set forth in the under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee preamble, the Commission amends 25 Employee benefit plans, Pension Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 CFR part 575 as follows: insurance, Pensions, Reporting and (ERISA). The interest assumptions in recordkeeping requirements. PART 575—CIVIL FINES the regulation are also published on PBGC’s website (https://www.pbgc.gov). In consideration of the foregoing, 29 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 575 PBGC uses the interest assumptions in CFR part 4022 is amended as follows: continues to read as follows: appendix B to part 4022 (‘‘Lump Sum PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2705(a), 2706, 2713, Interest Rates for PBGC Payments’’) to 2715; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. determine whether a benefit is payable TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER 599. as a lump sum and to determine the PLANS amount to pay. Because some private- § 575.4 [Amended] sector pension plans use these interest ■ 1. The authority citation for part 4022 ■ 2. Amend the introductory text of rates to determine lump sum amounts continues to read as follows: § 575.4 by removing ‘‘$52,596’’ and payable to plan participants (if the Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, adding in its place ‘‘$53,524’’. resulting lump sum is larger than the 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. amount required under section 417(e)(3) Dated: January 17, 2020. of the Internal Revenue Code and ■ 2. In appendix B to part 4022, rate set Kathryn Isom-Clause, section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates 317 is added at the end of the table to Vice Chair. are also provided in appendix C to part read as follows: E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, 4022 (‘‘Lump Sum Interest Rates for Associate Commissioner. Private-Sector Payments’’). Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments [FR Doc. 2020–01167 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] This final rule updates appendices B BILLING CODE 7565–01–P and C of the benefit payments regulation * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8397

For plans with a valuation Immediate Deferred annuities Rate set date annuity rate (percent) (percent) On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

******* 317 3–1–20 4–1–20 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8

■ 3. In appendix C to part 4022, rate set Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum 317 is added at the end of the table to Interest Rates for Private-Sector read as follows: Payments * * * * *

For plans with a valuation Immediate Deferred annuities Rate set date annuity rate (percent) (percent) On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

******* 317 3–1–20 4–1–20 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8

Issued in Washington, DC. Folder on the line associated with this public access to information about Hilary Duke, rule. marine events and special local Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If regulations within the COTP Miami Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty you have questions about this proposed Zone. Corporation. rulemaking, contact Mr. Omar Beceiro, The Coast Guard published a notice of [FR Doc. 2020–02887 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Sector Miami Waterways Management proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on BILLING CODE 7709–02–P Division, U.S. Coast Guard at 305–535– October 2, 2019 titled, ‘‘Special Local 4317 or by email: Omar.Beceiro@ Regulations; Recurring Marine Events, uscg.mil. Sector Miami’’ (84 FR 52411). There we stated why we published the NPRM, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SECURITY and invited comments on our proposed I. Table of Abbreviations regulatory. During the comment period Coast Guard CFR Code of Federal Regulations that ended November 1, 2019, the Coast DHS Department of Homeland Security Guard did not receive any comments. 33 CFR Part 100 FR Federal Register II. Legal Authority and Need for Rule NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking [Docket Number USCG–2018–0749] § Section The Coast Guard is issuing this rule RIN 1625–AA08 U.S.C. United States Code under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP Miami has determined that II. Background Information and Special Local Regulations; Recurring creating a table of recurring marine Regulatory History Marine Events, Sector Miami events/special local regulations Recurring boat races, swims, and occurring within the COTP Miami Zone, AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. other marine events within the Seventh and consolidating into that table marine ACTION: Final rule. Coast Guard District are currently listed events/special local regulations in new in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701. Table 1 to § 100.702, which were listed SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising The process for amending the table (e.g. in Table to § 100.701 will facilitate existing regulations and consolidating adding or removing marine events) is management of and public access to into one table special local regulations lengthy and inefficient since it includes information about marine events within for recurring marine events at various recurring marine events for seven the COTP Miami Zone. locations within the geographic different COTP zones within the boundaries of the Seventh Coast Guard Seventh District. To expedite and IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, District Captain of the Port (COTP) simplify the rulemaking process for new and the Rule Miami Zone. Consolidating marine marine events/special local regulations, As noted above, the Coast Guard did events into one table simplifies Coast COTP’s resorted to creating individual not receive any comments on the NPRM Guard oversight and public notification rules rather than amending Table to published October 2, 2019. Other than of special local regulations within COTP § 100.701. inserting a ‘‘1’’ in the table headings in Miami Zone. This rule serves two purposes: (1) § 100.701 and § 100.702, and DATES: This rule is effective March 16, Create a table of recurring marine renumbering event-date designators in 2020. events/special local regulations Table 1 to § 100.702, there are no ADDRESSES: To view documents occurring solely within the COTP changes in the regulatory text of this mentioned in this preamble as being Miami Zone, and (2) consolidate into rule from the proposed rule in the available in the docket, go to https:// that table marine events/special local NPRM. www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2018– regulations previously established This rule creates a table of recurring 0749 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click outside of Table to § 100.701. These marine events/special local regulations ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket revisions facilitate management of and occurring solely within the COTP

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8398 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Miami Zone, and consolidates into new Under section 213(a) of the Small E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Table 1 to § 100.702 marine events/ Business Regulatory Enforcement The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act special local regulations, which were Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires previously listed in Table to § 100.701. we want to assist small entities in Federal agencies to assess the effects of These revisions will facilitate understanding this rule. If the rule their discretionary regulatory actions. In management of and public access to would affect your small business, particular, the Act addresses actions information about marine events within organization, or governmental that may result in the expenditure by a the COTP Miami Zone. jurisdiction and you have questions State, local, or tribal government, in the concerning its provisions or options for V. Regulatory Analyses aggregate, or by the private sector of compliance, please call or email the $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or We developed this rule after person listed in the FOR FURTHER more in any one year. Though this rule considering numerous statutes and INFORMATION CONTACT section. Executive orders related to rulemaking. will not result in such an expenditure, Below we summarize our analyses Small businesses may send comments we do discuss the effects of this rule based on a number of these statutes and on the actions of Federal employees elsewhere in this preamble. who enforce, or otherwise determine Executive orders, and we discuss First F. Environment Amendment rights of protestors. compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture We have analyzed this rule under A. Regulatory Planning and Review Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Department of Homeland Security Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Regional Small Business Directive 023–01 and Environmental direct agencies to assess the costs and Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), benefits of available regulatory Ombudsman evaluates these actions which guide the Coast Guard in alternatives and, if regulation is annually and rates each agency’s complying with the National necessary, to select regulatory responsiveness to small business. If you Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 approaches that maximize net benefits. wish to comment on actions by U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have Executive Order 13771 directs agencies employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– determined that this action is one of a to control regulatory costs through a 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The category of actions that do not budgeting process. This rule has not Coast Guard will not retaliate against individually or cumulatively have a been designated a ‘‘significant small entities that question or complain significant effect on the human regulatory action,’’ under Executive about this rule or any policy or action environment. This rule involves an Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has of the Coast Guard. administrative reorganization of established special local regulations for not been reviewed by the Office of C. Collection of Information Management and Budget (OMB), and recurring marine events within the pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt This rule will not call for a new COTP Miami Zone. Normally such from the requirements of Executive collection of information under the actions are categorically excluded from Order 13771. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 further review under paragraphs L61 in This regulatory action determination U.S.C. 3501–3520). Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard is based on the minimal effects of the Environmental Planning Implementing rule. The rule is an administrative D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Procedures 5090.1. A Memorandum for action only intended to facilitate Governments the Record for Categorically Excluded Actions supporting this determination is management of and public access to A rule has implications for federalism available in the docket where indicated information about marine events and under Executive Order 13132, in ADDRESSES. special local regulations within the Federalism, if it has a substantial direct COTP Miami Zone. effect on the States, on the relationship G. Protest Activities between the national government and B. Impact on Small Entities The Coast Guard respects the First the States, or on the distribution of The Regulatory Flexibility Act of Amendment rights of protesters. power and responsibilities among the 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Protesters are asked to call or email the various levels of government. We have requires Federal agencies to consider person listed in the FOR FURTHER analyzed this rule under that Order and the potential impact of regulations on INFORMATION CONTACT section to have determined that it is consistent small entities during rulemaking. The coordinate protest activities so that your with the fundamental federalism term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small message can be received without principles and preemption requirements businesses, not-for-profit organizations jeopardizing the safety or security of described in Executive Order 13132. that are independently owned and people, places or vessels. operated and are not dominant in their Also, this rule does not have tribal fields, and governmental jurisdictions implications under Executive Order List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 with populations of less than 50,000. 13175, Consultation and Coordination Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation The Coast Guard did not receive any with Indian Tribal Governments, (water), Reporting and Record keeping comments from the Small Business because it does not have a substantial requirements, Security measures, Administration on this rulemaking. The direct effect on one or more Indian Waterways. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. tribes, on the relationship between the For the reasons discussed in the 605(b) that this rule will not have a Federal Government and Indian tribes, preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 significant economic impact on a or on the distribution of power and CFR parts 100 as follows: substantial number of small entities. responsibilities between the Federal As stated in section V.A above, this Government and Indian tribes. If you PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON rule is an administrative action only believe this rule has implications for NAVIGABLE WATERSPART intended to better manage information federalism or Indian tribes, please call and will not have a significant economic or email the person listed in the FOR ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 100 impact on any vessel owner or operator. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. continues to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8399

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05– ■ 2. Amend § 100.701 by revising the § 100.701 Special Local Regulations; 1. Table to § 100.701 read as follows: Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District. * * * * * TABLE 1 TO § 100.701

No./date Event Sponsor Location

(a) COTP Zone San Juan; Special Local Regulations

1. 1st Friday, Saturday, and CNSJ International Regatta Club Nautico de San Juan .. San Juan, Puerto Rico; (i) Outer Harbor Race Area. All waters of Bahia Sunday of February. de San Juan within a line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°28.4′ N, 66°07.6′ W; then south to Point 2 in position 18°28.1′ N, 66°07.8′ W; then southeast to Point 3 in position 18°27.8′ N, 66°07.4′ W; then southeast to point 4 in position 18°27.6′ N, 66°07.3′ W; then west to point 5 in position 18°27.6′ N, 66°07.8′ W; then north to point 6 in position 18°28.4′ N, 66°07.8′ W; then east to the origin. (ii) Inner Harbor Race Area; All waters of Bahia de San Juan within a line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°27.6′ N, 66°07.8′ W; then east to Point 2 in position 18°27.6′ N, 66°07.1′ W; then southeast to Point 3 in position 18°27.4′ N, 66°06.9′ W; then west to point 4 in position 18°27.4′ N, 66°07.7′ W; then northwest to the origin. 2. Last Full Weekend of St. Thomas International St. Thomas Yacht Club ...... St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; All waters of St. Thomas Harbor en- March. Regatta. compassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°19.9′ N, 64°55.9′ W; thence east to Point 2 in position 18°19.97′ N, 64°55.8′ W; thence southeast to Point 3 in position 18°19.6′ N, 64°55.6′ W; thence south to point 4 in position 18°19.1′ N, 64°55.5′ W; thence west to point 5 in position 18°19.1′ N, 64°55.6′ W; thence north to point 6 in position 18°19.6′ N, 64°55.8′ W; thence northwest back to origin at Harbor, St. Thomas, San Juan. 3. Last week of April ...... St. Thomas Carnival ...... Virgin Islands Carnival Com- St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; (i) Race Area. All waters of the St. mittee. Thomas Harbor located around Hassel Island, St. Thomas, U.S. Vir- gin Island encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°20.2′ N, 64°56.1′ W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 18°19.7′ N, 64°55.7′ W; thence south to Point 3 in position 18°19.4′ N, 64°55.7′ W; thence southwest to point 4 in position 18°19.3′ N, 64°56.0′ W; thence northwest to point 5 in position 18°19.9′ N, 64°56.5′ W; thence northeast to point 6 in position 18°20.2′ N, 064°56.3′ W; thence east back to origin. (ii) Jet Ski Race Area. All waters encompassed the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°20.1′ N, 64°55.9′ W; thence west to Point 2 in position 18°20.1′ N, 64°56.1′ W; thence north to Point 3 in position 18°20.3′ N, 64°56.1′ W; thence east to Point 4 in position 18°20.3′ N, 64°55.9′ W; thence south back to origin. (iii) Buffer Zone. All waters of the St. Thomas Harbor located around Hassel Island, encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°20.3′ N, 64°55.9′ W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 18°19.7′ N, 64°55.7′ W; thence south to Point 3 in posi- tion 18°19.3′ N, 64°55.72′ W; thence southwest to Point 4 in position 18°19.2′ N, 64°56′ W; thence northwest to Point 5 in position 18°19.9′ N, 64°56.5′ W; thence northeast to Point 6 in position 18°20.3′ N, 64°56.3′ W; thence east back to origin. (iv) Spectator Area. All waters of the St. Thomas Harbor located east of Hassel Island, encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°20.3′ N, 64°55.8′ W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 18°19.9′ N, 64°55.7′ W; thence northeast to Point 3 in position 18°20.2′ N, 64°55.5′ W; thence northwest back to origin. 4. 1st Sunday of May ...... Ironman 70.3 St. Croix ...... Project St. Croix, Inc ...... St. Croix (Christiansted Harbor), U.S. Virgin Islands; All waters encom- passed within the following points: point 1 on the shoreline at Kings Wharf at position 17°44′51″ N, 064°42′16″ W, thence north to point 2 at the southwest corner of Protestant Cay in position 17°44′56″ N, 064°42′12″ W, then east along the shoreline to point 3 at the south- east corner of Protestant Cay in position 17°44′56″ N, 064°42′08″ W, thence northeast to point 4 at Christiansted Harbor Channel Round Reef Northeast Junction Lighted Buoy RR in position 17°45′24″ N, 064°41′45″ W, thence southeast to point 5 at Christiansted Schooner Channel Lighted Buoy 5 in position 17°45′18″ N, 064°41′43″ W, thence southwest to point 6 at Christiansted Harbor Channel Buoy 15 in position 17°44′56″ N, 064°41′56″ W, thence southwest to point 7 on the shoreline north of Fort Christiansted in position 17°44′51″ N, 064°42′05″ W, thence west along the shoreline to origin. 5. July 4th ...... Fireworks Display ...... St. John Festival & Cul., Org St. John (West of Cruz Bay/Northeast of Steven Cay), U.S. Virgin Is- lands; All waters from the surface to the bottom for a radius of 200 yards centered around position 18°19′55″ N, 064°48′06″ W.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO § 100.701—Continued

No./date Event Sponsor Location

6. 3rd Week of July, Sunday San Juan Harbor Swim ...... Municipality of Catan˜o ...... San Juan Harbor, San Juan, Puerto Rico; All waters encompassed within the following points: point 1: La Puntilla Final, Coast Guard Base at position 18°27′33″ N, 066°07′00″ W, then south to point 2: Catan˜o Ferry Pier at position 18°26′36″ N, 066°07′00″ W, then north- east along the Catan˜o shoreline to point 3: Punta Catan˜o at position 18°26′40″ N, 066°06′48″ W, then northwest to point 4: Pier 1 San Juan at position 18°27′40″ N, 066°06′49″ W, then back along the shoreline to origin. 7. 1st Sunday of September Cruce A Nado International Cruce a Nado Inc ...... Ponce Harbor, Bahia de Ponce, San Juan; All waters of Bahia de Ponce encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 17°58.9′ N, 66°37.5′ W; thence southwest to Point 2 in posi- tion 17°57.5′ N, 66°38.2′ W; thence southeast to Point 3 in position 17°57.4′ N, 66°37.9′ W; thence northeast to point 4 in position 17°58.7′ N, 66°37.3′ W; thence northwest along the northeastern shoreline of Bahia de Ponce to the origin. 8. 2nd Sunday of October .... St. Croix Coral Reef Swim .. The Buccaneer Resort ...... St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; All waters of Christiansted Harbor within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 18°45.7′N, 64°40.6′ W; then northeast to Point 2 in position 18°47.3′ N, 64°37.5 W; then southeast to Point 3 in position 17°46.9′ N, 64°37.2′ W; then southwest to point 4 in position 17°45.51′ N, 64°39.7′ W; then north- west to the origin. 9. December 31st ...... Fireworks St. Thomas, Mr. Victor Laurenza, St. Thomas (Great Bay area), U.S. Virgin Islands; All waters within a Great Bay. Pyrotecnico, New Castle, radius of 600 feet centered around position 18°19′14″ N, 064°50′18″ PA. W. 10. December—1st week ..... Christmas Boat Parade ...... St. Croix Christmas Boat St. Croix (Christiansted Harbor), U.S. Virgin Islands; 200 yards off- Committee. shore around Protestant Cay beginning in position 17°45′56″ N, 064°42′16″ W, around the cay and back to the beginning position. 11. December—2nd week .... Christmas Boat Parade ...... Club Nautico de San Juan .. San Juan, Puerto Rico; Parade route. All waters of San Juan Harbor within a moving zone that will begin at Club Nautico de San Juan, move towards El Morro and then return, to Club Nautico de San Juan; this zone will at all times extend 50 yards in front of the lead vessel, 50 yards behind the last vessel, and 50 yards out from all participating vessels.

(b) COTP Zone Key West; Special Local Regulations

1. 3rd Week of January, Yachting Key West Race Premiere Racing, Inc...... Inside the reef on either side of main ship channel, Key West Harbor Monday–Friday. Week. Entrance, Key West, Florida. 2. Last Friday of April ...... Conch Republic Navy Pa- Conch Republic ...... All waters approximately 150 yards offshore from Ocean Key Sunset rade and Battle. Pier, Mallory Square and the Hilton Pier within the Key West Harbor in Key West, Florida. 3. 1st Weekend of June ...... Swim around Key West ...... Florida Keys Community Beginning at Smather’s Beach in Key West, Florida. The regulated area College. will move, west to the area offshore of Fort Zach State Park, north through Key West Harbor, east through Flemming Cut, south on Cow Key Channel and west back to origin. The center of the regulated area will at all times remain approximately 50 yards offshore of the island of Key West Florida; extend 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race participants; extend 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race participants; and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of the race participants and safety vessels. 4. 2nd Week of November, Key West World Champion- Super Boat International In the Atlantic Ocean, off the tip of Key West, Florida, on the waters of Wednesday-Sunday. ship. Productions, Inc. the Key West Main Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance.

(c) COTP Zone St. Petersburg; Special Local Regulations

1. 3rd Saturday of January ... Gasparilla Children’s Parade Air Boss and Consulting ...... All waters of Hillsborough Bay north of an line drawn at 27°55′ N, west Air show. of Davis Islands, and south of the Davis Island Bridge. 2. Last Friday, Saturday, and Honda Grand Prix ...... Honda Motor Company and Demens Landing St. Petersburg Florida; All waters within 100 ft. of the Sunday of March. City of St. Petersburg. seawall. 3. Last Friday, Saturday, and St. Pete Grand Prix Air Honda Motor Company and South Yacht Basin, Bayboro Harbor, Gulf of Mexico, St. Petersburg, Sunday of March. show. City of St. Petersburg. Florida, within two nautical miles of the Albert Whitted Airport. 4. Last Sunday of April ...... St. Anthony’s Triathlon ...... St. Anthony’s Healthcare ..... Gulf of Mexico, St. Petersburg, Florida within one nautical mile of Spa Beach. 5. July 4th ...... Freedom Swim ...... None ...... Peace River, St. Petersburg, Florida within two nautical miles of the US 41 Bridge. 6. 1st Sunday of July ...... Suncoast Offshore Grand Suncoast Foundation for the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Sarasota, Florida from New Pass to Si- Prix. Handicapped. esta Beach out to eight nautical miles. 7. 3rd Friday, Saturday, and Homosassa Raft Race ...... Citrus 95 FM radio...... Homosassa River in Homosassa, Florida Between Private Green Sunday of September. Dayboard 81 east located in approximate position 28°46′58.937″ N, 082°37′25.131″ W to private Red Dayboard 2 located in approximate position 28°47′19.939″ N, 082°36′44.36″ W. 8. September 30th ...... Clearwater Superboat Race Superboat International ...... (i) Race Area; All waters of the Gulf of Mexico near St. Petersburg, Florida, contained within the following points: 27°58.96′ N, 82°50.05′ W, thence to position 27°58.60′ N, 82°50.04′ W, thence to position 27°58.64′ N, 82°50.14′ W, thence to position 28°00.43′ N, 82°50.02′ W, thence to position 28°00.45′ N, 82°50.13′ W, thence back to the start/finish position;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8401

TABLE 1 TO § 100.701—Continued

No./date Event Sponsor Location

(ii) Buffer Area; All waters of the Gulf of Mexico encompassed within the following points: 27°58.4′ N, 82°50.2′ W, thence to position 27°58.3′ N, 82°49.9′ W, thence to position 28°00.6′ N, 82°50.2′ W, thence to position 28°00.7′ N, 82°49.7′ W, thence back to position 27°58.4′ N, 82°50.2′ W. (iii) Spectator Area; All waters of Gulf of Mexico seaward of the fol- lowing points: 27°58.6′ N, 82°50.2′ W, thence to position 28°00.5′ N, 82°50.2′ W. 9. Last weekend of Sep- Cocoa Beach Grand Prix of Powerboat P1–USA, LLC .... Atlantic ocean at Cocoa Beach, Florida. Sheppard Park. All waters en- tember. the Seas. compassed within the following points: Starting at point 1 in position 28°22.285′ N, 80°36.033′ W; thence east to Point 2 in position 28°22.253′ N, 80°35.543′ W; thence south to Point 3 in position 28°21.143′ N, 80°35.700′ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 28°21.195′ N, 80°36.214′ W; thence north back to the origin. 10. 2nd Friday, Saturday, St. Petersburg Airfest ...... City of St. Petersburg ...... South Yacht Basin, Bayboro Harbor, Gulf of Mexico, St. Petersburg, and Sunday of October. Florida all waters within 2 nautical miles of the Albert Whitted Airport. 11. 3rd Thursday, Friday, and Ironman World Champion- City of Clearwater & Gulf of Mexico, Clearwater, Florida within 2 nautical miles of Clearwater Saturday of November. ship Triathlon. Ironman North America. Beach FL.

(d) COTP Zone Jacksonville; Special Local Regulations

1. Last Saturday of February El Cheapo Sheepshead Jacksonville Offshore Fish- Mayport Boat Ramp, Jacksonville, Florida; 500 foot radius from the Tournament. ing Club. boat ramp. 2. 1st Saturday of March ...... Jacksonville Invitational ...... Stanton Rowing Foundation Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville, Florida; South of Timuquana (May vary). Bridge. 3. 1st Saturday of March ...... Stanton Invitational (Rowing Stanton Rowing Foundation Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville, Florida; South of Timuquana Race). Bridge. 4. 1st weekend of March ...... Hydro X Tour ...... H2X Racing Promotions ...... Lake Dora, Tavares, Florida; All waters encompassed within the fol- lowing points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence west back to origin. 5. 2nd Full Weekend of TICO Warbird Air Show ...... Valiant Air Command ...... Titusville; Indian River, FL: All waters encompassed within the following March. points: Starting at the shoreline then due east to Point 1 at position 28°31′25.15″ N, 080°46′32.73″ W, then south to Point 2 located at position 28°30′55.42″ N, 080°46′32.75″ W, then due west to the shoreline. 6. 3rd Weekend of March ..... Tavares Spring Thunder Re- Classic Race Boat Associa- Lake Dora, Florida, waters 500 yards seaward of Wooten Park. gatta. tion. 7. Palm Sunday in March or Blessing of the Fleet—Jack- City of Jacksonville Office of St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Florida in the vicinity of Jacksonville April. sonville. Special Events. Landing between the Main Street Bridge and Acosta Bride. 8. Palm Sunday in March or Blessing of the Fleet—St. City of St. Augustine ...... St. Augustine Municipal Marina (entire marina), St. Augustine Florida. April. Augustine. 9. 1st Full Weekend of April Mount Dora Yacht Club Sail- Mount Dora Yacht Club ...... Lake Dora, Mount Dora, Florida—500 feet off Grantham Point. (Saturday and Sunday). ing Regatta. 10. 3rd Saturday of April ...... Jacksonville City Champion- Stanton Rowing Foundation Ortega River Race Course, Jacksonville, Florida; South of Timuquana ships. Bridge. 11. 3rd weekend of April ...... Florida Times Union Redfish The Florida Times-Union ..... Sister’s Creek, Jacksonville, Florida; All waters within a 100 yard radius Roundup. of Jim King Park and Boat Ramp at Sister’s Creek Marina, Sister’s Creek. 12. 2nd Weekend in May ...... Saltwater Classic—Port Ca- Cox Events Group ...... All waters of the Port Canaveral Harbor located in the vicinity of Port naveral. Canaveral, Florida encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°24′32″ N, 080°37′22″ W, then north to Point 2 28°24′35″ N, 080°37′22″ W, then due east to Point 3 at 28°24′35″ N, 080°36′45″ W, then south to Point 4 at 28°24′32″ N, 080°36′45″, then west back to the original point. 13. 1st Friday of May ...... Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp City of Fernandina Beach.... All waters within a 500 yard radius around approximate position Festival Pirate Landing 30°40′15″ N, 81°28′10″ W. and Fireworks. 14. 1st Saturday of May ...... Mug Race ...... The Rudder Club of Jack- St. Johns River; Palatka to Buckman Bridge. sonville, Inc. 15. 3rd Friday–Sunday of Space Coast Super Boat Super Boat International Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Cocoa Beach, Florida includes all May. Grand Prix. Productions, Inc. waters encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°22′16″ N, 80°36′04″ W; thence east to Point 2 in position 28°22′15″ N, 80°35′39″ W; thence south to Point 3 in position 28°19′47″ N, 80°35′55″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 28°19′47″ N, 80°36′22″ W; thence north back to origin. 16. 4th weekend of May ...... Memorial Day RiverFest ...... City of Green Cove Springs St. Johns River, Green Cove Springs, Florida; All waters within a 500- yard radius around approximate position 29°59′39″ N, 081°40′33″ W. 17. Last full week of May Bluewater Invitational Tour- Northeast Florida Marlin As- There is a no-wake zone in affect from the St. Augustine City Marina (Monday–Friday). nament. sociation. out to the end of the St. Augustine Jetty’s 6 a.m.–8 a.m. and 3 p.m.– 5 p.m. during the above days. 18. 2nd weekend of June ..... Hydro X Tour ...... H2X Racing Promotions ...... Lake Dora, Tavares, Florida; All waters encompassed within the fol- lowing points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence west back to origin.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO § 100.701—Continued

No./date Event Sponsor Location

19. 1st Saturday of June ...... Florida Sport Fishing Asso- Florida Sport Fishing Asso- Port Canaveral, Florida from Sunrise Marina to the end of Port Canav- ciation Offshore Fishing ciation. eral Inlet. Tournament. 20. 2nd weekend of June Kingfish Challenge ...... Ancient City Game Fish As- There is a no-wake zone in affect from the St. Augustine City Marina in (Saturday and Sunday). sociation. St. Augustine, Florida out to the end of the St. Augustine Jetty’s 6 a.m.–8 a.m. and 3 p.m.–5 p.m. 21. 3rd Friday-Sunday of Daytona Beach Grand Prix Powerboat P1–USA ...... All waters of the Atlantic Ocean East of Cocoa Beach, Florida encom- June. of the Sea. passed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 29°14′60″ N, 81°00′77″ W; thence east to Point 2 in position 29°14′78″ N, 80°59′802″ W; thence south to Point 3 in position 28°13′860″ N, 80°59′76″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 29°13′68″ N, 81°00′28″ W; thence north back to origin. 22. 3rd Saturday of July ...... Halifax Rowing Association Halifax Rowing Association Halifax River, Daytona, Florida, south of Memorial Bridge—East Side. Summer Regatta. 23. 3rd week of July ...... Greater Jacksonville King- Jacksonville Marine Char- Jacksonville, Florida; All waters of the St. Johns River, from lighted fish Tournament. ities, Inc. buoy 10 (LLNR 2190) in approximate position 30°24′22″ N, 081°24′59″ W to Lighted Buoy 25 (LLNR 7305). 24. Last weekend of Sep- Jacksonville Dragon Boat In the Pink Boutique, Inc ..... St. John’s River, Jacksonville, Florida. In front of the Landing, between tember. Festival. the Acosta & Main Street bridges From approximate position 30°19′26″ N, 081°39′47″ W to approximate position 30°19′26″ N, 81°39′32″ W. 25. 2nd week of October ...... First Coast Head Race ...... Stanton Rowing Foundation St. Johns River and Arlington River, Jacksonville, Florida, starting near the Arlington Marina and ending on the Arlington River near the At- lantic Blvd. Bridge. 26. 1st weekend of Novem- Hydro X Tour ...... H2X Racing Promotions ...... Lake Dora, Tavares, Florida; All waters encompassed within the fol- ber. lowing points: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′41″ W; thence east to Point 3 in position 28°47′53″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 28°47′59″ N, 81°43′19″ W; thence west back to origin. 27. 3rd Weekend of Novem- Tavares Fall Thunder Re- Classic Race Boat Associa- Lake Dora, Florida, waters 500 yards seaward of Wooten Park. ber. gatta. tion. 28. 2nd Saturday of Decem- St. Johns River Christmas St. Johns River Christmas St. Johns River, Deland, Florida; Whitehair Bridge, Deland to Lake ber. Boat Parade. Boat Parade, Inc. Beresford. 29. 2nd Saturday of Decem- Christmas Boat Parade Halifax River Yacht Club ..... Daytona Beach, Florida; Halifax River from Seabreeze Bridge to Halifax ber. (Daytona Beach/Halifax Harbor Marina. River).

(e) COTP Zone Savannah; Special Local Regulations

1. May, 2nd weekend, Sun- Blessing of the Fleet— Knights of Columbus— Brunswick River from the start of the East branch of the Brunswick day. Brunswick. Brunswick. River (East Brunswick River) to the Golden Isles Parkway Bridge. 2. 3rd full weekend of July .... Augusta Southern Nationals Augusta Southern Nationals Savannah River, Augusta, Georgia, from the US Highway 1 (Fifth Drag Boat Races. Street) Bridge at mile 199.5 to Eliot’s Fish Camp at mile 197. 3. Last weekend of Sep- Ironman 70.3 ...... Ironman ...... All waters of the Savannah River encompassed within the following tember. points: Starting at Point 1 in position 33°28′44″ N, 81°57′53″ W; thence northeast to Point 2 in position 33°28′50″ N, 81°57′50″ W; thence southeast to Point 3 in position 33°27′51″ N, 81°55′36″ W; thence southwest to Point 4 in position 33°27′47″ N, 81°55′43″ W; thence northwest back to origin. 4. 1st Saturday after Thanks- Savannah Harbor Boat Pa- Westin Resort, Savannah .... Savannah River, Savannah Riverfront, Georgia, Talmadge bridge to a giving Day in November. rade of Lights and Fire- line drawn at 146 degrees true from Dayboard 62. works. 5. 2nd Saturday of November Head of the South Regatta Augusta Rowing Club ...... Savannah River, Augusta, Georgia; All waters within a moving zone, beginning at Daniel Island Pier in approximate position 32°51′20″ N, 079°54′06″ W, South along the coast of Daniel Island, across the Wando River to Hobcaw Yacht Club, in approximate position 32°49′20″ N, 079°53′49″ W, South along the coast of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., to Charleston Harbor Resort Marina, in approximate position 32°47′20″ N, 079°54′39″ W. There will be a temporary Channel Clos- er from 0730 to 0815 on June 01, 2013 between Wando River Ter- minal Buoy 3 (LLNR 3305), and Wando River Terminal Buoy 5 (LLNR 3315). The zone will at all times extend 75 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race participants; 75 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race participants; and at all times extending 100 yards on either side of the race participants and safety vessels.

(f) COTP Zone Charleston; Special Local Regulations

1. 2nd and 3rd weekend of Charleston Race Week ...... Sperry Top-Sider ...... Charleston Harbor and Atlantic Ocean, South Carolina, All waters en- April. compassed within an 800 yard radius of position 32°46′39″ N, 79°55′10″ W, All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°45′48″ N, 79°54′46″ W, All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°45′44″ N, 79°53′32″ W.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8403

TABLE 1 TO § 100.701—Continued

No./date Event Sponsor Location

2. 1st week of May ...... Low Country Splash ...... Logan Rutledge ...... Wando River, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, includ- ing the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from Daniel Island Pier, in approximate position 32°51′20″ N, 079°54′06″ W, south along the coast of Daniel Island, across the Wando River to Hobcaw Yacht Club, in approximate position 32°49′20″ N, 079°53′49″ W, south along the coast of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, to Charleston Harbor Resort Marina, in approximate position 32°47′20″ N, 079°54′39″ W, and extending out 150 yards from shore. 3. 2nd week of June ...... Beaufort Water Festival ...... City of Beaufort ...... Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, South Carolina; All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the following points; starting at point 1 in position 33°39′11.5″ N, 079°05′36.8″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.2″ N, 079°05′47.8″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′39.5″ N, 079°05′37.4″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′42.3″ N, 79°05′30.6″ W; thence north back to origin. 4. 3rd week of September .... Swim Around Charleston ..... Kathleen Wilson ...... Wando River, main shipping channel of Charleston Harbor, Ashley River, Charleston, South Carolina; A moving zone around all waters within a 75-yard radius around Swim Around Charleston participant vessels that are officially associated with the swim. The Swim Around Charleston swimming race consists of a 10-mile course that starts at Remley’s Point on the Wando River in approximate position 32°48′49″ N, 79°54′27″ W, crosses the main shipping channel of Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the General William B. Westmore- land Bridge on the Ashley River in approximate position 32°50′14″ N, 80°01′23″ W. 5. 2nd week of November .... Head of the South ...... Augusta Rowing Club ...... Upper Savannah River mile marker 199 to mile marker 196, Georgia. 6. 2nd week December ...... Charleston Harbor Christ- City of Charleston ...... Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, from Anchorage A through Bennis mas Parade of Boats. Reach, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Town Creek Lower Reach, Ashley River, and finishing at City Marina.

■ 3. Add § 100.702 to read as follows: officers designated by or assisting the or the operation of any vessel Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami in the participating in the event, at any time it § 100.702 Special Local Regulations; enforcement of the regulated areas. is deemed necessary for the protection Marine Events within the Captain of the Port (2) Spectators. All persons and vessels Miami. of life or property. not registered with the event sponsor as The following regulations apply to the participants. (3) Only event sponsor designated marine events listed in Table 1 of this (b) Event Patrol. The Coast Guard may participants and official patrol vessels section and will be effective annually assign an event patrol, as described in are allowed to enter the regulated area, for the duration listed. The Coast Guard § 100.40 of this part, to each regulated unless otherwise authorized by the will notify the maritime community of event listed in the table. Additionally, a COTP Miami or Designated exact dates and times each regulation Patrol Commander may be assigned to Representative. will be in effect and the nature of each oversee the patrol. The event patrol and (4) Spectators may request permission event (e.g. location, number of Patrol Commander may be contacted on from the COTP Miami or Designated participants, type of vessels involved, VHF Channel 16. Representative to enter, transit, remain etc.) through a Notice of Enforcement (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The within, or anchor in the regulated area. published in the Federal Register, Local COTP Miami or Designated If permission is granted, spectators must Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Representative may control the abide by the directions of the COTP Notice to Mariners. movement of all vessels in the regulated (a) Definitions. The following area. When hailed or signaled by an Miami or a Designated Representative. definitions apply to this section: official patrol vessel, a vessel in these The COTP Miami or Designated (1) Designated Representative. The areas shall immediately comply with Representative may delay or terminate term ‘‘Designated Representative’’ the directions given. Failure to do so any event in this subpart at any time to means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, may result in removal from the area, ensure safety of life or property. Such including Coast Guard coxswains, petty citation for failure to comply, or both. action may be justified as a result of officers, others operating Coast Guard (2) The COTP Miami or Designated weather, traffic density, spectator vessels, and federal, state, and local Representative may terminate the event, operation, or participant behavior. TABLE 1 TO § 100.702—SPECIAL LOCAL REGULATIONS; MARINE EVENTS WITHIN THE CAPTAIN OF THE PORT MIAMI [Datum NAD 1983]

Date/time Event/sponsor Location Regulated area

1. One weekend (Friday, Stuart Sailfish Regatta (Boat Stuart, FL ...... Location: All waters of Indian River located northeast of Ernest Lyons Bridge and Saturday, and Sunday) in Race). Sponsor: The Stu- south of Joes Cove that are encompassed within a line connecting the following May. Time (Approximate): art Sailfish Regatta, Inc. points, with the exception of the spectator area: Starting at Point 1 in position 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. 27°12′47″ N, 80°11′43″ W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 27°12′22″ N, 80°11′28″ W; thence northeast to Point 3 in position 27°12′35″ N, 80°11′00″ W; thence northwest to Point 4 in position 27°12′47″ N, 80°11′04″ W; thence north- east to Point 5 in position 27°13′05″ N, 80°11′01″ W; thence southeast back to ori- gin.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO § 100.702—SPECIAL LOCAL REGULATIONS; MARINE EVENTS WITHIN THE CAPTAIN OF THE PORT MIAMI— Continued [Datum NAD 1983]

Date/time Event/sponsor Location Regulated area

2. One weekend (Friday, Miami Beach Air and Sea Miami Beach, Location: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line Saturday, and Sunday) in Show. Sponsor: The City FL. connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 25°47′52″ N, May. Time (Approximate): of Miami Beach. 080°6′55″ W; thence southwest to Point 2 in position 25°45′40″ N, 080°7′16″ W; 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. thence northwest to Point 3 in position 25°45′50″ N, 080°07′49″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 25°47′56″ N, 080°07′30″ W; thence back to the origin at Point 1. 3. One weekend (Friday, Fort Lauderdale Air Show. Fort Lauder- Location: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line Saturday, and Sunday) in Sponsor: The City of Fort dale, FL. connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26°11′01″ N May. Time (Approximate): Lauderdale. 080°05′42″ W; thence due east to Point 2 in position 26°11′01″ N 080°05′00″ W; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. thence south west to Point 3 in position 26°05′42″ N 080°05′35″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 26°05′42″ N 080°06′17″ W; thence following the shoreline north back to the point of origin. 4. One weekend day (Satur- Publix Escape to Miami Miami, FL ...... Location: All waters of Biscayne Bay, east of Margaret Pace Park, Miami, FL encom- day or Sunday) in Sep- Triathlon. Sponsor: Life passed within a line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position tember. Time (Approxi- Time Fitness Triathlon 25°47′40″ N, 80°11′07″ W; thence northeast to Point 2 in position 25°48′13″ N, mate): 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Series, LLC. 80°10′48″ W; thence southeast to Point 3 in 25°47′59″ N, 80°10′34″ W; thence south to Point 4 in position 25°47′52″ N, 80°10′34″ W; thence southwest to Point 5 in position 25°47′33″ N, 80°11′07″ W; thence north back to origin. 5. One weekend (Saturday, Columbus Day Regatta. Miami, FL ...... Location: All waters of Biscayne Bay encompassed within an imaginary line con- and Sunday) in October. Sponsor: Columbus Day necting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 25°43′24″ N 080°12′30″ Time (Approximate): 9 Regatta, Inc. W; thence east to Point 2 in position 25°43′24″ N 080°10′30″ W; thence south to a.m. to 6 p.m. Point 3 in position 25°33′00″ N 080°11′30″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 25°33′00″ N 080°15′54″ W; thence north west to point 5 in position 25°40′00″ N 080°15′00″ W; thence back to the origin at Point 1. 6. One weekend day (Satur- Ironman 70.3 (Swim Event). Miami, FL ...... Location: All waters of Biscayne Bay located east of Bayfront Park and encom- day or Sunday) in October. Sponsor: Miami Tri passed within a line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position Time (Approximate): 6 Events, LLC. 25°46′44″ N, 080°11′00″ W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 25°46′24″ N, a.m. to 11 a.m. 080°10′44″ W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 25°46′18″ N, 080°11′05″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 25°46′33″ N, 080°11′05″ W; thence northeast back to origin. 7. One weekend Saturday, P1 Fort Lauderdale Grand Fort Lauder- Location: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean contained within a line connecting the fol- and Sunday in November. Prix of the Seas. Spon- dale, FL. lowing points: beginning at Point 1 in position 26°6′21″ N, 080°5′51″ W; thence Time (Approximate): 8 sor: Powerboat P1 USA west to Point 2 in position 26°6′21″ N, 080°6′13″ W; thence north to Point 3 in po- a.m. to 4 p.m. LLC. sition 26°6′57″ N, 080°6′13″ W; thence east to Point 4 in position 26°6′57″ N, 080°5′52″ W, thence back to origin at point 1. 8. One weekend day (Friday, Boynton Beach & Delray Boynton Beach, Location: All waters within a moving zone that will begin at Boynton Inlet and end at Saturday or Sunday) in Beach Holiday Boat Pa- FL. the C–15 Canal, which will include a buffer zone extending 50 yards ahead of the December. Time (Approxi- rade. Sponsor: The Boyn- Delray Beach, lead parade vessel and 50 yards astern of the last participating vessel and 50 mate): 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. ton Beach CRA. FL. yards on either side of the parade. 9. One weekend day (Friday, Palm Beach Holiday Boat Palm Beach, Location: All waters within a moving zone that will begin at Lake Worth Daymarker Saturday or Sunday) in Parade. Sponsor: Marine FL. 28 in North Palm Beach and end at Loxahatchee River Daymarker 7 east of the December. Time (Approxi- Industries Association of Glynn Mayo Highway Bridge in Jupiter, FL, which will include a buffer zone ex- mate): 4:30 p.m. to 9:30 Palm Beach County, Inc. tending 50 yards ahead of the lead parade vessel and 50 yards astern of the last p.m. participating vessel and 50 yards on either side of the parade. 10. One weekend day (Fri- Miami Outboard Holiday Miami, FL ...... Location: All waters within a moving zone that will transit as follows: The marine pa- day, Saturday or Sunday) Boat Parade. Sponsor: rade will begin at the Miami Outboard Club on Watson Island, head north around in December. Time (Ap- The Miami Outboard Palm Island and Hibiscus Island, head east between Di Lido Island, south through proximate): 5 p.m. to 10 Club. Meloy Channel, west through Government Cut to Bicentennial Park, south to the p.m. Dodge Island Bridge, south in the Intracoastal Waterway to Claughton Island, cir- cling back to the north in the Intracoastal Waterway to end at the Miami Outboard Club. This will include a buffer zone extending to 50 yards ahead of the lead ves- sel and 50 yards astern of the last participating vessel and 50 yards on either side of the parade. 11. One weekend day (Fri- Seminole Hard Rock Fort Lauder- Location: All waters within a moving zone that will begin at Cooley’s Landing Marina day, Saturday or Sunday) Winterfest Boat Parade. dale, FL. and end at Lake Santa Barbara, which will include a buffer zone extending 50 in December. Time (Ap- Sponsor: Winterfest, Inc. yards ahead of the lead parade vessel and 50 yards astern of the last participating proximate): 1:30 p.m. to vessel and 50 yards on either side of the parade. 12:30 a.m. 12. One weekend day (Fri- City of Pompano Beach Pompano Location: All waters within a moving zone that will begin at Lake Santa Barbara and day, Saturday or Sunday) Holiday Boat Parade. Beach, FL. head north on the Intracoastal Waterway to end at the Hillsboro Bridge, which will in December. Time (Ap- Sponsor: The Greater include a buffer zone extending 50 yards ahead of the lead parade vessel and 50 proximate): 6 p.m. to 10 Pompano Beach Cham- yards astern of the last participating vessel and 50 yards on either side of the pa- p.m. ber of Commerce. rade.

§§ 100.723, 100.726, and 100.729 Dated: 14 January 2020. [Removed] J.F. Burdian, ■ 4. Remove § 100.723, § 100.726, and Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Miami. § 100.729. [FR Doc. 2020–01934 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8405

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square— January 21, 2011); Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA • Is not an Executive Order 13771 40 CFR Part 52 02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email regulatory action because this action is [email protected]. [EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0513; FRL–10004– not significant under Executive Order 95–Region 1] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 12866; Throughout this document whenever • Does not impose an information Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean collection burden under the provisions Transport State Implementation Plan EPA. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 for the 2008 Ozone Standard Table of Contents U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Background Is certified as not having a Agency (EPA). II. Final Action significant economic impact on a ACTION: Final rule. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection I. Background U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Agency (EPA) is approving State On December 26, 2019 (84 FR 70913), • Does not contain any unfunded Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions EPA published a notice of proposed mandate or significantly or uniquely submitted by the State of Connecticut rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of affect small governments, as described that address the interstate transport of Connecticut. The NPRM proposed in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act air pollution requirements of section approval of SIP revisions that address of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act for the interstate transport of air pollution • Does not have federalism the 2008 ozone national ambient air requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) implications as specified in Executive quality standard (NAAQS) (i.e., ozone of the Clean Air Act for the 2008 ozone Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, transport SIP). The EPA is approving the national ambient air quality standard 1999); submission as meeting the requirement (NAAQS) (i.e., ozone transport SIP). The • Is not an economically significant that each SIP contain adequate formal SIP revision was submitted by regulatory action based on health or provisions to prohibit emissions that Connecticut on June 15, 2015. In this safety risks subject to Executive Order will significantly contribute to action, we are approving Connecticut’s 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); nonattainment or interfere with transport SIP for the 2008 ozone • maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS NAAQS. Is not a significant regulatory action in any other state. This action is being The rationale for EPA’s proposed subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR taken in accordance with the Clean Air action is given in the NPRM and will 28355, May 22, 2001); Act. not be restated here. No public • Is not subject to requirements of DATES: This rule is effective on March comments were received on the NPRM. Section 12(d) of the National 16, 2020. II. Final Action Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because ADDRESSES: EPA has established a EPA is approving a transport SIP that application of those requirements would docket for this action under Docket was submitted by Connecticut to Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; address interstate transport and 2019–0513. All documents in the docket requirements for CAA section • Does not provide EPA with the are listed on the https:// 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone discretionary authority to address, as www.regulations.gov website. Although NAAQS as a revision to the Connecticut appropriate, disproportionate human listed in the index, some information is SIP. not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other health or environmental effects, using information whose disclosure is III. Statutory and Executive Order practicable and legally permissible restricted by statute. Certain other Reviews methods, under Executive Order 12898 material, such as copyrighted material, Under the Clean Air Act, the (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). is not placed on the internet and will be Administrator is required to approve a In addition, the SIP is not approved publicly available only in hard copy SIP submission that complies with the to apply on any Indian reservation land form. Publicly available docket provisions of the Act and applicable or in any other area where EPA or an materials are available at https:// Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Indian tribe has demonstrated that a www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Environmental Protection Agency, EPA submissions, EPA’s role is to approve Indian country, the rule does not have Region 1 Regional Office, Air and state choices, provided that they meet tribal implications and will not impose Radiation Division, 5 Post Office the criteria of the Clean Air Act. substantial direct costs on tribal Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA Accordingly, this action merely governments or preempt tribal law as requests that if at all possible, you approves state law as meeting Federal specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 contact the contact listed in the FOR requirements and does not impose FR 67249, November 9, 2000). FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to additional requirements beyond those The Congressional Review Act, 5 schedule your inspection. The Regional imposed by state law. For that reason, U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Office’s official hours of business are this action: Business Regulatory Enforcement Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to • Is not a significant regulatory action Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. subject to review by the Office of that before a rule may take effect, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Management and Budget under agency promulgating the rule must Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, submit a rule report, which includes a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

copy of the rule, to each House of the ‘‘Demonstration that Connecticut disclosure is restricted by statute. Congress and to the Comptroller General Complies with the Good Neighbor Certain other material, such as of the United States. EPA will submit a Requirements of Clean Air Act Section copyrighted material, is not placed on report containing this action and other 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Ozone the internet and will be publicly required information to the U.S. Senate, National Ambient Air Quality available only in hard copy form. the U.S. House of Representatives, and Standard’’ Final, June 11, 2015. Publicly available docket materials are the Comptroller General of the United (B) [Reserved] available either through States prior to publication of the rule in ■ 3. Section 52.386 is amended by www.regulations.gov or at the the Federal Register. A major rule adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: Environmental Protection Agency, cannot take effect until 60 days after it Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 is published in the Federal Register. § 52.386 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, requirements. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Illinois 60604. This facility is open from defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). * * * * * 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean (d) The Connecticut Department of Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We Air Act, petitions for judicial review of Energy and Environmental Protection recommend that you telephone Richard this action must be filed in the United submitted the following infrastructure Angelbeck, Environmental Scientist, at States Court of Appeals for the SIP on this date: 2008 ozone NAAQS— (312) 886–9698 before visiting the appropriate circuit by April 14, 2020. June 15, 2015 (CAA section Region 5 office. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) transport provisions). Filing a petition for reconsideration by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This infrastructure SIP is approved. the Administrator of this final rule does Richard Angelbeck, Environmental not affect the finality of this action for [FR Doc. 2020–02011 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air the purposes of judicial review nor does BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Programs Branch (AR–18J), it extend the time within which a Environmental Protection Agency, petition for judicial review may be filed Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and shall not postpone the effectiveness Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9698, AGENCY of such rule or action. This action may [email protected]. not be challenged later in proceedings to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: enforce its requirements. (See section 40 CFR Part 52 Throughout this document whenever 307(b)(2).) [EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0990; FRL–10005– ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 04–Region 5] List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 EPA. Environmental protection, Air Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Prevention of I. Background Information pollution control, Incorporation by Significant Deterioration Greenhouse reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Gas Tailoring Rule On November 18, 2019, EPA proposed Particulate matter, Volatile organic to approve a revision to Ohio’s PSD AGENCY: Environmental Protection compounds. rules contained in Ohio Administrative Agency (EPA). Code (OAC) 3745–31 to include Ohio’s Dated: January 29, 2020. ACTION: Final rule. 3745–31–34 GHG rule. See 84 FR 63601, Dennis Deziel, November 18, 2019. An explanation of Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection the CAA requirements, a detailed Agency (EPA) is approving, under the Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the analysis of the proposed revision, and Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision to Code of Federal Regulations is amended EPA’s reasons for proposing approval Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) as follows: were provided in the notice of proposed as requested by the Ohio Environmental rulemaking (NPRM), and will not be PART 52—APPROVAL AND Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 30, restated here. The public comment PROMULGATION OF 2011, and amended on August 22, 2019 period for this proposed rule ended on IMPLEMENTATION PLANS and December 10, 2019. The revision to December 18, 2019. EPA received four Ohio’s SIP modifies Ohio’s Prevention comments on the proposal. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 of Significant Deterioration (PSD) continues to read as follows: program to establish emission II. Response to Comments Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. thresholds for determining when During the comment period, EPA stationary source projects are potentially received four comments on the Subpart H—Connecticut subject to Ohio’s PSD permitting November 18, 2019 NPRM. None of the requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) ■ four comments were adverse to the 2. Section 52.370 is amended by emissions. Consistent with Ohio’s proposed action. adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as requests, EPA is taking no action on The first comment was anonymous follows: paragraphs (B), (C), and (D) of Ohio’s and was in support of the proposed § 52.370 Identification of plan. GHG rule. approval of Ohio’s GHG rule, and also DATES: * * * * * This final rule is effective on asked why the rule was only being (c) * * * March 16, 2020. implemented in Ohio. The second (122) Revisions to the State ADDRESSES: EPA has established a comment was Ohio’s December 10, 2019 Implementation Plan submitted by the docket for this action under Docket ID request that EPA not act on the OAC Connecticut Department of Energy and No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0990. All 3745–31–34(B) paragraph in the Environmental Protection on June 15, documents in the docket are listed on submittal. The third comment was from 2015. the www.regulations.gov website. the Ohio Chemistry Technology (i) [Reserved] Although listed in the index, some Council, the Ohio Chamber of (ii) Additional materials. (A) The information is not publicly available, Commerce, and the Ohio Manufacturers’ Connecticut Department of Energy and i.e., Confidential Business Information Association and was in support of Environmental Protection document, (CBI) or other information whose Ohio’s December 10, 2019 request that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8407

EPA not act on paragraph (B) of Ohio’s deals with GHG Tailoring Rule Step 2 that plan, are fully federally enforceable OAC 3745–31–34 GHG rule. The last sources which are no longer regulated under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA comment was anonymous and not by EPA. The comment further states that as of the effective date of the final germane or relevant to this action approval of paragraph (B) would serve rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will because it lacks the required specificity no purpose and would only create be incorporated by reference in the next to the proposed SIP revision and confusion over the proper mechanisms update to the SIP compilation.1 relevant requirements of CAA section for avoiding GHG PSD requirements for 110(l). Moreover, the comment does not sources covered by GHG Tailoring Rule V. Statutory and Executive Order recommend a different action on the SIP Step 1 sources. Reviews submission from what EPA proposed. Response 3: EPA agrees with the Under the CAA, the Administrator is All of the comments received are commenter and will not act on OAC required to approve a SIP submission included in the docket for this action. A 3745–31–34(B). that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. summary of the comments and EPA’s III. Final Action responses are provided below. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Comment 1: The anonymous EPA is approving Ohio’s March 30, Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, commenter was in support of the 2011 SIP submittal, as amended on EPA’s role is to approve state choices, proposed approval of Ohio’s GHG rule, August 22, 2019 and December 10, provided that they meet the criteria of but also asked why this GHG rule was 2019, relating to PSD requirements for the CAA. Accordingly, this action only being implemented in Ohio seeing GHG-emitting sources in OAC 3745–31– merely approves state law as meeting that there are plenty of other states with 34. Specifically, Ohio’s SIP revision Federal requirements and does not stationary source projects. establishes appropriate emissions impose additional requirements beyond Response 1: OEPA is the air thresholds for determining PSD those imposed by state law. For that permitting authority for the State of applicability for new and modified reason, this action: Ohio and can only regulate emissions GHG-emitting sources in accordance • Is not a significant regulatory action from permitted sources in Ohio. Other with EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule and the subject to review by the Office of states have developed GHG rules to 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group Management and Budget under regulate GHG emissions from their own (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, respective state. decision. Per Ohio’s August 22, 2019 October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Comment 2: On December 10, 2019, and December 10, 2019 amended SIP January 21, 2011); Ohio submitted a comment on the requests, EPA is not acting on OAC • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 proposed approval of their GHG rule. 3745—31–34(B), (C), and (D), or OAC FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory This comment requested that EPA not 3745–77–11, which is Ohio’s GHG title action because SIP approvals are act on OAC 3745–31–34(B), thus, this V rule. In the November 18, 2019 exempted under Executive Order 12866; request amends the March 30, 2011 SIP NPRM, EPA proposed to approve OAC • Does not impose an information revision submittal. Ohio is considering 3745–31–34(B), but EPA is not acting on collection burden under the provisions changes to OAC 3745–31–34(B), (C), and that paragraph due to Ohio’s December of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 (D), as well as the OAC 3745–77–11 10, 2019 request. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); GHG title V rule, thus, requested that As a result of EPA’s approval of • Is certified as not having a EPA not act on those sections. Ohio’s changes to its air quality significant economic impact on a Response 2: EPA will grant Ohio’s regulations to incorporate the substantial number of small entities request to not act on paragraph (B) of appropriate thresholds for GHG under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 their OAC 3745–31–34 GHG rule. permitting applicability into Ohio’s SIP, U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Paragraph (B) is the portion of Ohio’s paragraph (b) in 40 CFR 52.1873, as • Does not contain any unfunded submittal that would have allowed GHG included in EPA’s PSD Narrowing Rule, mandate or significantly or uniquely sources with actual emissions of GHGs is no longer necessary. In this final affect small governments, as described less than 100,000 tons per year (tpy) to action, EPA is also amending 40 CFR in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act have their potential to emit of GHGs be 52.1873 to remove this unnecessary of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); considered to be less than the 100,000 regulatory language. • Does not have federalism tpy GHG threshold if they submitted a IV. Incorporation by Reference implications as specified in Executive permit application prior to July 1, 2011. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, EPA agrees that paragraph (B) is not In this rule, EPA is finalizing 1999); needed in the Ohio SIP because it is regulatory text that includes • Is not an economically significant moot due to the fact that Ohio doesn’t incorporation by reference. In regulatory action based on health or have any pending permit applications accordance with requirements of 1 CFR safety risks subject to Executive Order for which might be affected by this rule 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); section which dealt with permit by reference of the Ohio Regulations • Is not a significant regulatory action applications submitted prior to July 1, described in the amendments to 40 CFR subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 2011. part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, 28355, May 22, 2001); Comment 3: The Ohio Chemistry and will continue to make, these • Is not subject to requirements of Technology Council, the Ohio Chamber documents generally available through Section 12(d) of the National of Commerce and the Ohio www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Technology Transfer and Advancement Manufacturers’ Association expressed Region 5 Office (please contact the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because support of Ohio’s request (see comment person identified in the FOR FURTHER application of those requirements would 2 above) for EPA to not act on OAC INFORMATION CONTACT section of this be inconsistent with the CAA; and 3744–31–34(B). They explained their preamble for more information). • Does not provide EPA with the concern that paragraph (B) is mooted by Therefore, these materials have been discretionary authority to address, as time because Ohio doesn’t have any approved by EPA for inclusion in the appropriate, disproportionate human pending permit applications prior to State implementation plan, have been July 1, 2011, and that paragraph (B) incorporated by reference by EPA into 1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

health or environmental effects, using the U.S. House of Representatives, and reference, Intergovernmental relations, practicable and legally permissible the Comptroller General of the United and Reporting and recordkeeping methods, under Executive Order 12898 States prior to publication of the rule in requirements. the Federal Register. A major rule (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Dated: January 23, 2020. cannot take effect until 60 days after it In addition, the SIP is not approved Kurt A. Thiede, to apply on any Indian reservation land is published in the Federal Register. Regional Administrator, Region 5. or in any other area where EPA or an This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Indian tribe has demonstrated that a defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Indian country, the rule does not have petitions for judicial review of this PART 52—APPROVAL AND action must be filed in the United States tribal implications and will not impose PROMULGATION OF Court of Appeals for the appropriate substantial direct costs on tribal IMPLEMENTATION PLANS circuit by April 14, 2020. Filing a governments or preempt tribal law as petition for reconsideration by the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Administrator of this final rule does not FR 67249, November 9, 2000). continues to read as follows: affect the finality of this action for the The Congressional Review Act, 5 purposes of judicial review nor does it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small extend the time within which a petition ■ 2. In § 52.1870, the table in paragraph Business Regulatory Enforcement for judicial review may be filed, and (c) is amended by adding an entry in Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides shall not postpone the effectiveness of numerical order under ‘‘Chapter 3745– that before a rule may take effect, the such rule or action. This action may not 31 Permit-to Install New Sources and agency promulgating the rule must be challenged later in proceedings to Permit-to-Install and Operate Program’’ submit a rule report, which includes a enforce its requirements. (See section for ‘‘3745–31–34’’ to read as follows: copy of the rule, to each House of the 307(b)(2).) Congress and to the Comptroller General § 52.1870 Identification of plan. of the United States. EPA will submit a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 report containing this action and other Environmental protection, Air * * * * * required information to the U.S. Senate, pollution control, Incorporation by (c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED OHIO REGULATIONS

Ohio Ohio citation Subject effective EPA approval date Comments date

*******

Chapter 3745–31 Permit-to Install New Sources and Permit-to-Install and Operate Program

******* 3745–31–34 ... Permits to install for major stationary 3/31/2011 2/14/2020, [insert Federal Register cita- Except for (B), (C) sources and major modifications of tion]. and (D). sources emitting greenhouse gases.

*******

* * * * * ACTION: Direct final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– § 52.1873 [Amended] SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection OAR–2020–0029 at https:// ■ 3. Section 52.1873 is amended by Agency (EPA) is approving a State www.regulations.gov, or via email to removing and reserving paragraph (b). Implementation Plan (SIP) revision [email protected]. For [FR Doc. 2020–02267 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] submitted by the State of New comments submitted at Regulations.gov, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Hampshire. The revision approves a follow the online instructions for single source order for PSI Molded submitting comments. Once submitted, Plastics. The intended effect of this comments cannot be edited or removed ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION action is to approve this item into the from Regulations.gov. For either manner AGENCY New Hampshire SIP. This action is of submission, the EPA may publish any being taken in accordance with the comment received to its public docket. 40 CFR Part 52 Clean Air Act (CAA). Do not submit electronically any DATES: This direct final rule will be information you consider to be [EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0029; FRL–10005– effective April 14, 2020, unless EPA Confidential Business Information (CBI) 05–Region 1] receives adverse comments by March or other information whose disclosure is Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; 16, 2020. If adverse comments are restricted by statute. Multimedia Approval of a Single Source Order received, EPA will publish a timely submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be withdrawal of the direct final rule in the accompanied by a written comment. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Federal Register informing the public The written comment is considered the Agency (EPA). that the rule will not take effect. official comment and should include

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8409

discussion of all points you wish to outline what the source is required to do comments are received, the public is make. The EPA will generally not to meet RACT. advised that this rule will be effective consider comments or comment on April 14, 2020 and no further action II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA contents located outside of the primary will be taken on the proposed rule. Analysis submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or Please note that if EPA receives adverse other file sharing system). For On December 10, 2019, New comment on an amendment, paragraph, additional submission methods, please Hampshire submitted RACT Order RO– or section of this rule and if that contact the person identified in the FOR 0005, dated November 20, 2019, which provision may be severed from the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. it issued to PSI Plastic Moldings located remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt For the full EPA public comment policy, in Wolfeboro. The facility produces as final those provisions of the rule that information about CBI or multimedia custom molded products and uses metal are not the subject of an adverse submissions, and general guidance on and plastic parts coatings in its comment. operation. The facility is subject to New making effective comments, please visit IV. Incorporation by Reference https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Hampshire regulation Env-A 1212, commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly which contains VOC content limits for In this rule, the EPA is finalizing available docket materials are available miscellaneous metal and plastic parts regulatory text that includes at https://www.regulations.gov or at the coatings. Some of the coatings used by incorporation by reference. In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the facility exceed the VOC content accordance with requirements of 1 CFR EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and limit of Env-A 1212, but others are 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the Radiation Division, 5 Post Office below those limits. RACT Order RO– incorporation by reference of New Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 0005 allows the facility to demonstrate Hampshire RACT Order RO–0005, dated requests that if at all possible, you compliance with Env-A 1212 using a November 20, 2019, described in the contact the contact listed in the FOR weighted averaging technique that amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to demonstrates that total emissions from below. The EPA has made, and will schedule your inspection. The Regional all coatings are equal to or less than continue to make, these materials Office’s official hours of business are what emissions would be if all of the generally available through https:// Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to coatings met the emission limits within www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Env-A 1212. The facility is required to Region 1 Office (please contact the demonstrate compliance using this person identified in the FOR FURTHER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob weighted averaging technique, referred INFORMATION CONTACT section of this McConnell, Environmental Engineer, to as a ‘‘bubble calculation’’ described preamble for more information). Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code within the Order, on a monthly basis. Therefore, these materials have been 05–2), U.S. Environmental Protection We agree that this compliance method approved by EPA for inclusion in the Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, described within Order RO–0005 is an State implementation plan, have been Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts acceptable, enforceable approach, and incorporated by reference by EPA into 02109–3912; (617) 918–1046. are approving the Order into the New that plan, are fully federally enforceable [email protected]. Hampshire SIP. under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: III. Final Action as of the effective date of the final Throughout this document whenever rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean We are approving a single source be incorporated by reference in the next EPA. order establishing VOC RACT for PSI update to the SIP compilation.1 Molded Plastics in Wolfeboro, into the Table of Contents New Hampshire SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background The EPA is publishing this action II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA without prior proposal because the Under the Clean Air Act, the Analysis Agency views this as a noncontroversial Administrator is required to approve a III. Final Action amendment and anticipates no adverse SIP submission that complies with the IV. Incorporation by Reference comments. However, in the proposed provisions of the Act and applicable V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews rules section of this Federal Register Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); I. Background publication, EPA is publishing a 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP separate document that will serve as the submissions, EPA’s role is to approve CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) requires proposal to approve the SIP revision state choices, provided that they meet ozone nonattainment areas classified as should relevant adverse comments be the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Moderate or above to revise their SIPs filed. This rule will be effective April Accordingly, this action merely to include provisions to implement 14, 2020 without further notice unless approves state law as meeting Federal reasonably available control technology the Agency receives relevant adverse requirements and does not impose (RACT). CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) comments by March 16, 2020. additional requirements beyond those extends the RACT obligation to all areas If the EPA receives such comments, imposed by state law. For that reason, of states within the Ozone Transport then EPA will publish a document this action: Region (OTR). Pursuant to CAA section withdrawing the final rule and • Is not a significant regulatory action 184(a), New Hampshire is a member informing the public that the rule will subject to review by the Office of state of the OTR. States subject to RACT not take effect. All public comments Management and Budget under are required to adopt air pollution received will then be addressed in a Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, emission controls for major sources and subsequent final rule based on the October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, for sources covered by a Control proposed rule. The EPA will not January 21, 2011); Technique Guideline (CTG) document institute a second comment period on • Is not an Executive Order 13771 issued by the agency either via the the proposed rule. All parties interested regulatory action because this action is adoption or regulations, of by issuance in commenting on the proposed rule of single source Orders or Permits that should do so at this time. If no such 1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

not significant under Executive Order tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of proposed rulemaking for this action 12866; Indian country, the rule does not have published in the proposed rules section • Does not impose an information tribal implications and will not impose of this Federal Register, rather than file collection burden under the provisions substantial direct costs on tribal an immediate petition for judicial of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 governments or preempt tribal law as review of this direct final rule, so that U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 EPA can withdraw this direct final rule • Is certified as not having a FR 67249, November 9, 2000). and address the comment in the significant economic impact on a The Congressional Review Act, 5 proposed rulemaking. This action may substantial number of small entities U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small not be challenged later in proceedings to under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Business Regulatory Enforcement enforce its requirements. (See section U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 307(b)(2).) • Does not contain any unfunded that before a rule may take effect, the mandate or significantly or uniquely agency promulgating the rule must List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 affect small governments, as described submit a rule report, which includes a Environmental protection, Air in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act copy of the rule, to each House of the pollution control, Incorporation by of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Congress and to the Comptroller General • reference, Ozone, Reporting and Does not have federalism of the United States. Section 804, recordkeeping requirements, Volatile implications as specified in Executive however, exempts from section 801 the organic compounds. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, following types of rules: Rules of 1999); particular applicability; rules relating to Dated: January 30, 2020. • Is not an economically significant agency management or personnel; and Dennis Deziel, regulatory action based on health or rules of agency organization, procedure, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. safety risks subject to Executive Order or practice that do not substantially 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); affect the rights or obligations of non- Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the • Is not a significant regulatory action agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because Code of Federal Regulations is amended subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR this is a rule of particular applicability, as follows: 28355, May 22, 2001); EPA is not required to submit a rule PART 52—APPROVAL AND • Is not subject to requirements of report regarding this action under PROMULGATION OF Section 12(d) of the National section 801. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Technology Transfer and Advancement Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Air Act, petitions for judicial review of ■ application of those requirements would this action must be filed in the United 1. The authority citation for part 52 be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; States Court of Appeals for the continues to read as follows: and appropriate circuit by April 14, 2020. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. • Does not provide EPA with the Filing a petition for reconsideration by discretionary authority to address, as the Administrator of this final rule does Subpart EE—New Hampshire appropriate, disproportionate human not affect the finality of this action for health or environmental effects, using the purposes of judicial review nor does ■ 2. In § 52.1520, amend the table in practicable and legally permissible it extend the time within which a paragraph (d) by adding the entry ‘‘PSI methods, under Executive Order 12898 petition for judicial review may be filed, Molded Plastics’’ at the end of the table (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). and shall not postpone the effectiveness to read as follows: In addition, the SIP is not approved of such rule or action. Parties with § 52.1520 Identification of plan. to apply on any Indian reservation land objections to this direct final rule are or in any other area where EPA or an encouraged to file a comment in * * * * * Indian tribe has demonstrated that a response to the parallel notice of (d) * * *

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

State effective Additional explanations/ Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date § 52.1535 citation

******* PSI Molded Plastics ...... RO–0005 ...... 11/20/2019 2/14/2020 [Insert Federal Register citation] ...... VOC RACT Order.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2020–02227 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8411

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the HGB area under CAA section AGENCY Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office, 107(d)(3)(E). However, because the HGB Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 1201 area has met the five criteria in section 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation, we are 214–665–6521, [email protected]. terminating all anti-backsliding [EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0715; FRL–10004– To inspect the hard copy materials, obligations for the HGB area for both the 70–Region 6] please schedule an appointment with revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone Ms. Paige or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665– NAAQS. Air Plan Approval; Texas; Houston- 7253. To determine the criteria under CAA Galveston-Brazoria Area SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Redesignation and Maintenance Plan section 107(d)(3)(E) are met, we must do Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ the following: (1) Determine that the for Revoked Ozone National Ambient and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee area has attained the NAAQS; (2) Fully Program I. Background and Summary of Final approve the applicable implementation Action plan for the area under CAA section AGENCY: Environmental Protection The background for this action is 110(k); (3) Determine that the Agency (EPA). discussed in detail in our May 16, 2019 improvement in air quality is due to ACTION: Final rule. Proposal (84 FR 22093, ‘‘Proposal’’). In permanent and enforceable reductions that document we proposed to: (1) in emissions resulting from SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Approve the plan for maintaining both implementation of the applicable Air Act (CAA or the Act), the the revoked 1979 1-hour and 1997 8- implementation plan and Federal air Environmental Protection Agency (EPA hour ozone NAAQS 1 through 2032 in pollutant control regulations and other or Agency) is approving revisions to the the HGB area; (2) Approve 30 Texas permanent and enforceable reductions; Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) Administrative Code (TAC) sections (4) Fully approve a maintenance plan that pertain to the Houston-Galveston- 101.100–101.102, 101.104, 101.106– for the area as meeting the requirements Brazoria (HGB) area and the 1979 1-hour 101.110, 101.113, 101.116, 101.117, of CAA section 175A; and, (5) and 1997 8-hour ozone National 101.118(a)(1), 101.118(a)(3), and Determine the state containing such area Ambient Air Quality Standards 101.120–101.122 as an equivalent has met all requirements applicable to (NAAQS or standard). The EPA is alternative 185 fee program to address the area under CAA section 110 approving the plan for maintaining the CAA section 185; (3) Determine that the (Implementation plans) and Part D (Plan 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS through HGB area is continuing to attain both Requirements for Nonattainment Areas). the year 2032 in the HGB area. The EPA the revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone is determining that the HGB area As discussed in our Proposal, in the NAAQS; (4) Determine that Texas (‘‘the continues to attain the 1979 1-hour and Technical Support Document (TSD) for State’’) has met the CAA criteria for 2 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and has met this action, and in the remainder of this redesignation of the HGB area; and, (5) the five CAA criteria for redesignation. preamble, the five criteria above have Terminate all anti-backsliding Therefore, the EPA is terminating all been met. In past actions, we have obligations for the HGB area for both the anti-backsliding obligations for the HGB determined that the area has attained 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. area for the 1-hour and 1997 ozone the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS due In this final action, we are approving to permanent and enforceable measures NAAQS. The EPA is also approving the the plan for maintaining both the 1-hour (Criteria 1 and 3). As discussed in the Texas Severe Ozone Nonattainment and 1997 ozone NAAQS through the Proposal and in this final action, air Area Failure to Attain Fee regulations year 2032 in the HGB area. We are also quality in the HGB area has been for the HGB area as an equivalent approving the HGB Severe Ozone meeting the 1-hour standard since 2013 alternative program to address section Nonattainment Area Failure to Attain and the 1997 ozone standard since 2014. 185 of the CAA for the 1-hour ozone Fee regulations program as an As documented in the Proposal and the NAAQS. equivalent alternative program to TSD, numerous State, Federal and local DATES: This rule is effective on March address section 185 of the CAA for the measures have been adopted and 16, 2020. 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We are also implemented including NOx and Highly ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a determining that the HGB area continues to attain both the 1-hour and Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds docket for this action under Docket ID (HRVOC) 3 mass emissions cap and No. EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0715. All 1997 ozone NAAQS and has met the five criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) trade programs and federal on- and off- documents in the docket are listed on road emissions control programs which the https://www.regulations.gov for redesignation. The EPA revoked both the 1-hour and have resulted in significant reductions website. Although listed in the index, and resulted in attainment of the 1-hour some information is not publicly 1997 ozone NAAQS along with and 1997 ozone standards. available, e.g., Confidential Business associated designations and Information or other information whose classifications (69 FR 23951, April 30, We are also finding that the area has disclosure is restricted by statute. 2004; and, 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015), met all requirements under CAA section Certain other material, such as and thus, the HGB area has no copyrighted material, is not placed on designation under both the 1-hour or 2 There are three TSDs in the docket for this the internet and will be publicly 1997 ozone NAAQS that can be changed action. The first of the TSDs relates to the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) criteria, including, but not available only in hard copy form. through redesignation as governed by CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Therefore, we limited to the maintenance plan for the HGB area Publicly available docket materials are for the revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. available either electronically through are not promulgating a redesignation of The other two TSDs that are referred to later in this https://www.regulations.gov or in hard action relate to the HGB equivalent alternative 1 Throughout this document, we refer to the 1979 section 185 program. Unless otherwise noted, copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 1-hour ozone NAAQS as the ‘‘1-hour ozone ‘‘TSD’’ refers to the first instance described herein. Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas NAAQS’’ and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as the 3 HRVOCs are important to control as they react 75270. ‘‘1997 ozone NAAQS.’’ quickly to form ozone.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:15 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

110 and part D that are applicable for These comments are available for Memorandum regarding a Maintenance purposes of redesignation, and all such review in the docket for this Demonstration, ‘‘[a] State may generally requirements have been fully approved rulemaking. The comments were demonstrate maintenance of the (Criteria 2 and 5). As discussed in the submitted by the following: Earthjustice NAAQS by either showing that future Proposal, for the revoked ozone (on behalf of five national, regional, and emissions of a pollutant or its standards at issue here, over the past grassroots groups); Baker Botts, L.L.P on precursors will not exceed the level of three decades the State has submitted behalf of the Section 185 Working the attainment inventory or by modeling numerous SIPs for the HGB area to Group and BCCA Appeal Group (‘‘Baker to show that the future mix of sources implement those standards, improve air Botts’’); the Texas Commission on and emission rates will not cause a quality with respect to those standards, Environmental Quality (TCEQ or State); violation of the NAAQS.’’ Calcagni and address anti-backsliding the Texas Oil and Gas Association Memorandum at 4. Because the State’s requirements for those standards. The (TXOGA); and two anonymous estimated future EIs for the HGB area do TSD documents many of these actions commenters. Our responses to all not exceed the 2014 base year EI (i.e., and EPA approvals. However, EPA has relevant comments follow. Any other the attainment inventory), we would not consistently held the position that not comments received were either deemed expect the area to have emissions every requirement to which an area is irrelevant or beyond the scope of this leading to a violation of the 1-hour or subject is applicable for purposes of action and are also included in the 1997 ozone NAAQS. redesignation. See, e.g., September 4, docket to this action. We disagree that we must re-evaluate 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni A. Comments on the Plan for based on ‘‘typical ozone season day 4 (‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’). As Maintaining the Revoked Ozone values’’ because the EIs submitted by described in the Calcagni Memorandum, Standards the State and evaluated in our Proposal some of the Part D requirements, such were comprised of ozone season daily Comment: An anonymous commenter as demonstrations of reasonable further emissions of NOX and VOC. No re- progress, are designed to ensure that (‘‘Commenter’’) states that EPA evaluation is necessary. We agree that nonattainment areas continue to make mistakenly evaluates annual emissions we must determine that improvements progress toward attainment. EPA has inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in air quality are due to permanent and interpreted these requirements as not and volatile organic compounds (VOC) enforceable reductions in emissions in ‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of to show maintenance of the NAAQS. the HGB area, and we listed such redesignation under CAA section Commenter states that EPA must re- measures in Appendix A of our TSD. evaluate based on typical ozone season 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) because areas For example, one of the emission day values and show that permanent that are applying for redesignation to reduction measures adopted in the HGB and enforceable measures have been attainment are already attaining the Area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is enacted to maintain ozone season day standard. Similarly, as explained further the HRVOC emissions cap, whose averages that limit 1-hour and 8-hour below, EPA believes that the CAA estimated VOC emission reductions ozone levels. were 135.79 tons per day (tpd) (see 71 section 185 fee requirement is not Response: As described in our TSD, FR 52656, September 6, 2006). See applicable for the purposes of attainment of these ozone NAAQS is Appendix A in the TSD for a list of the redesignation. We note that we are determined by reviewing specific data permanent and enforceable measures approving the HGB equivalent averaged over a three-year period. For alternative section 185 fee program for approved in the HGB area under the 1- example, the 1997 ozone standard is 7 the revoked 1-hour ozone standard attained when the 3-year average of the hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. Finally, separately in this action but do not annual fourth highest daily maximum 8- in prior final actions, we established believe it is an applicable requirement hour average ambient air quality ozone that the HGB area has attained the 1- for redesignation. This means that we concentration is less than or equal to hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS due to are terminating this requirement. 5 permanent and enforceable emission 0.08 ppm (69 FR 23857, April 30, 8 Finally, we are fully approving the 2004).6 Also, as mentioned in our TSD, reductions. maintenance plan for the HGB area. As ground-level ozone is formed when NOX B. Comments on Termination of Anti- discussed in the Proposal, we agree that and VOC react in the presence of Backsliding Obligations for the Revoked Texas has provided a plan that sunlight. Therefore, having an inventory Ozone Standards demonstrates that the HGB area will of emissions for NO and VOC at the X We proposed to find that the HGB maintain attainment of the revoked 1- time the area first met both of these area met all five redesignation criteria in hour and 1997 standards until 2032. NAAQS (i.e., in 2014) helps determine CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), consistent The plan also includes contingency what levels of emissions would be with the decision of the U.S. Court of measures that would be implemented in needed to maintain these NAAQS in the Appeals for the District of Columbia the HGB area should the area monitor a HGB area. As indicated in our Proposal, Circuit in South Coast Air Quality violation of these standards in the the 2014 base year emission inventories Management District v. EPA, 882 F.3d future. (EIs) for NO and VOC represent the X 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (‘‘South Coast II’’) II. Response to Comments first year in which the HGB area is attaining both the 1-hour and 1997 for the revoked ozone standards and to We received comments from six ozone NAAQS and thus provide a terminate the anti-backsliding entities on the proposed rulemaking. starting point against which to evaluate obligations for the HGB area associated the EI levels estimated for future years. with these standards. In the alternative, 4 As referenced in our Proposal, see ‘‘Procedures In addition, consistent with the Calcagni we proposed to redesignate the HGB for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to area to attainment for the revoked ozone Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, standards, taking comment on whether Director, Air Quality Management Division, 5 This value becomes 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb when September 4, 1992. To view the memo, please visit rounding is considered. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 6 Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3- 7 The TSD is in the docket for this action and 03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_ year period must meet a data completeness Appendix A begins on page 14 of the TSD. processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_ requirement. For details, please see 40 CFR 50, 8 See 80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015 and 81 FR attainment_090492.pdf. Appendix I. 78691, November 8, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8413

we had authority to do so. In this action, nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone redesignation substitute, one of the based upon comments received, we are standard.11 EPA’s mechanisms for terminating anti- finalizing the first option. Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA backsliding, but only because it had Comment: Earthjustice states that cannot lawfully or rationally apply the addressed only some, and not all, of the criteria at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) to ozone is a serious health problem in statutory redesignation criteria: terminate anti-backsliding protections Houston. ‘‘The redesignation substitute request ‘is for the Houston area, because that based on’ the Clean Air Act’s ‘criteria for Response: We agree that ozone is a statutory provision provides only redesignation to attainment’ under [CAA significant health issue in the HGB area, minimum criteria that must be satisfied section 107(d)(3)(E)], 80 FR at 12,305, but it but we also recognize that significant before a designated nonattainment area does not require full compliance with all five progress has been made in reducing may be redesignated to attainment. conditions in [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)]. The ozone levels in the area. This action Earthjustice states that the provision Clean Air Act unambiguously requires recognizes that the HGB area has met air provides no authority to terminate anti- nonattainment areas to satisfy all five of the emissions reductions milestones with backsliding on the basis of an area conditions under [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)] respect to both the revoked 1-hour and before they may shed controls associated meeting its criteria for a revoked with their nonattainment designation. The 1997 ozone NAAQS. We also recognize standard. The commenter also states redesignation substitute lacks the following that further air quality improvement is that EPA does not and cannot identify requirements of [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)]: necessary in the area to meet the two a source of authority for its application (1) The EPA has ‘fully approved’ the [CAA current 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS of the statutory provision for the section 110(k)] implementation plan; (2) the and to protect public health. The HGB purposes of terminating anti-backsliding area’s maintenance plan satisfies all the area was designated as nonattainment provisions and has not purported to requirements under [CAA section 175A]; and for both the revoked 1-hour and 1997 create regulations here under its general (3) the state has met all relevant [CAA section 110 and Part D] requirements. 80 FR at ozone NAAQS and is designated as rulemaking authority of Clean Air Act section 301(a) to do so. Finally, the 12,305. Because the ‘redesignation substitute’ nonattainment for the two current (2008 does not include all five statutory and 2015) 8-hour ozone NAAQS.9 As a commenter alleges that the EPA’s requirements, it violates the Clean Air Act.’’ result, the State and HGB area— reliance on South Coast II to support its authority to terminate HGB’s anti- 882 F.3d at 1152. including local governments, business We disagree that the D.C. Circuit and industry—have implemented backsliding requirements for the two revoked ozone NAAQS is unlawful and ‘‘said nothing’’ with respect to how anti- measures to reduce emissions of NOX backsliding controls could be lawfully and VOC that form ozone (see, e.g., arbitrary. Earthjustice argues that the D.C. Circuit in South Coast II held only terminated for areas under a revoked Appendix A: Permanent and NAAQS. The court stated that the Act Enforceable Measures Implemented in that the redesignation substitute was unlawful because it fell short of certain ‘‘unambiguously’’ requires that all five the HGB Area, in the TSD for this statutory redesignation criteria be met action). Accordingly, the HGB area has statutory requirements and did not address any other reasons why the before anti-backsliding controls (i.e., seen its 1-hour ozone design values controls associated with the decrease from over 200 parts per billion regulation was unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter alleges that South Coast nonattainment designation for a revoked (ppb) in 1997 to 112 ppb in 2018. NAAQS) could be shed. Id. The court’s Likewise, the HGB area design values II ‘‘says nothing’’ about whether EPA could lawfully authorize termination of express basis for vacating the for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have redesignation substitute was that the decreased from 102 ppb in 2003 to 78 anti-backsliding requirements in the 10 circumstance addressed here, where the mechanism failed to incorporate all of ppb in 2018. Because the area has the statutory criteria as preconditions. attained the revoked 1-hour and 1997 area continues to violate the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and where Id. (‘‘Because the ‘redesignation ozone NAAQS, and has also met the substitute’ does not include all five other CAA statutory requirements for termination ‘‘weakens protections in the area.’’ Earthjustice states that the South statutory requirements, it violates the redesignation for these standards, we Clean Air Act.’’). We do not agree with believe it is appropriate to terminate the Coast II court’s holding with respect to the EPA’s authority to reclassify areas the commenter’s suggestion that the anti-backsliding requirements EPA may not rely on the court’s plain associated with these revoked NAAQS. after revocation is irrelevant to the question of the EPA’s authority to interpretation of the Act and act in The area will remain designated change an area’s designation after accordance with it. The EPA had nonattainment for the 2008 and 2015 revocation. previously approved redesignation ozone NAAQS. The HGB area was Response: We disagree that the EPA substitutes for the HGB area for the 1- recently reclassified as a Serious lacks authority to terminate an area’s hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone anti-backsliding requirements for a NAAQS. As discussed in our Proposal, NAAQS, and therefore the State must revoked NAAQS and that we may not this final action replaces our previous submit SIP revisions and implement do so here for the HGB area with respect approvals of the Houston area controls to satisfy the statutory and to the two revoked ozone NAAQS in redesignation substitutes for the 1-hour regulatory requirements for a Serious question. The commenter’s suggestion and 1997 ozone NAAQS. that the EPA may not look to the Furthermore, we reject the 9 For the 1-hour and 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone statutory redesignation criteria in CAA commenter’s suggestion that standards: The Houston nonattainment area section 107(d)(3)(E) for authority to nonattainment of the newer, current consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, NAAQS is a unique set of circumstances Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller terminate the HGB area’s anti- Counties (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991; 69 FR backsliding requirements is that would reasonably alter the EPA’s 23858, April 30, 2004; and 77 FR 30088, May 21, contradicted by the D.C. Circuit’s ability to either redesignate an area or 2012). For the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The decision in South Coast II. In that terminate anti-backsliding requirements Houston nonattainment area consists of Brazoria, for a prior NAAQS. Nothing in CAA Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and decision, the court faulted the Montgomery Counties (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). section 107(d)(3) suggests that the EPA’s 10 See the TCEQ ozone reports posted at https:// 11 See 83 FR 25576, June 4, 2018, and 84 FR approval of a redesignation or www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/monops/ozone. 44238, August 23, 2019. termination of anti-backsliding for one

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

NAAQS should include evaluation of the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS in ozone NAAQS, and a Serious attainment of another newer NAAQS. It this action. As noted above, the nonattainment area under the 2008 is common practice that areas designations for these areas were ozone NAAQS and as such, is required designated nonattainment for an earlier, revoked when the NAAQS were to implement NNSR consistent with the less stringent NAAQS come into revoked. In this action, EPA is Serious area classification, as required compliance with that NAAQS, meet the terminating the anti-backsliding by CAA sections 182(c)(6), 182(c)(7), requirements for redesignation for that requirements associated with the two 182(c)(8), and 182(c)(10).12 13 In NAAQS, and are redesignated to revoked NAAQS in this area. addition, approval of this final action attainment for that NAAQS, while Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA does not relieve sources in the area of remaining nonattainment for a newer arbitrarily fails to consider the their obligations under previously more stringent standard for the same consequences of terminating anti- established permit conditions. The pollutant. Indeed, with Congress’ backsliding protections. The commenter Texas SIP includes a suite of approved directive that the EPA review and revise asserts that the EPA is not legally permitting regulations for the Minor and the NAAQS as appropriate no less obligated to redesignate an area that Major NNSR for ozone that will frequently than every five years, it meets criteria of CAA section continue to apply in the HGB area even would be nearly impossible for areas to 107(d)(3)(E), and that additionally, the after final approval of this action.14 Each be redesignated to attainment for an EPA must also determine whether it of these permitting regulations has been older NAAQS if nonattainment of a should redesignate the area. Earthjustice evaluated and approved by EPA into the newer (often more stringent) standard states that finalization of this Proposal SIP as consistent with the requirements barred EPA from approving would ratify termination of key anti- of the CAA and protective of air quality, redesignation requests for the older backsliding protections, particularly the including the requirements at 40 CFR standard. Severe area NNSR protections that 51.160 whereby the TCEQ cannot issue We also disagree that this action’s would otherwise apply to proposed new a permit or authorize an activity that effects terminating anti-backsliding and modified stationary sources and will result in a violation of applicable requirements are in any way ‘‘unique.’’ work to impose more stringent limits on portions of the control strategy or that Areas that are redesignated to harmful ozone-forming pollution will interfere with attainment or attainment are permitted to stop attributable to those new and modified maintenance of a NAAQS. Thus, new applying nonattainment area New stationary sources. By authorizing sources and modifications will continue Source Review offsets and thresholds Houston to have weaker protections to be permitted and authorized under and transition to the Prevention of than it otherwise would, while still the existing SIP permitting requirements Significant Deterioration program, having severely harmful levels of ozone if they are determined to be protective which the EPA does not agree is an air pollution, Earthjustice claims that of air quality. unwarranted ‘‘weakening’’ of the EPA’s action irrationally deprives This action recognizes that the HGB protections. In this case, because the Houston communities of CAA public area met the requirements for HGB area remains nonattainment for the health protections intended to bring the redesignation for both the revoked 1- newer ozone NAAQS, it will continue to area expeditiously into compliance with hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS and as a be subject to nonattainment new source health-based ozone standards. result it is appropriate to relieve the area review (NNSR) emissions offsets and Response: As stated previously, we of the Severe NNSR requirements threshold requirements, tailored to the are not in this action redesignating the associated with these revoked current classifications that apply to the HGB area for the revoked NAAQS. standards. area. We do not agree that it is arbitrary Rather, we find that all five CAA Comment: Earthjustice states that or unlawful to hold areas that were statutory criteria for redesignation are Houston was the only area in Texas to nonattainment for a revoked NAAQS to met, and therefore anti-backsliding report violations of the revoked 1-hour the same standards that apply to areas obligations for the revoked NAAQS are standard in 2018, exceeding the that are nonattainment for the current appropriately terminated. We do not standard at eleven air monitor locations NAAQS. EPA does not agree with agree that the facts and circumstances on five days. Earthjustice states that commenter’s suggestion that areas that before us support the commenter’s EPA cannot rationally terminate anti- have reached attainment should be reading that, despite Texas having met backsliding protections in Houston as subject to a more stringent process to all five statutory criteria, the EPA the area continues to experience some of shed obligations under a revoked should withhold approval of the state’s the worst air pollution in the nation. NAAQS than the process required to request. Response: We do not agree that the shed obligations for a current NAAQS. We note that we have considered the HGB area experienced violations of the Finally, with respect to Earthjustice’s consequence of terminating anti- 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 2018. The area comment that the South Coast II court’s backsliding protections raised by the has consistently continued to attain that holding regarding reclassification does commenter, i.e., the Severe NAAQS since 2013. As noted above, the not support an interpretation that the classification requirements for NNSR. statutory requirements for redesignation EPA has the authority to alter We believe that the improvement in air (and in this case, for termination of anti- designations, the EPA is not finalizing a quality due to the permanent, change in designation for the area for enforceable controls included in the 12 See 84 FR 44238. the two revoked NAAQS. Because we Texas SIP for the HGB area makes 13 Liberty and Waller Counties are designated as are not redesignating the HGB area to termination of these Severe area attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone requirements appropriate and, as NAAQS, but these two counties are included in the attainment no further response to this Serious nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone specific comment is required. discussed previously, consistent with NAAQS, so they must implement NNSR as a Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA the Act’s provisions. Serious ozone nonattainment area. cannot lawfully or rationally change We note NNSR is still in place 14 For example, see the Texas SIP-approved rules Houston’s designation under revoked because the area remains nonattainment addressing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) at 30 TAC 116.12(20)(A), published at 79 FR standards. under the 2008 and 2015 standards. The 66626, November 10, 2014, and in Response: The EPA is not changing HGB area is classified as a Marginal www.regulations.gov docket ID: EPA–R06–OAR– the designation for the HGB area under nonattainment area under the 2015 2013–0808.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8415

backsliding) are not dependent on ozone NAAQS occurs when the be recorded for each calendar year and whether the area is failing to attain maximum hourly average concentration then averaged over the past 3 calendar newer, more stringent NAAQS. Nor do at an ozone monitor is above 0.12 parts years to determine if this average is less we think it would be appropriate to per million (or 120 ppb) 15 and as than or equal to 1. A violation occurs disapprove a state’s request to terminate Earthjustice notes, there were when this average is greater than 1. anti-backsliding because an area exceedances at monitors in the HGB Table 1 in this final action shows the 1- experienced worse air quality than other area. Six of the regulatory monitors in hour ozone exceedances by monitor in areas in the nation, if that area met the the HGB area each recorded one the HGB area for calendar years 2014 statutory criteria associated with exceedance, and a seventh regulatory through 2018 to demonstrate the area’s redesignation for that prior revoked monitor recorded two exceedances.16 continued attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. The HGB area continues to be However, these exceedances did not ozone NAAQS.17 In addition, Table 1 in subject to the CAA statutory and regulatory requirements to meet the result in a violation of the 1-hour ozone our Proposal provided the preliminary more stringent ozone NAAQS, and this NAAQS. As described earlier in this 2016–2018 1-hour and 1997 ozone action does not alter that obligation. document and in our TSD, the 1-hour design values for the HGB area. Quality- We acknowledge that in 2018 the ozone NAAQS is determined by assured data collected through 2018 and HGB area experienced several reviewing specific data averaged over a preliminary data for 2019 indicate that exceedances of the 1-hour ozone three-year period. The number of the area has continued to maintain these NAAQS. An exceedance of the 1-hour exceedances at a monitoring site would NAAQS (see Table 2).

TABLE 1—ONE-HOUR OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES BY MONITOR IN THE HGB AREA

Expected exceedances by year 3 Years expected exceedances HGB monitoring site (average) (AQS site) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014–2016 2015–2017 2016–2018

Manvel Croix (48–039–1004)...... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Lake Jackson (48–039–1016)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Galveston (48–167–1034)...... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Houston Aldine (48–201–0024)...... 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Channelview (48–201–0026)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Tomball (48–201–0029)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 Houston N Wayside (48–201–0046)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lang (48–201–0047)...... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 Croquet (48–201–0051)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston Bissonett (48–201–0055)...... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Monroe (48–201–0062)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston Hwy 6 (48–201–0066)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polk (48–201–0070) 18 ...... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Park Place (48–201–0416)...... 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Lynchburg Ferry (48–201–1015)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Baytown Garth (48–201–1017)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston East (48–201–1034)...... 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 Clinton Drive (48–201–1035)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Deer Park 2 (48–201–1039)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Seabrook (48–201–1050)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Conroe (48–339–0078)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TABLE 2—1-HOUR AND 1997 OZONE DESIGN VALUES FOR THE HGB AREA

1-Hour ozone 1997 ozone Years design value design value (ppb) (ppb)

2011–2013 ...... 121 87 2012–2014 ...... 111 80 2013–2015 ...... 120 80 2014–2016 ...... 120 79 2015–2017 ...... 120 81 2016–2018 ...... 112 78 2017–2019 (preliminary) 19 ...... 114 81

15 For ease of communication, many reports of HGB area for 2014 through 2017. At the time of this 18 The ozone monitor on Polk Avenue (AQS site ozone concentrations are provided in ppb. To writing, data for the last quarter of 2019 are not yet number 48–201–0070), was discontinued after × × convert, ppb = ppm 1000 (0.12 1000 = 120). posted in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) and 2012. Thus, 0.12 ppm = 120 ppb (this value becomes 124 thus, we are unable to add such to Table 1 in this 19 At the time of this writing, the preliminary ppb when rounding is considered). final action. For more information on the AQS, visit ozone data for 2019 are posted on the TCEQ website 16 See Table 1 in this final action. https://www.epa.gov/aqs. but are not yet posted in AQS. See https:// 17 Table 1 in our Proposal TSD provided the 1- www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/ hour ozone expected exceedances by monitor in the 8hr_attainment.pl.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Earthjustice states that Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA designated nonattainment for the 2008 unhealthy levels of ozone and other air arbitrarily concludes that relevant and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The HGB area pollutants disproportionally affect statutory and executive order reviews was recently reclassified as a Serious communities of color in the Houston are not required for this rule and EPA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone nonattainment area, including facilities wrongly asserts that the proposed action NAAQS, and therefore the State must that handle extremely hazardous would only accomplish a revision to the submit SIP revisions and implement substances whose emissions must be Texas SIP that EPA can only approve or controls to satisfy the statutory and reported to the Toxic Release Inventory disapprove. Earthjustice states that regulatory requirements for a Serious (TRI). Earthjustice includes a document through this rule, EPA proposes to area for the 2008 ozone standard.22 with their submitted comments titled, change and adopt national positions With respect to commenter’s concern ‘‘Evaluation of Vulnerability and regarding its authority to redesignate that we have not adequately addressed Stationary Source Pollution in Houston’’ areas under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) executive orders regarding children’s that evaluates particulate matter, total and terminate anti-backsliding health, we do not agree that Executive VOCs, and a 19-pollutant index over protections for revoked standards. Order 13045 applies to this action. three time periods (2007–2016, 2012– Earthjustice states these actions are not Executive Order (E.O.) 13045 applies to 2016, and 2016). Earthjustice states that SIP revisions and thus necessitate the ‘‘economically significant rules under the weakened NNSR requirements will statutory and executive order reviews E.O. 12866 that concern an allow more VOC emissions than EPA avoids by citing only a portion of environmental health or safety risk that otherwise would be permitted, and the actions it is taking in this EPA has reason to believe may communities along the Houston Ship rulemaking. Earthjustice states that, in disproportionately affect children.’’ See Channel already bear a disproportionate addition to the environmental justice 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997. As noted burden of VOC emissions. concerns relevant to the review required in the Proposal and below in section V Response: The EPA appreciates the by Executive Order 12898, EPA ignores of this preamble, this rule is not work the commenter has performed to other important considerations that are ‘‘economically significant’’ under E.O. evaluate potential disproportionate a part of rational decision-making like 12866 because it will not have ‘‘an impacts in vulnerable communities; in effects on children’s health and other annual effect on the economy of $100 this final action, however, we are public health factors. million or more or adversely affecting in Response: As stated previously, we addressing only the determination that a material way the economy, a sector of are not in this action redesignating the the HGB area is attaining the revoked the economy, productivity, competition, HGB area for the two revoked NAAQS. standards and meets the five criteria for jobs, the environment, public health or Earthjustice has not provided much redesignation, which leads to the safety, or State, local, or tribal detail regarding which statutory and termination of anti-backsliding governments or communities.’’ 62 FR executive order reviews it believes are measures. We note that emissions of 19885.23 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which applicable and that the EPA has not addressed. In section V of this notice, Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA are reported to the TRI, are regulated by should not revise the attainment other provisions of the CAA and we discuss EPA’s assessment of each statutory and executive order that designations in 40 CFR 81 because it has concerns regarding those emissions are failed to consider the consequences of outside the scope of this action.20 potentially applies to this action. We note that the introductory paragraph to doing so, including whether changes in The report referred to by the section VII of the Proposal preamble the designations listing will affect commenter examined the geographic contains a typographical error that may remaining maintenance plan and other distribution of 4 classes of emissions have caused some of the commenter’s requirements after redesignation. and whether certain communities are concern. The last sentence of that Response: In this action, we are not disproportionately impacted by these paragraph appears to indicate that the revising the designations for the HGB pollutants. The pollutants examined reason for EPA’s proposed assessment area for the two revoked ozone NAAQS, were Particulate Matter (PM), i.e., PM 2.5 that the action is exempt from the and therefore the comments regarding and PM VOCs and an index of 19 10, enumerated statutory and executive consequences of changing the area’s pollutants that are hazardous air orders is solely that the action is a designation are beyond the scope of this pollutants. Ozone was not one of the review of a SIP. However, that sentence final action. We are revising the 40 CFR pollutants examined. The approvability was intended to be inclusive of all the part 81 tables for the HGB area, which of this action is based on requirements reasons stated in the introductory currently reflect the approvals of the for ozone and the revoked standards paragraph, including that the approval area’s redesignation substitutes from being considered here. As discussed of the request to terminate anti- 2015 and 2016. For revoked standards, elsewhere, monitors throughout the backsliding does not impose new the sole purpose of the part 81 table is Houston area have recorded levels requirements on sources (i.e., ‘‘For that to help identify applicable anti- meeting both the 1 hour and 1997 8- reason’’ more appropriately would have backsliding obligations. Therefore, we hour standards for some time. Moreover, read ‘‘For these reasons’’). are revising the part 81 tables to reflect Texas will continue to have to work to With respect to the commenter’s that the HGB area has met all the reduce ozone precursors to meet the concern that EPA has not adequately redesignation criteria for the two 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. Finally, addressed environmental justice, we do revoked ozone NAAQS and therefore we note that the monitors violating the not agree that Executive Order 12898 anti-backsliding obligations associated 2015 ozone standard in the Houston applies to this action because this action area are located in Brazoria, Galveston, does not affect the level of protection 22 21 See 83 FR 25576 and 84 FR 44238. Harris, and Montgomery Counties. provided to human health or the 23 See also ‘‘Guide to Considering Children’s environment. In this action the level of Health When Developing EPA Actions: 20 Additional information on HAPs, including protection is provided by the ozone Implementing Executive Order 13045 and EPA’s what is being done to reduce HAPs, may be found Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children.’’ at https://www.epa.gov/haps. NAAQS and this action does not revise https://www.epa.gov/children/guide-considering- 21 See data posted at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/ the NAAQS. As noted earlier in this childrens-health-when-developing-epa-actions- cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl. final action, the HGB area will remain implementing-executive-order.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8417

with those two revoked NAAQS are Earthjustice states EPA predicts that future point source VOC emissions were terminated. point source VOC emissions will remain projected by using the 2014 values as a Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA exactly the same in 2032 and in all conservative estimate for all future arbitrarily flouts important intermediate years as they were in 2014, interim years. This approach is considerations relevant to this at 77.56 tpd. In its TSD, EPA does not consistent with EPA’s Emissions rulemaking, and states that this action’s explain how it arrived at its modeling Inventory Guidance document at 26. consequences on interstate and prediction and given the tremendous For point source NOX emissions, intrastate ozone transport are not growth of industrial facilities along the TCEQ took a different approach that is considered. Earthjustice states EPA Houston Ship Channel that are known also conservative and fully explained in failed to consider how redesignation to emit huge quantities of VOCs, it is the SIP submittal. We disagree that there will affect Texas’ interstate ozone difficult to see how this prediction is any disparity. As explained in the SIP transport obligations under existing holds. NOX emissions from point submittal some 90% of point source regulations and how redesignation of sources steeply increase from 95.11 to NOX emissions are covered under the the Houston area will affect attainment 128.77 tpd between 2014 and 2020 and Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) in other Texas areas, such as San remain practically identical until 2032, program.28 The 2016 base year Antonio and Dallas, both of which but EPA offers no explanation for the emissions were adjusted to estimate struggle with existing ozone pollution disparity. future daily emissions. TCEQ applied and are in nonattainment for several Response: As described in our the entire MECT cap to the first interim standards. Earthjustice states EPA must Proposal and TSD, EPA evaluated the year inventory (2020), which we believe consider the interstate and intrastate emission inventories submitted by the is a conservative estimate. In over 10 consequences of redesignating and State in its Maintenance Plan and we years of implementation of the MECT, relaxing anti-backsliding controls in the found the State’s approach and methods most facilities keep their emissions Houston area. of calculating the base year and future under the cap, to maintain compliance 25 Response: We are not redesignating year EIs appropriate. We disagree that with the allowable limits. For NOX the HGB area for the revoked 1-hour and we or the State did not provide an emissions sources not listed in the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We disagree that explanation for holding the point source MECT program, TCEQ also assumed EPA is required under the CAA to VOC emissions constant for the that additional emissions would occur consider the effect of this action on projection years for the purposes of based on the possible use of emission interstate and intrastate ozone transport demonstrating that the standard would credits, which are banked emissions before it may terminate the HGB area’s be maintained. As TCEQ explains in its reductions that may return to the HGB anti-backsliding requirements with SIP, it was following EPA guidance area in the future through the use of respect to the two revoked ozone (noting that emissions trends for ozone emission reduction credits (ERCs) and NAAQS in question, and we do not precursors have generally declined) and discrete emissions reduction credits agree that such considerations are thus, for planning purposes, TCEQ (DERCs). All banked (i.e., available for important or relevant to this found it reasonable to hold point source use in future years) and recently-used rulemaking. At the outset, we note that emissions constant, rather than show ERCs and DERCs were added 29 to the the State is projecting HGB area ozone such emissions as declining.26 For future year inventories. We believe this precursor emissions will decrease, projection year EIs, TCEQ designated is a conservative estimate because reducing the HGB area’s impact on other the 2016 EI as the baseline from which historical use of the DERC has been less areas. to project future-year emissions because than 10 percent of the projected rate— Interstate ozone transport is addressed using the most recent point source including all the banked ERCs and under CAA section 110(a)(2),24 and emissions data would capture the most DERCs in the 2020 inventory assumes a Texas’ interstate transport obligations recent economic conditions and any scenario where all available banked under the Act are not in any way altered recent applicable emissions controls. As credits would be used in 2020, which is by this action. To the extent that Texas TCEQ further describes in its SIP, TCEQ inconsistent with past credit usage. has outstanding interstate ozone noticed that the 2014 attainment year Despite the conservative assumptions transport obligations under CAA section VOC emissions are higher than future- for point source growth, the total 110(a)(2)(D), they remain obligated to year emissions projected from the sum emissions estimated by the State for all address those statutory requirements of the 2016 baseline emissions plus anthropogenic sources of NOX and VOC 27 after finalization of this action. available emission credits. Therefore, in the HGB area for 2020, 2026, and The TCEQ has also proposed Serious 2032 are lower than those estimated for Area attainment plans for the Houston 25 See https://www.epa.gov/moves/emissions- models-and-other-methods-produce-emission- 28 and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) areas for The MECT is mandatory under the Texas SIP inventories#locomotive. for stationary facilities that emit NOX in the HGB the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, and 26 See EPA’s ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for area which are subject to emission specifications in those submittals—including any Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter the Texas NOX rules at 30 TAC Sections 117.310, obligation to address intrastate transport National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 117.1210, and 117.2010; and which are located as as necessary to attain the NAAQS—will and Regional Haze Regulations’’ published May a site where they collectively have an uncontrolled 2017, EPA–454/b–17–002. Section 5, beginning on design capacity to emit 10 tpy or more of NOX. The also be evaluated in separate actions. p. 119 of this Guidance document addresses program sets a cap on NOX emissions and facilities Comment: Earthjustice states that Developing Projected Emissions Inventories. This are required to meet NOX allowances on an annual EPA’s Proposal leaves important Guidance document is available on EPA’s website basis. Facilities may purchase, bank, or sell their modeling questions unaddressed. at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ allowances. 82 FR 21919, May 11, 2017. air-emissions-inventory-guidance-documents. 29 The ERCs were divided by 1.15 before being 27 Not to be confused with the 2016 baseline and added to the future year EIs to account for the 24 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State as noted earlier in this action, the 2014 base year NNSR permitting offset ratio for moderate ozone Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean EIs for NOX and VOC represent the first year in nonattainment areas. Since the area is now Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ which the HGB area is attaining both the 1-hour and classified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 1997 ozone NAAQS and thus, the 2014 EI is also however, any ERCs actually used will have to be 2013. To view the guidance, see https:// called the attainment inventory. The 2014 divided by 1.2. See the SIP submittal for more www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/ attainment inventory provides a starting point specific detail on how Texas assumed and documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_ against which to evaluate the EI levels estimated for calculated the ERC and DERC use for the future EI elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf. future years. years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

2014 (the attainment inventory year). by the State, area governments and examines all five criteria, finds them to Consistent with the Calcagni industry, federal measures, and be met in the HGB area, and terminates Memorandum regarding a Maintenance others.34 the relevant anti-backsliding obligations Demonstration, ‘‘[a] State may generally Comment: Earthjustice asserts that for the HGB area, thereby replacing the demonstrate maintenance of the EPA must either create regulations to prior invalid approvals for the HGB NAAQS by either showing that future authorize termination of anti- area. We do not agree that given the emissions of a pollutant or its backsliding protections when certain circumstances here, the parties must precursors will not exceed the level of conditions are met or reverse its duly wait for EPA to promulgate a national the attainment inventory or by modeling adopted, nationally applicable position regulation codifying what the D.C. to show that the future mix of sources that EPA lacks authority to redesignate Circuit has already indicated the CAA and emission rates will not cause a areas under revoked standards. allows before we may replace the violation of the NAAQS.’’ Calcagni Earthjustice states that either action redesignation substitutes for the HGB Memorandum at 4. Because the State’s would be reviewable exclusively in the area. estimated future EIs for the HGB area do D.C. Circuit. Earthjustice further asserts As such, we do not agree that this not exceed the 2014 attainment year EI, that even if aspects of EPA’s action action is reviewable exclusively in the we do not expect the area to have constitute a locally or regionally D.C. Circuit. Under CAA section emissions sufficient to cause a violation applicable action that overbears the 307(b)(1), of the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS. nationally applicable aspects of the A petition for review of action of the In addition, NNSR offsets will action, Earthjustice believes that EPA’s Administrator in promulgating [certain continue to be required in the HGB area action would still be ‘‘based on a enumerated actions] or any other nationally because all eight counties are also determination of nationwide scope and applicable regulations promulgated, or final designated nonattainment, and effect’’ (citing CAA section 307(b)(1)). action taken, by the Administrator under this currently classified as Serious, under Earthjustice asserts that ‘‘EPA expressly chapter may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The required proposed in its FR publication to base Columbia. A petition for review of [certain NNSR offset for the HGB area at this action on that determination (via either enumerated actions] or any other final action time is 1.2:1 for sources emitting at least pathway),’’ but also states that if a more of the Administrator under this chapter . . . 50 tpd, consistent with the Serious area specific finding and publication were which is locally or regionally applicable may requirements provided in CAA section necessary, that EPA is obligated to make be filed only in the United States Court of 182(c)(10).30 Whether a new or modified the finding and publish it because EPA’s Appeals for the appropriate circuit. major source in the HGB area chooses to action here is a determination of Notwithstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review of any action referred to offset NOX or VOC or a combination of nationwide scope and effect. The commenter concludes that the venue for in such sentence may be filed only in the the two, the offsets must be made in the United States Court of Appeals for the same eight-county ozone nonattainment judicial review of this action therefore District of Columbia if such action is based area. necessarily lies in the D.C. Circuit. on a determination of nationwide scope or Finally, despite population and Response: First, as noted earlier, the effect and if in taking such action the economic growth, emissions of NOX and EPA is not in this action changing Administrator finds and publishes that such VOC in the HGB area have been HGB’s designation, so Earthjustice’s action is based on such a determination. decreasing since 1990. Emissions of comments on that point are beyond the To the extent the commenter is asserting NOX in the 8-county HGB area have scope of this final action. Second, we otherwise, we do not agree that this is dropped from approximately 1368.97 disagree that promulgation of a a ‘‘nationally applicable’’ action under tpd (1990 base year under the 1-hour regulation authorizing the action taken CAA section 307(b)(1). This final action ozone NAAQS) to 459.94 tpd (2011 base here is necessary or being undertaken in approves a request from the State of year under the 2008 ozone NAAQS) and this notice. As mentioned earlier in this Texas to find that the State has met all emissions of VOC have dropped from final action, we believe the D.C. five of the statutory criteria for approximately 1491.65 tpd (1990 base Circuit’s decision in South Coast II redesignation under CAA section year) to 531.40 tpd (2011 base regarding the vacatur of the 107(d)(3)(E) for the HGB area, it year).31 See 59 FR 55586, November 8, redesignation substitute mechanism approves the submitted CAA section 1994, and 84 FR 3708, February 13, made clear that under the CAA, areas 175A(d) maintenance plan for the HGB 2019.32 The HGB SIP must be further may shed anti-backsliding controls area into the Texas SIP, and it approves revised to meet the emission reductions where all five redesignation criteria are the State’s submitted equivalent required by CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) for met. Through this final action, we are alternative program addressing fees the Serious ozone nonattainment replacing our previous approvals of the under CAA section 185 for the HGB classification under the 2008 ozone redesignation substitutes for the HGB area. The legal and immediate effect of NAAQS.33 This progress reflects efforts area for the revoked 1979 1-hour and the action terminates anti-backsliding 1997 ozone NAAQS, because that controls for only the HGB area with 30 The HGB area is designated as a Serious ozone mechanism was rejected by the D.C. respect to two revoked NAAQS and NAA under the 2008 ozone NAAQS (84 FR 44238). Circuit for its failure to include all five 31 The 1990 base year includes 335.47 tpd in amends the 40 CFR part 81 tables biogenic VOC emissions. Biogenic emissions, i.e., statutory redesignation criteria. Per the accordingly for only the HGB area. emissions from natural sources such as plants and D.C. Circuit’s direction, this action Nothing in this action has legal effects trees, are not required to be included in the 2011 in any area of the country outside of the base year. an additional average of 3% emission reductions HGB area or Texas on its face. See 32 We approved the area’s Reasonable Further from 2017 through the attainment year (2020), plus Progress (RFP) plan for the Moderate ozone NAAQS an additional 3% emissions reductions to meet the Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA, 808 F.3d under the 2008 ozone NAAQS showing 15% contingency measure requirement (see https:// 875, 881 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (‘‘To determine emission reductions from 2011 through the www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw/dfw-latest- whether a final action is nationally attainment year (2017), plus an additional 3% ozone for the State’s proposed Serious area RFP). applicable, ‘this Court need look only to emission reductions to meet the contingency See also 84 FR 44238. measure requirement. 34 See also https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act- the face of the rulemaking, rather than 33 The State recently proposed a SIP revision to overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving- to its practical effects.’ ’’ (internal meet RFP Serious area requirements for HGB with peoples-health. citations omitted)). The fact that this is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8419

the first area in the country for which Comment: The TCEQ stated that our 81 of the Code of Federal Regulations to EPA will have approved termination of past failure to provide for a legally valid show the HGB area as an attainment anti-backsliding per CAA requirements mechanism for termination of anti- area under the revoked 1-hour and 1997 after South Coast II does not entail that backsliding obligations for revoked ozone NAAQS. Commenters contend the action itself is ‘‘nationally standards has created uncertainty and that such an approach will more fully applicable.’’ our reluctance to redesignate for the clarify that the area has satisfied all Earthjustice next contends that even if revoked standards creates severe requirements with respect to the it is true that EPA’s final action is not economic consequences for the public, revoked NAAQS, mitigating the nationally applicable but is locally or regulated industry, and states. TCEQ potential for future challenges or regionally applicable, that judicial added that (1) certainty on the issue of confusion due to uncertainty regarding review of this action should still reside how the EPA must act to remove anti- the area’s attainment status. in the D.C. Circuit because EPA’s action backsliding requirements is an absolute is based on a determination of necessity for states, potentially Response: EPA disagrees with nationwide scope or effect. The impacted regulated businesses, and Commenters regarding our authority to commenter alleges that ‘‘EPA has citizens and (2) continued redesignate an area under the revoked 1- expressly proposed in its FR publication implementation of programs required hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. As to base action on that determination (via for revoked, less stringent standards is explained above, in revoking both the 1- either pathway).’’ This is plainly untrue. costly and takes resources away from hour and 1997 ozone standards, EPA Nowhere in the Proposal or in this final states and localities that are necessary to revoked the associated designations action did EPA make a finding that the meet more stringent standards. under those standards and stated we action is based on a determination of Response: We understand the value of had no authority to change designations. nationwide scope or effect. The regulatory certainty. We also understand See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004, 80 FR requirements under CAA section that there is a cost for implementing 12264, March 6, 2015, and NRDC v. 307(b)(1) that would allow for review of required programs for revoked, less EPA, 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014) a locally or regionally applicable action stringent standards. We have (explaining that EPA revoked the 1-hour in the D.C. Circuit—i.e., that EPA makes endeavored to provide flexibility to NAAQS ‘‘in full, including the a finding that the action is based on a states on implementation approaches associated designations’’ in the action at determination of nationwide scope or and control measures. The D.C. Circuit issue in South Coast Air Quality effect and that EPA publishes such a has upheld our revocation of previous Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d finding—have not been met. See Dalton ozone standards as long as sufficient 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (‘‘South Coast I’’)). Trucking, 808 F.3d at 882. anti-backsliding measures are The recent D.C. Circuit decision Comment: The TCEQ states that Table maintained. In South Coast II, the court addressing reclassification under a 1 in the Proposal (84 FR 22093, 22095) was clear that anti-backsliding measures revoked NAAQS did not address EPA’s incorrectly lists the preliminary 2016– could be shed if all five requirements for interpretation that it lacks the ability to 2018 1-hour ozone design value as 110 redesignation in CAA section alter an area’s designation post- parts per billion (ppb) and the design 107(d)(3)(E) had been met. We are revocation of a NAAQS. Moreover, the value should be updated to 112 ppb. finding here that Texas has met all court’s reasoning for requiring EPA to Response: We agree and have updated redesignation criteria necessary for reclassify areas under revoked standards the data (see Table 2) in this rulemaking termination of the anti-backsliding was that a reclassification to a higher action. measures for the HGB area. classification is a control measure that Comment: TCEQ, Baker Botts, and Comment: TCEQ, Baker Botts, and constrains ozone pollution by imposing TXOGA submitted comments TXOGA (‘‘Commenters’’) state that (1) stricter measures associated with the supporting our alternative Proposal to we continue to have authority to higher classification. The same logic redesignate the HGB area to attainment redesignate areas from ‘‘nonattainment’’ does not apply to redesignations, for the revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone to ‘‘attainment’’ post-revocation of a because redesignations do not impose standards. NAAQS; and (2) if we determine we do Response: After carefully considering not have authority to redesignate areas new controls and can provide areas the comments on this issue, we continue to to attainment post-revocation, we opportunity to shed nonattainment area believe that we cannot redesignate areas clearly have authority to determine that controls, provided doing so does not to attainment for the revoked ozone an area has met all redesignation interfere with maintenance of the standards (80 FR 12264, 12296–97, requirements necessary for termination NAAQS. Therefore, we do not think it 12304–05, March 6, 2015). When we of anti-backsliding requirements. follows that the EPA is required to revoked the ozone standards, we also Commenters state that EPA should statutorily redesignate areas under a revoked the designations for those redesignate the Houston area to revoked standard simply because the standards (69 FR 23951, 23969–70, attainment under the revoked 1-hour court held that the Agency is required April 30, 2004 and 80 FR 12264, 12287, and 1997 ozone NAAQS. Commenters to continue to reclassify areas to a March 6, 2015). Therefore, the HGB area state that EPA provides no statutory higher classification when they fail to has no designation under the 1-hour or basis not to redesignate the area under attain. However, consistent with the 1997 ozone NAAQS that can be changed these NAAQS. Commenters state that South Coast II decision, we do have the through redesignation as governed by the D.C. Circuit recently held that EPA authority to determine that an area has CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Thus, we are must continue to revise an area’s met all the applicable redesignation not redesignating the HGB area to classification under a revoked standard criteria for a revoked ozone standard attainment for the revoked ozone should the area fail to timely attain, and and terminate the remaining anti- standards. Where we find an area has that it is not clear why the D.C. Circuit’s backsliding obligations for that met the requirements of CAA section holding as to classifications should not standard. We are therefore revising the 107(d)(3)(E), we can and believe we be extended to designations. tables in 40 CFR part 81 to reflect that should terminate anti-backsliding Commenters encourage EPA to the HGB area has attained the revoked requirements that are carried with these determine that it also has the authority 1979 1-hour and revoked 1997 8-hour revoked standards. to, and should, revise the listings in Part NAAQS, and that all anti-backsliding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

obligations with respect to those two in South Coast II was clear that this improvement programs, and projects NAAQS are terminated. could be done if all the CAA criteria for according to the requirements of the Comment: TCEQ stated that when we a redesignation had been met. transportation conformity regulations at began stating that we no longer make Comment: TCEQ commented that the 40 CFR part 93.35 findings of failure to attain or reclassify CAA makes no distinction between The TCEQ offers its own basis to areas for revoked standards, we revoked or effective standards regarding expand the rationale for EPA’s action by provided no rationale supporting why EPA’s authority to redesignate. TCEQ citing the transportation conformity we would no longer do so. also commented that reading the CAA regulations at 40 CFR 93.109(c), which Response: As noted above, in the section granting authority for provides that a regional emissions Phase I rule to implement the 1997 designations generally, it is apparent analysis for conformity is only required ozone standard, we revoked the 1-hour that Congress intended the same for a nonattainment or maintenance area NAAQS and designations for that procedures be followed regardless of the until the effective date of revocation of standard (see 69 FR 23951, 23969–70, status of the NAAQS in question. TCEQ the applicable NAAQS. The TCEQ April 30, 2004). Accordingly, there was added that nothing in CAA section 107 concludes that this sufficiently justifies neither a 1-hour standard against which creates differing procedures when we EPA’s determination not to act on the to make findings for failure to attain nor revoke a standard or qualifies our MVEBs in this SIP submittal because the 1-hour nonattainment areas to mandatory duty to act on redesignation effective date of revocation for both the reclassify. We also explained that it submittals from states. 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS has would be counterproductive to continue Response: None of the substantive passed, and therefore a regional to impose new obligations with respect provisions of the CAA make distinctions emissions analysis for conformity is no to the revoked 1-hour standard given between revoked and effective NAAQS longer required for these NAAQS in the on-going implementation of the newer and the redesignation provision in HGB area. However, EPA notes that 40 8-hour 1997 NAAQS. Id. at 23985. We section 107 is no different. Nonetheless, CFR 93.109 represents the criteria and recognize that subsequent court as noted above, at the time that we procedures for determining conformity decisions, such as the South Coast II revoked the ozone NAAQS in question, in cases where a determination is decision, have affected our view. The we also revoked all designations required. As previously explained, the South Coast II decision vacated our associated with that NAAQS. We HGB area is not required to demonstrate waiver of the statutory attainment therefore do not think a statutory conformity under the revoked 1-hour deadlines associated with the revoked redesignation is available for an area and 1997 ozone NAAQS, hence 40 CFR 1997 ozone NAAQS, for areas that fail that no longer has a designation. 93.109(c) is not an applicable rationale to meet an attainment deadline for the However, in South Coast II, the D.C. for the HGB area. 1997 ozone standard, and we are Circuit found that the CAA allows areas Comment: TCEQ stated that we have determining how to implement that under a revoked NAAQS to shed anti- the authority to, and should, revise the decision going forward. backsliding controls if the statutory designations listing in 40 CFR 81 to Comment: TCEQ commented that if redesignation criteria are met. better reflect the status of applicable we interpreted revocation of ozone Comment: The TCEQ suggests that the anti-backsliding obligations for the standards as limiting our authority to EPA should expand upon the rationale areas. implement all statutory rights and provided in our Proposal for our Response: We believe that we have obligations, including the rights of states decision to take no action on the the authority to revise the tables in 40 to be redesignated to attainment, it maintenance motor vehicle emission CFR 81 to better reflect the status of would cause an absurd result: i.e., budgets (MVEBs) related to the 1-hour applicable anti-backsliding obligations, implementing anti-backsliding measures and 1997 ozone NAAQS. particularly because those tables in perpetuity. The commenter added Response: The conformity discussion currently reflect the invalid that it would subvert one of the in our May 21, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR redesignation substitutes that this final foundational principles of the CAA— 30160) to establish classifications under action is replacing. We are making restricting the right of states to be freed the 2008 ozone NAAQS explains that ministerial changes to the tables for the from obligations that apply to our revocation of the 1-hour standard 1-hour and 1997 ozone standards in 40 nonattainment areas upon the states under the 1997 ozone Phase I CFR 81.344 to better reflect the status of achieving the primary purpose of Title implementation rule and the associated applicable anti-backsliding obligations I of the CAA—to attain the NAAQS. anti-backsliding provisions were the for the HGB area. Response: The ‘‘absurd result’’ noted subject of the South Coast I litigation by the commenter is that an area would (South Coast Air Quality Management C. Comments on the HGB Section 185 need to implement anti-backsliding District, 472 F.3d at 882). The Court in Fee Equivalent Alternative Program measures in perpetuity. Through this South Coast I affirmed that conformity Comment: Comments were received action we are terminating anti- determinations need not be made for a from Earthjustice and an anonymous backsliding controls for the HGB area revoked standard. Instead, areas would commenter that the CAA does not allow upon a determination that the five use adequate or approved MVEBs that for approval of any alternative program statutory criteria of CAA section had been established for the now for the CAA section 185 fee program. 107(d)(3)(E) have been met. Therefore, revoked NAAQS in transportation Earthjustice states that by its plain terms although we are not redesignating the conformity determinations for the new CAA section 172(e) applies directly only HGB area to attainment for the revoked NAAQS until the area has adequate or to the circumstance where EPA weakens ozone standards, the ‘‘absurd result’’ approved MVEBs for the new NAAQS. a standard and that is not the noted by the commenter does not As explained in our May 16, 2019 circumstance here. They further state remain. proposal, the HGB area already has NOX The EPA does believe it is appropriate and VOC MVEBs for the 2008 ozone 35 Transportation Conformity Guidance for the for states to be freed from anti- NAAQS, which are currently used to South Coast II Court Decision, EPA–420–B–18–050. November 2018, available on EPA’s web page at backsliding requirements in place for make conformity determinations for https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local- the revoked NAAQS in certain both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS transportation/policy-and-technical-guidance-state- circumstances, and we believe the court for transportation plans, transportation and-local-transportation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8421

that the rational interpretation of section approve section 185 fee equivalent this provision to NOX, by providing that 172(e) for when EPA strengthens a alternative programs has been affirmed ‘‘plan provisions required under standard is that it bars weakening of by the United States Court of Appeals [subpart D] for major stationary sources protections but does not authorize EPA for the Ninth Circuit in Natural Res. Def. of [VOC] shall also apply to major 37 to depart from the program Congress Council v. EPA, 779 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. stationary sources . . . of [NOX].’’ unambiguously required. The 2015) (finding that ‘‘[b]ecause EPA Nothing in the language of CAA sections anonymous commenter also stated that reasonably interpreted CAA § 172(e) to 182(f) and 185 states that VOC and NOX EPA’s 2010 guidance pertaining to give it authority to approve programs cannot be aggregated in the baseline section 185 fee programs is illegal as the that are alternative to, but not less calculation for a source and the CAA does not allow for any alternative stringent than, § 185 fee programs, commenters have not provided a methods. EPA’s approval of . . . such an reasoned explanation for why this Response: CAA section 172(e) alternative program, after reasoned would be so. provides that when the Administrator consideration and notice and comment The overall goal of subpart 2 of Part relaxes a NAAQS, the EPA must ensure procedure regarding [the rule’s] D of Title 1 is to bring areas into that all areas which have not attained stringency and approach to fee attainment of the ozone standard. Both that NAAQS maintain ‘‘controls which collecting, was proper.’’). VOCs and NO are precursors in the are not less stringent than the controls To the extent the anonymous X formation of ozone and reductions of applicable to areas designated commenter is challenging the 2010 both are beneficial to reducing ozone in nonattainment before such relaxation.’’ guidance document itself, that is outside the HGB area. Therefore, we believe it EPA agrees with the commenter that the scope of this action. Although the is reasonable that Texas provided section 172(e) does not apply directly to 2010 guidance pertaining to section 185 flexibility in establishing the baseline to supplanting one NAAQS with a stronger fee programs was previously vacated allow aggregation of the pollutants. standard, but the EPA has long applied and remanded by the D.C. Circuit, the the principles of CAA section 172(e) court’s holding was based on procedural With regard to aggregating emissions following revocation of ozone standards. grounds. The court did not adversely among major sources in different See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015) rule on the permissibility of equivalent locations but under common control, (revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS); 69 alternative programs, stating ‘‘neither this provides for some consistency with FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) (revoking the the statute nor our case law obviously the HGB attainment plan for the 1-hour 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Because precludes that alternative.’’ NRDC v. ozone standard (71 FR 52670, EPA has historically applied the EPA, 643 F.3d 311, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2011). September 6, 2006). The 1-hour ozone principles of section 172(e) to define Comment: Earthjustice commented plan achieved very significant what are reasonable anti-backsliding that even if EPA could allow an reductions through Cap and Trade controls following revocation of the 1- alternative fees program, EPA cannot Programs for NOX and for HRVOCs. (As hour and 1997 standards, we believe it approve the HGB alternative program noted earlier, HRVOCs react quickly to is reasonable to continue to look to that because it is less stringent than what the form ozone, thus making them provision to determine that it is CAA requires as it allows impermissible important to control with regard to the reasonable to provide for equivalent VOC and NOX baseline aggregation. 1-hour ozone standard.) These cap and alternative programs to address anti- Earthjustice alleges that this is less trade programs allowed sources to trade backsliding requirements. For the past stringent than CAA section 185, which NOX and HRVOCs allowances amongst ten years, the EPA has interpreted the requires each major stationary source of themselves, providing the flexibility for principles of section 172(e) as VOCs to reduce emissions or pay a fee. more controls to be applied to one authorizing the Administrator to Earthjustice comments that section source to offset less controls applied to approve on a case-by-case basis and 182(f) similarly extends an independent another source. Overall, the Cap and through rulemaking, alternatives to the fee obligation to each major stationary Trade Program for NOX was designed to applicable CAA section 185 fee source of NOX. Earthjustice further achieve a nominal 80% reduction in programs associated with a revoked alleges that the HGB program allows area-wide point source NOX emissions. ozone NAAQS that are ‘‘not less aggregation of emissions across sources The HRVOC Cap and Trade Program stringent.’’ See generally 80 FR 12264, in different locations but under common also achieved significant reduction of 12306 (March 6, 2015); 84 FR 12511 control, which is less stringent than these emissions. The flexibility (April 2, 2019) (approval of a section direct application of section 185. provided by these emissions trading 185 fee equivalent alternative program Earthjustice also commented that VOC programs was important to the success for the New York portion of the New and NOX baseline aggregation creates of the 1-hour ozone plan in achieving its York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, serious environmental justice issues. aggressive goals to significantly reduce NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area for the 1- The commenter noted under the HGB ozone levels and attain the 1-hour ozone hour ozone NAAQS); 77 FR 74372 program major sources can offset higher standard. Given our prior SIP approval (December 14, 2012) (same for the South VOC emissions by reducing NOX of the HGB area Cap and Trade Coast nonattainment area); 77 FR 50021 emissions and that among VOCs are Programs, which helped to achieve (August 20, 2012) (same for the San highly toxic compounds, like the significant ozone emission reductions Joaquin Valley nonattainment area); and carcinogen benzene. and eventual attainment of the 1-hour the January 5, 2010 EPA guidance on Response: We do not believe anything standard in the area, it is reasonable to developing CAA section 185 fee in the Act precludes provisions that approve the HGB equivalent alternative programs for the 1-hour ozone standard allow aggregation of VOC and NOX section 185 fee program that allows for (2010 guidance).36 EPA’s ability to emissions in calculating a source’s similar aggregation of emissions from baseline emissions. CAA section 185 sources in different locations but under 36 ‘‘Guidance on Developing Fee Programs expressly applies only to VOC, but common control. Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1- hour Ozone NAAQS’’, January 5, 2010 section 182(f) extends the application of memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA 37 Under CAA section 182(f) areas may obtain a Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, files/2015-09/documents/1hour_ozone_ ‘‘NOX waiver’’ from these requirements, but such a available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ nonattainment_guidance.pdf. waiver does not exist for the HGB area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

With respect to the commenter’s FR 48647, August 19, 2005).38 Texas M) test by providing funding to eligible concern that baseline aggregation could relied upon reductions from the TERP vehicle owners. As such, it could result in higher VOC emissions that program in the HGB 1-hour ozone SIP improve timely compliance with the I/ include toxic compounds, the CAA’s submitted December 17, 2004 and M program. Consistent with the I/M provisions for implementing the ozone approved in 2006 (70 FR 52670, program implemented in the HGB area, NAAQS do not directly address September 6, 2006). Based on the money vehicles must comply with the emissions of toxic VOCs. As noted allocated to TERP through 2007, the applicable vehicle emissions I/M above, nothing in the CAA prohibits the State committed in the 1-hour ozone requirements in order to pass the aggregation of VOC and NOX emissions attainment planning SIP that 38.8 tpd of inspection. These I/M requirements in establishing the baseline under emission reductions would be achieved apply regardless of whether the vehicle section 185. Our approval or by the TERP program before the 1-hour operator is eligible for the LIRAP. The disapproval of the HGB equivalent attainment date. The emission LIRAP was not included as a control alternative section 185 fee program reductions were achieved through measure relied on in the attainment considers whether the program is as issuance of grants to equipment owners demonstration for the 1-hour ozone stringent for the purposes of ozone and operators to implement projects by standard in the HGB area and therefore control as a section 185 fee program. 2007. While the State has continued to is not part of the SIP for the HGB area. While the CAA’s NAAQS provisions do allocate money to the TERP after the 1- In the October 7, 2016 action that the not directly address emissions of toxic hour ozone NAAQS attainment date of commenter cites, we were referring to VOCs, other CAA provisions address 2007, the money goes to projects whose EPA approval of LIRAP provisions for toxic VOCs. See CAA section 112. emissions reductions are surplus to the Travis and Williamson Counties. Comment: Earthjustice commented 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, Specifically, the footnote for the that the HGB alternative program is less i.e., Texas has not otherwise taken sentence that the commenter cites refers stringent than what the CAA requires as credit for these emission reductions in to a final rule published August 8, 2005 it creates no new incentives for reducing the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 45542). In that rule, we approved emissions and uses programs that are nonattainment planning (70 FR 52670, into the SIP provisions to implement the already part of the Texas SIP for the 52677). The continuation of the TERP LIRAP as a voluntary program for Travis HGB area. With respect to the Texas program after 2007 was not required and Williamson Counties in the Austin- Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), the under the previously approved HGB 1- Round Rock area. We did note in our commenter cited to a May 11, 2017 EPA hour ozone standard SIP and any funds October 7, 2016 Federal Register action action approving 30 TAC 101.357 (Use collected and resulting emission that LIRAP is a voluntary program that of Emission Reductions Generated from reductions achieved after 2007 are any county participating in the Texas the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan surplus to what was required under the vehicle I/M program may elect to (TERP)) for the HGB area, in which we 1-hour ozone standard attainment SIP. implement in order to enhance the stated that HGB ‘‘[s]ite owners or As there was no requirement to objectives of the Texas I/M program (81 operators unable to meet [emissions continue the TERP program after 2007, FR 69679, 69680). In a later action limitations in a cap and trade program] we believe that the HGB equivalent finalizing approval of the LIRAP and desiring to use TERP emission alternative section 185 fee program can removal in the Austin-Round Rock area, reductions for compliance relief, can take credit for continued funding of, and we noted that the State’s LIRAP petition the TCEQ Executive Director for emissions reductions creditable to, the implementation rules for the HGB area a determination of technical TERP program. and other ozone nonattainment areas As explained in the prior paragraph, infeasibility’’ (82 FR 21919, 21983). found at 30 TAC 114 Subchapter C, the 1-hour ozone SIP does not take With respect to Low Income Repair Division 2 adopted by TCEQ created a credit for any funds collected or Assistance Program (LIRAP), the voluntary program that could be emission reductions achieved after commenter cited to an October 7, 2016 implemented within the vehicle I/M 2007. In the May 11, 2017 EPA SIP EPA action in which we stated areas in Texas ozone nonattainment action that the commenter cites, we ‘‘[a]lthough the LIRAP is not required by areas and are not part of the approved approved the State’s rule that under Texas SIP (84 FR 50305, 50306, the CAA, certain provisions relating to limited conditions the Texas SIP does September 25, 2019). the program fees have been approved allow for a facility in the HGB area to The funds provided in and the into the Texas SIP to allow for full pay $75,000 per ton of NO to the TERP implementation of the TERP and LIRAP implementation of the State’s [vehicle X fund in lieu of reducing NOX emissions on-road and off-road mobile source inspection and maintenance] program’’ in the HGB MECT (30 TAC 101.357). programs were additional to what (81 FR 69679). This is not part of the approved HGB 1- would have occurred in the previously- Response: In the HGB equivalent hour ozone standard attainment approved 1-hour ozone standard SIP in alternative section 185 fee program, fees demonstration, however. We do note the HGB area after the missed for TERP and LIRAP collected in the that such payments would not affect attainment deadline. Therefore, we HGB area from on-road and off-road calculation of the facility’s section 185 disagree that the HGB equivalent mobile sources are used to offset the fee obligation which is based on a alternative section 185 fee program point source fee obligation. The TERP facility’s actual emissions. created no new funding and emission program was and is designed to The LIRAP is a voluntary program reductions that can be counted in accelerate the achievement of NOX designed to facilitate repair or determining that the HGB alternative reductions by repowering or retrofitting replacement of vehicles that did not program is in fact equivalent to direct diesel equipment that would otherwise pass the inspection and maintenance (I/ application of CAA section 185. operate for many years before being In sum, the HGB equivalent replaced with new low emitting 38 See ‘‘Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Biennial alternative section 185 fee program for equipment. The TERP program was Report (2017–2018), Report to the 86th Texas the 1-hour ozone standard does not rely established by the Texas Legislature in Legislature, December 2018, SFR–079/18’’. The document is available at: https:// on programs or emissions reductions 2001 and is approved in the Texas SIP www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/ already required by the applicable 1- as an economic incentive program (70 pubs/sfr/079-18.pdf. hour ozone SIP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8423

Comment: Earthjustice commented While emissions from mobile sources sources under section 185 be used by that the HGB alternative section 185 fee (on-road and off-road) are expected to the State for control of air pollution. equivalent program irrationally focuses continue decreasing, these emissions However, in the HGB equivalent on mobile source programs for section were and continue to be a significant alternative section 185 fee program, 185 fee offsets given that a significant source of ozone precursors in the HGB mobile source program fees are used to percentage of daily VOC and NOX area, particularly with respect to NOX. fund emission reductions in the HGB emissions are attributable to point In 2011 (a year in which the area had area. These emission reductions helped sources, rather than mobile sources. The not attained the 1-hour ozone standard), the area attain and maintain the 1-hour commenter acknowledges that EPA’s mobile sources accounted for 72% of ozone standard. previously-approved South Coast fee the area’s NOX emissions. In 2014 (a Comment: Earthjustice commented equivalent alternative program focused year in which the area maintained the that carry over credits, which allow for on mobile sources, and states that 1-hour ozone standard), mobile sources accumulation of credits from mobile mobile sources accounted for 80% of accounted for 65% of the area’s NOX source programs from previous years to pollution in the air district. The emissions. In 2020, it is projected that offset stationary source fees in future commenter alleges that targeting mobile mobile sources will account for 48% of years, violate section 185 of the CAA. source emissions in the HGB area the area’s NOX emissions. As (1) an The commenter further stated that the reaches only a small amount of ozone objective of the HGB equivalent offset and carry over features of the HGB precursor emissions and does not alternative section 185 fee program was alternative program ensure that fees will achieve the emissions reductions to bring about attainment of the 1-hour never be paid by Houston area envisioned by CAA section 185. ozone standard and (2) on-road and stationary sources; the fee obligation is Response: EPA has consistently non-road mobile sources were a an annual obligation, not one that may provided that an alternative program significant portion of the emissions be met by a one-time payment and may be found to be equivalent to direct preventing attainment of the 1-hour accounting tricks; and that EPA has not application of section 185 if the state ozone standard, we believe that a explained how carry over credits are can demonstrate that expected fees and/ program focused on fees and emission equally stringent as what the CAA or emissions reductions directly reductions from mobile source programs requires. attributable to application of section 185 is rational and can be considered Response: The commenter fails to is comparable to or exceeded by the equivalent to section 185. explain the significance of annual expected fees and/or emissions Comment: Earthjustice commented accounting as opposed to ensuring, as reductions from the proposed that the HGB alternative section 185 fee EPA has done here, that an overall alternative program. See the 2010 equivalent program unlawfully and equivalent amount of fees and/or guidance, 77 FR 50021 (August 20, arbitrarily departs from the CAA by emissions reductions have been 2012), 77 FR 74372 (December 14, 2012) substituting publicly funded dollars for achieved over the lifetime of the and 84 FR 12511 (April 2, 2019). The privately paid fees. The commenter equivalent alternative program. Under commenter fails to point to anything in further stated that ‘‘EPA provides no the Texas program, fees collected from the Clean Air Act or the legislative explanation (and there is none) of how mobile sources in the HGB area for history that indicates Congress intended it is equally stringent to shift a new emission reduction projects go into a for the collection of the fees from the obligation to pay fees away from the Fee Equivalency Account. Money in this point sources to be used for point producers of harmful emissions to the account then is used to offset the annual sources. In fact, both are silent are how broad citizenry, which already funds fee obligation of major stationary the collected fees are to be used. TERP and LIRAP.’’ sources. Any surplus in the Fee Therefore, we believe it is reasonable Response: We disagree that the HGB Equivalency Account in one year is that, as long as either an equivalent equivalent alternative section 185 fee available to be used (or carried over) to amount of fees are collected or an program unlawfully and arbitrarily offset the next year’s annual fee equivalent amount of emissions are departs from the CAA by substituting obligation of major stationary sources. If reduced, or some combination thereof, publicly funded dollars for privately there are insufficient funds in this an alternative program that includes paid fees. The commenter does not account, major stationary sources would such fees or emission reductions from explain why this distinction is need to make up the difference. mobile sources is ‘‘no less stringent’’ significant and why it should lead EPA Comment: Earthjustice commented than direct application of section 185 in to the conclusion that Texas’s program that the HGB alternative section 185 fee line with the principles of CAA section is not at least as stringent as a 185 program is not enforceable, including by 172(e). program. As noted above, we have citizens; the CAA requires SIPs to be In addition, we dispute the historically considered an equivalent enforceable; and to ensure such commenter’s contention that reduction alternative program to be permissible if enforceability, EPA must require Texas of emissions from mobile sources is not the state can demonstrate that expected to report and publicly post information important in the HBG area. Tables 2, 3 fees and/or emissions reductions about equivalency, track the efficacy of and 4 in our Proposal provide point directly attributable to applicable of emission reduction projects funded by source, on-road mobile source and off- section 185 would be equal to or the putative alternative fee source and road mobile source emission inventories exceeded by the expected fees and/or report and make publicly available such for the years 2011, 2014, 2020, 2026 and emissions reductions from the proposed information. 2032 (84 FR 22093, 22097–98, May 16, alternative program. The Texas program Response: As implemented in 30 TAC 2019). As discussed previously, is equally stringent as it provides greater Chapter 101 and explained in our TSD, reductions in NOX emissions and a or equivalent fees and emission the HGB equivalent alternative section small subset of VOC emissions termed reductions than those that would be 185 fee program is enforceable. The HRVOCs have been determined to be provided by direct application of program was adopted by the appropriate the most effective means of reducing section 185. State authority and is binding on subject ozone levels in the Houston area. As a We also note that there is no sources. Texas submitted the program to result, it is important to reduce requirement in the CAA that penalty EPA and through this action we are emissions of NOX from mobile sources. fees collected from major stationary incorporating the program into the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8424 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Texas SIP. The program is explicit and programs that implement the CAA 185 III. Final Action clear as to what is required when it is fee requirement and (2) EPA’s changing A. Plan for Maintaining the Revoked in operation: i.e., that point sources interpretations of the CAA section 185 Ozone Standards must provide TCEQ with emissions fee requirement resulted in the issuance reports and, if appropriate, pay fees of limited guidance over the course of We are approving the maintenance while the program is in operation. The many years discussing specific issues plan for both the revoked 1-hour and public has the right to request and view states should consider when developing 1997 ozone NAAQS in the HGB area information on the HGB equivalent their fee programs. because we find it demonstrates the two alternative section 185 program under ozone NAAQS (1979 1-hour and 1997 8- the Texas Public Information Act.39 Response: Where it is appropriate to hour) will be maintained for 10 years TCEQ—using information that is relieve states of the CAA section 185 fee following this final action (in fact, the available to the public (including EPA) obligation, we agree that we should state’s plan demonstrates maintenance under the Texas Public Information endeavor to do so in a timely manner of those two standards through 2032). Act—provided a report summarizing the when a request is made by a state. We As further explained in our Proposal implementation of the HGB alternative acknowledge that we have not issued and above, we are not approving the section 185 fee equivalent program over rules for the CAA section 185 fee submitted 2032 NOX and VOC MVEBs its duration. The report is available in requirement but we have issued for transportation conformity purposes the electronic docket for this action guidance for specific issues on setting because mobile source budgets for more (https://www.regulations.gov/ baselines 40 and for equivalent stringent ozone standards are in place in document?D=EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0715- alternative programs (the 2010 the HGB area. We are finding that the 0015). The TCEQ report found that the guidance). As noted in earlier responses, projected emissions inventory which TERP fees collected for emission EPA has approved equivalent reflects these budgets is consistent with reduction projects in the HGB area for alternative programs for several areas, maintenance of the revoked 1-hour and on-road mobile and off-road mobile and these outline factors that EPA 1997 ozone standards. sources more than fully offset the fees considers in determining whether an that would have been collected from B. Redesignation Criteria for the equivalent alternative program is major point sources under a direct Revoked Standards application of section 185. approvable. If states have specific We are determining that the HGB area Comment: Earthjustice commented questions about section 185 fee continues to attain the revoked 1-hour that rather than take no action, EPA programs or equivalent alternative and 1997 ozone NAAQS. We are also should disapprove the aspects of the programs, they are encouraged to determining that all five of the HGB alternative program that (1) end contact their respective EPA Regional redesignation criteria at CAA section the program with an attainment finding office. 107(d)(3)(E) for the HGB area have been (30 TAC 101.118(a)(2)) and (2) hold the Comment: TCEQ, Baker Botts, and met for these two revoked standards. program in abeyance after three TXOGA submitted comments consecutive years of data demonstrating C. Termination of Anti-Backsliding supporting EPA’s Proposal pertaining to Obligations that the 1-hour standard was not the HGB equivalent alternative section We are terminating the anti- exceeded (30 TAC 101.118(b)). Baker 185 fee program. Botts and TXOGA commented that backsliding obligations for the HGB area rather than take no action, we should Response: We acknowledge the with respect to the revoked 1-hour and approve 30 TAC 101.118(b). support for the Proposal. 1997 ozone NAAQS. Consistent with Response: As stated in the Proposal, Comment: TCEQ commented that the South Coast II decision, anti- we have decided not to take action on EPA should correct typographical and backsliding obligations for the revoked these aspects of the program at this other minor errors in the TSD for the ozone standards may be terminated time. Given that we did not issue a Proposal to approve the HGB equivalent when the redesignation criteria for those Proposal to approve or disapprove the alternative section 185 fee program. standards are met. This final action aspects of the HGB equivalent TCEQ added that these errors replaces the redesignation substitute alternative section 185 fee program cited inadvertently result in either incomplete rules that were previously promulgated by the commenters, we cannot now take for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS or inaccurate statements regarding the final action on these portions of the (80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015) and the HGB program. HGB program. Any EPA action on the 1997 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 78691, listed aspects of the HGB equivalent Response: We appreciate the feedback November 8, 2016.) for the HGB area. alternative section 185 fee program on typographical and other minor would occur through a separate errors. An additional TSD titled ‘‘TSD D. HGB Equivalent Alternative Section 185 Fee Program rulemaking process, which would allow for the HGB Equivalent Alternative for public participation by the Section 185 Fee Program with We are approving 30 TAC sections commenters. Corrections Identified by the Texas 101.100–101.102, 101.104, 101.106– Comment: TCEQ commented that Commission on Environmental Quality’’ 101.110, 101.113, 101.116, 101.117, EPA is obligated to ensure that states is being added to the electronic docket. 101.118(a)(1), 101.118(a)(3) and may be relieved of the CAA section 185 101.120–101.122 as an equivalent penalty fee obligation in a timely 40 See ‘‘Guidance on Establishing Emissions alternative section 185 fee program. We manner. The commenter further states Baselines under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act are taking no action on 30 TAC sections that (1) EPA has not issued rules to (CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone 101.118(a)(2) and 101.118(b) at this specify the requirements for state Nonattainment Areas that Fail to Attain the 1-hour time. We additionally are finding that Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date’’, March the section 185 fee program is not an 39 See http://foift.org/resources/texas-public- 21, 2008 memorandum from William T. Harnett, applicable requirement for information-act/ and Chapter 552 of the Texas Director, EPA Air Quality Policy Division, available Government Code at https:// at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/ redesignation. statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/GV/htm/ collection/cp2/20080321_harnett_emissions_ As noted above, the EPA has GV.552.htm. basline_185.pdf. consistently held the position that not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8425

every requirement an area is subject to CAA section 185 is to provide action redesignating any areas to is applicable for purposes of evaluating incentives for emission reductions to attainment, we are approving the state’s an area’s request for redesignation, or in occur that would provide for attainment demonstration that all five redesignation this case, a request to terminate an and maintenance of an ozone standard criteria have been met. Similar to a area’s anti-backsliding requirements in a Severe or Extreme nonattainment redesignation, the termination of anti- based on the redesignation criteria. area that missed the attainment deadline backsliding requirements in this action Calcagni Memorandum at 4. EPA has for that standard. If a Severe or Extreme does not impose any new requirements. consistently held that requirements area has in fact attained the standard With regard to the SIP approval designed to help an area plan for and has appropriate controls in place for portions of this action, the attainment—such as developing maintaining the standard, the purpose Administrator is required to approve a modeling demonstrating how the area of section 185 will have been met. SIP submission that complies with the will attain the NAAQS, adopting Consistent with EPA’s position with provisions of the Act and applicable reasonably available control measures regard to other nonattainment area Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); (RACM) that would advance attainment requirements that are not CAA 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP by one year or more, and demonstrating applicable requirements that must be submissions, EPA’s role is to approve reasonable further progress towards approved prior to redesignation, we State choices, provided that they meet attainment—are not applicable believe an area need not have an the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, requirements under CAA section approved SIP revision addressing the where EPA is acting on the SIPs in this 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) because by CAA section 185 provision in order to action, we are merely approving State definition those areas will already have determine that all the redesignation law as meeting Federal requirements attained the NAAQS in question. The criteria to be met since that and are not imposing additional Agency’s position is based on the determination will (1) terminate the fee requirements beyond those imposed by reasonable interpretation that Congress collection requirement and (2) meet the State law. would not have intended to impose the purpose underlying the CAA section For these reasons, this action as a substantial and costly administrative 185 program. whole: burden on states of adopting measures • IV. Incorporation by Reference Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory and making demonstrations that are action’’ subject to review by the Office aimed at progressing the area towards In this rule, we are finalizing of Management and Budget under attainment when the area has already regulatory text that includes Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, achieved the end goal of attainment. incorporation by reference. In October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, The EPA has also interpreted the accordance with requirements of 1 CFR January 21, 2011); submission of nonattainment area plan 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 contingency measures, which apply if by reference of the revisions to the State FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory an area fails to timely achieve of Texas regulations as described in the action because actions that are attainment or fails to demonstrate Final Action section above. The EPA exempted under Executive Order 12866 reasonable further progress to has made, and will continue to make, are also exempted from Executive Order attainment, as not applicable these materials generally available 13771; requirements for purposes of through www.regulations.gov and at the • Does not impose an information redesignation.41 Other requirements EPA Region 6 Office (please contact the collection burden under the provisions such as an approved nonattainment new person identified in the FOR FURTHER of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 source review program, which by INFORMATION CONTACT section of this U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); definition ends upon redesignation, are preamble for more information). • Is certified as not having a also not required to be approved prior Therefore, these materials have been significant economic impact on a to redesignation.42 approved by EPA for inclusion in the substantial number of small entities The CAA section 185 fee program SIP, have been incorporated by under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 must be implemented if an area fails to reference by EPA into that plan, are U.S.C. 601 et seq.); attain by its Severe or Extreme area fully federally enforceable under • Does not contain any unfunded attainment date. Like nonattainment sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of mandate or significantly or uniquely new source review, the program is the effective date of the final rulemaking affect small governments, described in terminated once an area is redesignated of EPA’s approval, and will be the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of to attainment. In the case of an area that incorporated by reference in the next 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); is subject to a revoked NAAQS, the CAA update to the SIP compilation. • Does not have federalism section 185 fee program is an anti- V. Statutory and Executive Order implications as specified in Executive backsliding requirement,43 and anti- Reviews Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, backsliding requirements associated 1999); with a revoked NAAQS are terminated A. General Requirements • Is not an economically significant by EPA’s approval of a demonstration Under the CAA, redesignation of an regulatory action based on health or that all five redesignation criteria have area to attainment and the safety risks subject to Executive Order been met. Additionally, the purpose of accompanying approval of the 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); maintenance plan under CAA section • Is not a significant regulatory action 41 John Seitz Memorandum, Reasonable Further subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas air quality designation status of 28355, May 22, 2001); Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality geographical areas and do not impose • Is not subject to requirements of Standard (May 10, 1995). any additional regulatory requirements section 12(d) of the National 42 Mary Nichols, Part D New Source Review (part on sources beyond those required by Technology Transfer and Advancement D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment (Oct. 14, 1994). state law. A redesignation to attainment Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 43 South Coast Air Quality Management District v. does not in and of itself impose any new application of those requirements would EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006). requirements. While we are not in this be inconsistent with the CAA; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8426 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

• Does not provide EPA with the C. Petitions for Judicial Review PART 52—APPROVAL AND discretionary authority to address, as PROMULGATION OF appropriate, disproportionate human Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean IMPLEMENTATION PLANS health or environmental effects, using Air Act, petitions for judicial review of practicable and legally permissible this action must be filed in the United ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 methods, under Executive Order 12898 States Court of Appeals for the continues to read as follows: (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). appropriate circuit by April 14, 2020. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Filing a petition for reconsideration by B. Submission to Congress and the the Administrator of this final rule does Subpart SS—Texas Comptroller General not affect the finality of this action for ■ 2. In § 52.2270: The Congressional Review Act, 5 the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a ■ a. In paragraph (c), the table titled U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small ‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the Business Regulatory Enforcement petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness Texas SIP’’ is amended by adding an Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides entry under Chapter 101 for that before a rule may take effect, the of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to ‘‘Subchapter B—Failure to Attain Fee’’; agency promulgating the rule must and enforce its requirements. (See section submit a rule report, which includes a ■ b. In paragraph (e), the second table 307(b)(2).) copy of the rule, to each House of the titled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory Congress and to the Comptroller General List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory of the United States. EPA will submit a Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended report containing this action and other Environmental protection, Air by adding an entry at the end of the required information to the U.S. Senate, pollution control, Incorporation by table for ‘‘Houston-Galveston-Brazoria the U.S. House of Representatives, and reference, Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, Redesignation Request and Maintenance the Comptroller General of the United Volatile organic compounds. Plan for the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8- States prior to publication of the rule in Dated: January 29, 2020. hour Ozone Standards’’. the Federal Register. A major rule The additions read as follows: cannot take effect until 60 days after it Kenley McQueen, is published in the Federal Register. Regional Administrator, Region 6. § 52.2270 Identification of plan. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as * * * * * defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: (c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP

State approval/ State citation Title/subject submittal EPA approval date Explanation date

*******

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules

*******

Subchapter B—Failure to Attain Fee

Section 101.100 ...... Definitions ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.101 ...... Applicability ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.102 ...... Equivalent Alternative Fee ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.104...... Equivalent Alternative Fee Ac- 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- counting. ister citation]. Section 101.106 ...... Baseline Amount Calculation ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.107 ...... Aggregated Baseline Amount ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.108 ...... Alternative Baseline Amount ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.109 ...... Adjustment of Baseline Amount .. 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.110 ...... Baseline Amount for New Major 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- Stationary Source, New Con- ister citation]. struction at a Major Stationary Source, or Major Stationary Sources with Less Than 24 Months of Operation. Section 101.113 ...... Failure to Attain Fee Obligation ... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8427

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued

State approval/ State citation Title/subject submittal EPA approval date Explanation date

Section 101.116 ...... Failure to Attain Fee Payment ..... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.117 ...... Compliance Schedule ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.118(a)(1) Cessation of Program ...... 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- SIP does not include and (a)(3). ister citation]. 101.118(a)(2) or 101.118(b). Section 101.120...... Eligibility for Equivalent Alter- 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- native Obligation. ister citation]. Section 101.121 ...... Equivalent Alternative Obligation 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- ister citation]. Section 101.122...... Using Supplemental Environ- 5/22/2013 2/14/2020, [Insert Federal Reg- mental Project to Fulfill an ister citation]. Equivalent Alternative Obliga- tion.

*******

* * * * * (e) ** *

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP

State Applicable approval/ Name of SIP provision geographic or effective EPA approval date Comments nonattainment area date

******* Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Redesignation Houston-Galveston- 12/12/2018 2/14/2020, [Insert Fed- Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1- Brazoria, TX. eral Register citation]. hour and 1997 8-hour Ozone Standards.

* * * * * obligations for the revoked 1-hour and the both headings for ‘‘Date,’’ removing ■ 3. Section 52.2275 is amended by 1997 8-hour ozone standards are the footnote number ‘‘1’’ and adding in revising paragraphs (j) and (n) to read as terminated in the Houston-Galveston- its place the footnote number ‘‘2’’; follows: Brazoria area. ■ iii. Revising the entry for ‘‘Houston- Galveston-Brazoria Area, TX’’; and § 52.2275 Control strategy and PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS ■ regulations: Ozone. FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING iv. Revising footnotes 1, 2, and 4. * * * * * PURPOSES ■ b. Amend table titled ‘‘Texas—1997 8- (j) Determination of Attainment. Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and ■ Effective November 19, 2015, the EPA 4. The authority citation for part 81 Secondary]’’ by: has determined that the Houston- continues to read as follows: ■ i. Adding footnote ‘‘1’’ to the table Galveston-Brazoria 1-hour ozone Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. heading; nonattainment area has attained the 1- ■ 5. Section 81.344 is amended: ■ ii. Revising footnotes 1 and 4; and hour ozone standard. ■ a. In the table titled ‘‘Texas—Ozone ■ iii. Revising the entry for ‘‘Houston- * * * * * (1-Hour Standard)’’ by: Galveston-Brazoria Area, TX,’’ including (n) Termination of Anti-backsliding ■ i. Removing the footnote number ‘‘2’’ the removal of footnote 7. Obligations for the Revoked 1-hour and in the title heading ‘‘Texas-Ozone (1- The revisions and additions read as 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Effective Hour Standard)’’ and adding in its place follows: March 16, 2020 EPA has determined footnote number ‘‘1’’; that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ■ ii. Under column headings § 81.344 Texas. area has met the Clean Air Act criteria ‘‘Designation’’ and ‘‘Classification’’ in * * * * * for redesignation. Anti-backsliding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8428 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TEXAS—OZONE [1-Hour standard] 1

Designation Classification Designated area Date 2 Type Date 2 Type

******* Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area, TX: ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4. Brazoria County 4 Chambers County 4 Fort Bend County 4 Galveston County 4 Harris County 4 Liberty County 4 Montgomery County 4 Waller County 4

******* 1 The 1-hour ozone standard, designations and classifications are revoked effective June 15, 2005 for areas in Texas except the San Antonio area where they are revoked effective April 15, 2009. 2 The date at the time designations were revoked is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted. ******* 4 The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area was designated and classified as ‘‘Severe-17’’ nonattainment on November 15, 1990 and was so des- ignated and classified when the 1-hour ozone standard, designations and classifications were revoked. The area has since attained the 1-hour ozone standard and met all the Clean Air Act criteria for redesignation. All 1-hour ozone standard anti-backsliding obligations for the area are ter- minated effective March 16, 2020.

* * * * *

TEXAS—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS [Primary and secondary] 1

Designation a Category/classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

******* Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX: ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4 ...... See footnote 4. Brazoria County 4 Chambers County 4 Fort Bend County 4 Galveston County 4 Harris County 4 Liberty County 4 Montgomery County 4 Waller County 4

******* ******* 1 The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, designations and classifications were revoked effective April 6, 2015. The date at the time designations were revoked is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. ******* 4 The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX area was designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004 and was classified as ‘‘Severe-15’’ effective October 31, 2008. The area has since attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and met all the Clean Air Act criteria for redesignation. All 1997 8-hour ozone standard anti-backsliding obligations for the area are terminated effective March 16, 2020.

* * * * * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACTION: Final rule. [FR Doc. 2020–02053 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] AGENCY BILLING CODE 6560–50–P SUMMARY: This regulation established 40 CFR Part 180 exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, [EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0279; FRL–10003–07] 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/co- Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- solvent) in pesticides applied to dimethyl-; Exemption From the growing crops and raw agricultural Requirement of a Tolerance commodities after harvest, or in pesticides applied to animals, limited to AGENCY: Environmental Protection 50% by weight in the pesticide Agency (EPA). formulations. Spring Trading Company,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8429

LLC on behalf of BASF Corporation • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS II. Petition for Exemption submitted a petition to EPA under the code 32532). In the Federal Register of August 2, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act B. How can I get electronic access to 2019 (84 FR 37818) (FRL–9996–78), (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to other related information? EPA issued a document pursuant to an existing requirement of a tolerance. You may access a frequently updated FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, This regulation eliminates the need to announcing the filing of a pesticide establish a maximum permissible level electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing petition (PP IN–11271) by Spring for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy- Trading Company (203 Dogwood Trail, N, N-dimethyl-, when used in Office’s e-CFR site at http:// www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?& Magnolia, TX 77354–5201) on behalf of accordance with the terms of these BASF Corporation (100 Campus Drive, exemptions. c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_ 02.tpl. Florham Park, NJ 07932). The petition DATES: This regulation is effective requested that existing exemptions from February 14, 2020. Objections and C. How can I file an objection or hearing the requirement of a tolerance for requests for hearings must be received request? residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, on or before April 14, 2020, and must Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123–06–9) be filed in accordance with the U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an when used as an inert ingredient instructions provided in 40 CFR part objection to any aspect of this regulation (solvent/co-solvent) applied to growing 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the and may also request a hearing on those crops and raw agricultural commodities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). objections. You must file your objection after harvest (40 CFR 180.910) or in ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, or request a hearing on this regulation pesticides applied to animals identified by docket identification (ID) in accordance with the instructions (§ 180.930) be amended by increasing number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0279, is provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure the limitation in pesticide formulations available at http://www.regulations.gov proper receipt by EPA, you must from 20% to 50%. That document or at the Office of Pesticide Programs identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– referenced a summary of the petition Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) OPP–2019–0279 in the subject line on prepared by Spring Trading Company in the Environmental Protection Agency the first page of your submission. All on behalf of BASF Corporation, the Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William objections and requests for a hearing petitioner, which is available in the Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 must be in writing, and must be docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC received by the Hearing Clerk on or relevant comment was received on the 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room before April 14, 2020. Addresses for notice of filing. EPA’s response to this is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., mail and hand delivery of objections comment is discussed in Unit V.B. Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hearing requests are provided in 40 III. Inert Ingredient Definition holidays. The telephone number for the CFR 178.25(b). Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, In addition to filing an objection or Inert ingredients are all ingredients and the telephone number for the OPP hearing request with the Hearing Clerk that are not active ingredients as defined Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review as described in 40 CFR part 178, please in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are the visitor instructions and additional submit a copy of the filing (excluding not limited to, the following types of information about the docket available any Confidential Business Information ingredients (except when they have a at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. pesticidal efficacy of their own): FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information not marked confidential Solvents such as alcohols and Michael Goodis, Registration Division pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be hydrocarbons; surfactants such as (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, disclosed publicly by EPA without prior polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your acids; carriers such as clay and Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC objection or hearing request, identified diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 20460–0001; main telephone number: by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– carrageenan and modified cellulose; (703) 305–7090; email address: 2019–0279, by one of the following wetting, spreading, and dispersing [email protected]. methods: agents; propellants in aerosol • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// dispensers; microencapsulating agents; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not I. General Information instructions for submitting comments. intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be A. Does this action apply to me? Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or chemically active. Generally, EPA has You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is exempted inert ingredients from the this action if you are an agricultural restricted by statute. requirement of a tolerance based on the producer, food manufacturer, or • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental low toxicity of the individual inert pesticide manufacturer. The following Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ ingredients. list of North American Industrial DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Classification System (NAICS) codes is NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. Determination of Safety not intended to be exhaustive, but rather • Hand Delivery: To make special provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please allows EPA to establish an exemption applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http:// from the requirement for a tolerance (the entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. legal limit for a pesticide chemical • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on residue in or on a food) only if EPA • Animal production (NAICS code commenting or visiting the docket, determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 112). along with more information about Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA • Food manufacturing (NAICS code dockets generally, is available at http:// defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 311). www.epa.gov/dockets. reasonable certainty that no harm will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8430 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

result from aggregate exposure to the sensitivities of major identifiable Immunotoxicity studies for pesticide chemical residue, including subgroups of consumers, including propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- all anticipated dietary exposures and all infants and children. Specific were not available for review. However, other exposures for which there is information on the studies received and evidence of immunotoxicity was not reliable information.’’ This includes the nature of the adverse effects caused observed in the submitted studies. exposure through drinking water and in by propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- Chronic studies with propanamide, 2- residential settings, but does not include dimethyl- as well as the no-observed- hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- are not occupational exposure. EPA is required adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the available for review. However, a chronic to consider the factors of section lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level study conducted for 12 months in rats 408(b)(2)(C) and (D) in making (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are treated with N, N-dimethylacetamide, a determinations of safety for exemptions. discussed in this unit. structurally similar chemical, was used 21 U.S.C. 346a(c)(2)(B). Section Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- as surrogate data. In this study toxicity 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to dimethyl- is of low acute oral, dermal manifested as reduced bodyweight was give special consideration to exposure and inhalation toxicity in rats; all LD50s observed at 300 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL of infants and children to the pesticide are greater than 1,000 mg/kg. Dermal is 100 mg/kg/day. chemical residue in establishing a irritation is not observed in rabbits. It is A dermal penetration study in rats tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a mildly irritating to the eyes of rabbits. showed that 50% of 2-hydroxy-N, N- reasonable certainty that no harm will It is not a dermal sensitizer in mice in dimethyl- is absorbed following 8 hours result to infants and children from the lymph node assay. of exposure on skin. Therefore, the aggregate exposure to the pesticide The toxicity studies summarized dermal absorption factor of 50% was chemical residue. . . .’’ below were all conducted with used for risk assessment purposes. propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- EPA establishes exemptions from the B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ except the chronic toxicity study. That requirement of a tolerance only in those Levels of Concern cases where it can be clearly study was conducted with N, N- demonstrated that the risks from dimethylacetamide, a structurally Once a pesticide’s toxicological aggregate exposure to pesticide similar chemical. The only difference profile is determined, EPA identifies chemical residues under reasonably between the two chemicals is that N, N- toxicological points of departure (POD) foreseeable circumstances will pose no dimethylacetamide is missing a and levels of concern to use in appreciable risks to human health. In hydroxyl group on a carbon atom. Both evaluating the risk posed by human order to determine the risks from compounds are expected to undergo exposure to the pesticide. For hazards aggregate exposure to pesticide inert similar metabolism (in this case, N- that have a threshold below which there ingredients, the Agency considers the oxidation) by cytochrome P450 enzymes is no appreciable risk, the toxicological toxicity of the inert in conjunction with and have similar toxicological profiles; POD is used as the basis for derivation possible exposure to residues of the therefore, the Agency has determined of reference values for risk assessment. inert ingredient through food, drinking the data to be suitable for evaluating PODs are developed based on a careful water, and through other exposures that propanamide. analysis of the doses in each occur as a result of pesticide use in In rats, 90 days of oral exposure to toxicological study to determine the residential settings. If EPA is able to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- dose at which no adverse effects are determine that a finite tolerance is not results in increased cholesterol and observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest necessary to ensure that there is a triglyceride levels, increased liver dose at which adverse effects of concern reasonable certainty that no harm will weights and centrilobular hypertrophy are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ result from aggregate exposure to the at 1,000 mg/kg/day, the limit dose. The safety factors are used in conjunction inert ingredient, an exemption from the NOAEL is 500 mg/kg/day. Reproduction with the POD to calculate a safe requirement of a tolerance may be parameters, estrus cyclicity and sperm exposure level—generally referred to as established. parameters were also evaluated in this a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a Consistent with FFDCA section study and were found to be unaffected reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in at 1,000 mg/kg/day. of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has A developmental toxicity study in rats risks, the Agency assumes that any reviewed the available scientific data showed no maternal toxicity at 500 mg/ amount of exposure will lead to some and other relevant information in kg/day, the highest dose tested. degree of risk. Thus, the Agency support of this action. EPA has Quantitative fetal susceptibility was estimates risk in terms of the probability sufficient data to assess the hazards of observed as reduced body weight in of an occurrence of the adverse effect and to make a determination on pups at 500 mg/kg/day. The expected in a lifetime. For more aggregate exposure for propanamide, 2- developmental NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/ information on the general principles hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- including day. EPA uses in risk characterization and a exposure resulting from the exemption Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- complete description of the risk established by this action. EPA’s dimethyl- was not mutagenic in the assessment process, see http:// assessment of exposures and risks Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ associated with propanamide, 2- HGPRT locus gene mutation assay or the riskassess.htm. hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- follows. micronucleus test. An acute effect was not found in the Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- database therefore an acute dietary A. Toxicological Profile dimethyl- is not expected to be assessment is not necessary. The EPA has evaluated the available carcinogenic based on the absence of chronic reference dose (cRfD) as well as toxicity data and considered their structural alerts using Derek Nexus the toxicity endpoint applicable to all validity, completeness, and reliability as program and the lack of mutagenicity. It exposure scenarios was based on the 12- well as the relationship of the results of is not expected to be neurotoxic based month chronic toxicity study in rats. In the studies to human risk. EPA has also on the functional observation battery or this study, the NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/ considered available information on motor activity in the 90-day oral day based on reduced bodyweights at concerning the variability of the toxicity study in rats. 300 mg/kg/day, the LOAEL. This

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8431

represents the lowest NOAEL in the http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID D. Safety Factor for Infants and most sensitive species in the toxicity number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0738. Children database. The standard uncertainty 2. Dietary exposure from drinking Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA factors were applied to account for water. For the purpose of the screening- provides that EPA shall apply an interspecies (10X) and intraspecies level dietary risk assessment to support additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety (10X) variations. The FQPA safety factor this request for an exemption from the for infants and children in the case of was reduced to 1x. The dermal requirement of a tolerance for threshold effects to account for prenatal absorption factor of 50% was applied propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- and postnatal toxicity and the based on a dermal penetration study in , a conservative drinking water completeness of the database on toxicity rats. A default value of 100% was used concentration value of 100 ppb based on and exposure unless EPA determines for the inhalation absorption factor. screening level modeling was used to based on reliable data that a different C. Exposure Assessment assess the contribution to drinking margin of safety will be safe for infants water for the chronic dietary risk 1. Dietary exposure from food and and children. This additional margin of assessments for parent compound. feed uses. In evaluating dietary safety is commonly referred to as the exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, These values were directly entered into FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying N-dimethyl-, EPA considered exposure the dietary exposure model. this provision, EPA either retains the under the proposed exemption from the 3. From non-dietary exposure. The default value of 10X, or uses a different requirement of a tolerance. EPA term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in additional safety factor when reliable assessed dietary exposures from this document to refer to non- data available to EPA support the choice propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- occupational, non-dietary exposure of a different factor. in food as follows: (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), The toxicity database for Dietary exposure (food and drinking carpets, swimming pools, and hard propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- water) to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- surface disinfection on walls, floors, contains a subchronic, developmental, dimethyl- can occur following ingestion tables). chronic, and mutagenicity studies. of foods with residues from treated Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- There is no indication of neurotoxicity crops and animals. Because no adverse dimethyl- may be used in inert or immunotoxicity in the available effects attributable to a single exposure ingredients in products that are studies; therefore, there is no need to of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- registered for specific uses that may require neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity dimethyl- are seen in the toxicity result in residential exposure, such as studies. Quantitative fetal susceptibility databases, an acute dietary risk pesticides used in and round the home. was observed in the developmental assessment is not necessary. For the The Agency conducted an assessment to study in rats. Fetal toxicity (reduced chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA represent worst-case residential bodyweight) was observed at 500 mg/ used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation exposure by assessing propanamide, 2- kg/day, the highest dose tested, while Model software with the Food hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in pesticide toxicity was not observed in maternal Commodity Intake Database (DEEM– formulations (outdoor scenarios) and in animals. The developmental NOAEL TM FCID , Version 3.16, and food disinfectant-type uses (indoor was 200 mg/kg/day. However, fetal consumption information from the U.S. scenarios), limited to 5% by weight in effects are not of concern since the cRfD Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) pesticide formulations. (1 mg/kg/day) will be protective of 2003–2008 National Health and effects seen at 500 mg/kg/day. In Nutrition Examination Survey, What We 4. Cumulative effects from substances addition, the Agency used conservative Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As with a common mechanism of toxicity. exposure estimates, with 100 percent to residue levels in food, no residue data Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA crop treated, tolerance-level residues, were submitted for propanamide, 2- requires that, when considering whether conservative drinking water modeling hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-. In the absence to establish, modify, or revoke a numbers, and a worst-case assessment of specific residue data, EPA has tolerance, the Agency consider of potential residential exposure for developed an approach which uses ‘‘available information’’ concerning the infants and children. Based on the surrogate information to derive upper cumulative effects of a particular adequacy of the toxicity and exposure bound exposure estimates for the pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other databases and the lack of concern for subject inert ingredient. Upper bound substances that have a common prenatal and postnatal sensitivity, the exposure estimates are based on the mechanism of toxicity.’’ Agency has concluded that there is highest tolerance for a given commodity EPA has not found propanamide, 2- reliable data to determine that infants from a list of high use insecticides, hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- to share a and children will be safe if the FQPA SF herbicides, and fungicides. One common mechanism of toxicity with of 10X is reduced to 1X. hundred percent crop treated was any other substances, and propanamide, assumed, default processing factors, and 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- does not E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of tolerance-level residues for all foods and appear to produce a toxic metabolite Safety use limitations of not more than 50% by produced by other substances. For the EPA determines whether acute and weight in pesticide formulations. A purposes of this tolerance action, chronic dietary pesticide exposures are complete description of the general therefore, EPA has assumed that safe by comparing aggregate exposure approach taken to assess inert propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and ingredient risks in the absence of does not have a common mechanism of chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer residue data is contained in the toxicity with other substances. For risks, EPA calculates the lifetime memorandum entitled ‘‘Alkyl Amines information regarding EPA’s efforts to probability of acquiring cancer given the Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and determine which chemicals have a estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking common mechanism of toxicity and to intermediate-, and chronic-term risks Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk evaluate the cumulative effects of such are evaluated by comparing the Assessments for the Inerts,’’ (D361707, chemicals, see EPA’s website at http:// estimated aggregate food, water, and S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. residential exposure to the appropriate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8432 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE and water with intermediate-term dimethyl- in pesticide formulations. exists. residential exposures to propanamide, Under the existing legal framework 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-. Using the provided by FFDCA section 408, EPA is assessment takes into account acute exposure assumptions described above, authorized to establish pesticide exposure estimates from dietary EPA has concluded that the combined chemical tolerances or exemptions consumption of food and drinking intermediate-term aggregated food, where persons seeking such tolerances water. No adverse effect resulting from water, and residential exposures result or exemptions have demonstrated that a single oral exposure was identified in aggregate MOEs of 498 for adult the pesticide chemical meets the safety and no acute dietary endpoint was males and females. Adult residential standard imposed by the statute. EPA selected. exposure combines liquids/trigger has sufficient data to evaluate the 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure sprayer/home garden with a high-end potential adverse effects from exposure assumptions described in this unit for post-application dermal exposure from to this pesticide chemical, including chronic exposure, EPA has concluded contact with treated lawns. EPA has data on the potential for long-term that chronic exposure to propanamide, concluded the combined intermediate- effects. After evaluating that data and 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- from food term aggregated food, water, and other information, EPA has determined and water will utilize 70.6% of the residential exposures result in an that the tolerance exemptions for this cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the aggregate MOE of 137 for children. chemical are safe. The commenter has population group receiving the greatest Children’s residential exposure includes not provided any information exposure. total exposures associated with contact supporting a conclusion that the 3. Short-term risk. Short-term with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to- tolerance exemption is not safe. aggregate exposure takes into account mouth exposures). As the level of VI. Conclusions short-term residential exposure plus concern is for MOEs that are lower than chronic exposure to food and water 100, this MOE is not of concern. Therefore, the exemptions from the (considered to be a background 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR exposure level). population. Based on a DEREK 180.910 and under 40 CFR 180.930 for Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- structural alert analysis, the lack of residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, dimethyl- may be used as an inert mutagenicity and the lack of specific N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123–06–9) ingredient in pesticide products that organ toxicity in the chronic toxicity when used as an inert ingredient could result in short-term residential study, propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- (solvent/co-solvent) are modified to exposure, and the Agency has dimethyl- is not expected to pose a allow use at a maximum concentration determined that it is appropriate to of 50% by weight in pesticide aggregate chronic exposure through food cancer risk to humans. 6. Determination of safety. Based on formulations applied to growing crops and water with short-term residential these risk assessments, EPA concludes or raw agricultural commodities after exposures to propanamide, 2-hydroxy- that there is a reasonable certainty that harvest when used in pesticide N, N-dimethyl-. Using the exposure formulations applied to animals, no harm will result to the general assumptions described above, EPA has respectively. concluded that the combined short-term population, or to infants and children aggregated food, water, and residential from aggregate exposure to VII. Statutory and Executive Order exposures result in MOEs of 374 for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- Reviews both adult males and females. Adult . This action amends exemptions to the residential exposure combines high-end V. Other Considerations requirement for a tolerance under dermal and inhalation handler exposure FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a from liquids/trigger sprayer/home A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology petition submitted to the Agency. The garden with a high-end post- An analytical method is not required Office of Management and Budget application dermal exposure from for enforcement purposes since the (OMB) has exempted these types of contact with treated lawns. EPA has Agency is not establishing a numerical actions from review under Executive concluded the combined short-term tolerance for residues of propanamide, Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory aggregated food, water, and residential 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in or on any Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, exposures result in an aggregate MOE of food commodities. EPA is establishing a October 4, 1993). Because this action 132 for children. Children’s residential limitation on the amount of has been exempted from review under exposure includes total exposures propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- Executive Order 12866, this action is associated with contact with treated that may be used in pesticide not subject to Executive Order 13211, lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth formulations applied to growing crops. entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning exposures). As the level of concern is for That limitation will be enforced through Regulations That Significantly Affect MOEs that are lower than 100, this the pesticide registration process under Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 MOEs is not of concern. the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 4. Intermediate-term risk. Rodenticide Act (‘‘FIFRA’’), 7 U.S.C. Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 136 et seq. EPA will not register any Children from Environmental Health takes into account intermediate-term pesticide formulation for use on Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, residential exposure plus chronic growing crops for sale or distribution April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a exposure to food and water (considered that exceeds 50% by weight of regulatory action under Executive Order to be a background exposure level). propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- N-dimethyl-. and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 dimethyl- may be used as an inert FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action ingredient in pesticide products that B. Response to Comments does not contain any information could result in intermediate-term The Agency received one relevant collections subject to OMB approval residential exposure and the Agency has comment opposing a tolerance under the Paperwork Reduction Act determined that it is appropriate to exemption for an increased (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does aggregate chronic exposure through food concentration of 2-hydroxy-N, N- it require any special considerations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8433

under Executive Order 12898, entitled tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined Register. This action is not a ‘‘major ‘‘Federal Actions to Address that Executive Order 13132, entitled rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Environmental Justice in Minority ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Populations and Low-Income 1999) and Executive Order 13175, Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination Environmental protection, 1994). with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Administrative practice and procedure, Since tolerances and exemptions that 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply Agricultural commodities, Pesticides are established on the basis of a petition to this action. In addition, this action and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping under FFDCA section 408(d), such as does not impose any enforceable duty or requirements. the exemptions in this final rule, do not contain any unfunded mandate as Dated: January 17, 2020. require the issuance of a proposed rule, described under Title II of the Unfunded Donna Davis, the requirements of the Regulatory Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 1501 et seq.). of Pesticide Programs. seq.), do not apply. This action directly regulates growers, This action does not involve any Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is food processors, food handlers, and food technical standards that would require amended as follows: retailers, not States or tribes, nor does Agency consideration of voluntary this action alter the relationships or consensus standards pursuant to section PART 180—[AMENDED] distribution of power and 12(d) of the National Technology ■ responsibilities established by Congress Transfer and Advancement Act 1. The authority citation for part 180 in the preemption provisions of FFDCA (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). continues to read as follows: section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency VIII. Congressional Review Act Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. has determined that this action will not ■ 2. In § 180.910, revise the inert have a substantial direct effect on States Pursuant to the Congressional Review ingredient ‘‘Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, or tribal governments, on the Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123–06– relationship between the National submit a report containing this rule and 9)’’ in the table to read as follows: Government and the States or tribal other required information to the U.S. governments, or on the distribution of Senate, the U.S. House of § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and power and responsibilities among the Representatives, and the Comptroller post-harvest; exemptions from the various levels of government or between General of the United States prior to requirement of a tolerance. the Federal Government and Indian publication of the rule in the Federal * * * * *

TABLE 1 TO 180.910

Inert ingredients Limits Uses

******* Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. Not to exceed 50% by weight in pesticide formulation ...... Solvent/co-solvent. 35123–06–9).

*******

■ 3. In § 180.930, revise the inert N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123–06– § 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to ingredient ‘‘Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, 9)’’ in the table to read as follows: animals; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. * * * * *

Inert ingredients Limits Uses

******* Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. Not to exceed 50% by weight in pesticide formulation ...... Solvent/co-solvent. 35123–06–9).

*******

[FR Doc. 2020–02042 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACTION: Final rule. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P AGENCY SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 40 CFR Part 180 tolerances for residues of acetamiprid in or on multiple commodities that are [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0784; FRL–10004–12] identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Acetamiprid; Pesticide Tolerances Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Agency (EPA).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8434 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: This regulation is effective C. How can I file an objection or hearing Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition February 14, 2020. Objections and request? requested that 40 CFR part 180 be requests for hearings must be received Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 amended by establishing tolerances for on or before April 14, 2020, and must residues of acetamiprid, (1E)-N-[(6- U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an ′ be filed in accordance with the objection to any aspect of this regulation chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N -cyano-N- instructions provided in 40 CFR part and may also request a hearing on those methylethanimidamide, including its 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the objections. You must file your objection metabolites and degradates in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). or request a hearing on this regulation Tropical and subtropical, medium to ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, in accordance with the instructions large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, identified by docket identification (ID) provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure subgroup 24B at 0.50 parts per million number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0784, is proper receipt by EPA, you must (ppm); leafy greens subgroup 4–16A at available at http://www.regulations.gov identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 3.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup or at the Office of Pesticide Programs OPP–2018–0784 in the subject line on 22B at 3.0 ppm; celtuce at 3.0 ppm; Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) the first page of your submission. All Florence fennel at 3.0 ppm; Brassica, in the Environmental Protection Agency objections and requests for a hearing leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B at 15 ppm; Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William must be in writing and must be received Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 by the Hearing Clerk on or before April Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC group 5–16 at 1.2 ppm; kohlrabi at 1.2 14, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand ppm; fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 1.5 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room delivery of objections and hearing is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ppm; nut, tree, group 14–12 at 0.10 requests are provided in 40 CFR ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.01 Monday through Friday, excluding legal 178.25(b). holidays. The telephone number for the ppm; and cottonseed subgroup 20C at In addition to filing an objection or 0.70 ppm. Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, hearing request with the Hearing Clerk and the telephone number for the OPP Additionally, the petition requested to as described in 40 CFR part 178, please amend 40 CFR 180.578 by removing the Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review submit a copy of the filing (excluding the visitor instructions and additional established tolerances for residues of any Confidential Business Information acetamiprid in or on the following raw information about the docket available (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. agricultural commodities: Vegetable, at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Information not marked confidential leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 3.00 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup Michael Goodis, Registration Division disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 5B at 15 ppm; turnip, greens at 15 ppm; (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 objection or hearing request, identified 1.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12, except Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– plum, prune at 1.20 ppm; plum, prune, 20460–0001; main telephone number: 2018–0784, by one of the following fresh at 0.20 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at (703) 305–7090; email address: methods: 0.10 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; canola, • [email protected]. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// seed at 0.010 ppm; mustard, seed at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 0.010 ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed instructions for submitting comments. I. General Information at 0.60 ppm. Do not submit electronically any That document referenced a summary A. Does this action apply to me? information you consider to be CBI or of the petition prepared by Nippon Soda You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is Co., Ltd. c/o Nisso America Inc, the restricted by statute. registrant, which is available in the this action if you are an agricultural • producer, food manufacturer, or Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental docket, http://www.regulations.gov. pesticide manufacturer. The following Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ Comments were received on the notice list of North American Industrial DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. of filing. EPA’s response to these NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Classification System (NAICS) codes is • not intended to be exhaustive, but rather Hand Delivery: To make special Pursuant to its authority in FFDCA provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please establishing tolerances that vary slightly applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http:// from what the petitioner requested. The entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. reasons for these changes are in Unit • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on commenting IV.D. • Animal production (NAICS code or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 112). Determination of Safety • Food manufacturing (NAICS code available at http://www.epa.gov/ 311). dockets. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA • allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS II. Summary of Petitioned-For code 32532). legal limit for a pesticide chemical Tolerance residue in or on a food) only if EPA B. How can I get electronic access to In the Federal Register of April 19, determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ other related information? 2019 (84 FR 16430) (FRL–9991–14), Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA You may access a frequently updated EPA issued a document pursuant to defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a electronic version of EPA’s tolerance FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. reasonable certainty that no harm will regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a result from aggregate exposure to the the Government Publishing Office’s e- pesticide petition (PP 8E8715) by IR–4, pesticide chemical residue, including CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ IR–4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The all anticipated dietary exposures and all text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ State University of New Jersey, 500 other exposures for which there is Title40/40tab_02.tpl. College Road East, Suite 201W, reliable information.’’ This includes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8435

exposure through drinking water and in 6 hours post-dosing at the high dose (50 acetamiprid as not likely to be residential settings but does not include mg/kg), and the main route of excretion carcinogenic to humans. occupational exposure. Section is through the urine, which is nearly Specific information on the studies 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to complete by 48 hours for all doses. received and the nature of the adverse give special consideration to exposure Metabolites of acetamiprid account for effects caused by acetamiprid as well as of infants and children to the pesticide 79–86% of the administered the no-observed-adverse-effect-level chemical residue in establishing a radioactivity, with 6-Chloronicotinic (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a (IC–O) acid being the most abundant adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the reasonable certainty that no harm will metabolite. There were no significant toxicity studies can be found at http:// result to infants and children from sex differences noted in the ADME www.regulations.gov in the document aggregate exposure to the pesticide profile in rats. titled ‘‘Acetamiprid. Human Health Risk chemical residue. . . .’’ No effects were observed in the 21- Assessment for Proposed Use on Consistent with FFDCA section day dermal study in the rabbit and no Tropical and Subtropical, Medium to 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in inhalation studies were conducted. EPA Large Fruit, Smooth, Inedible Peel FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has has used a refined value of 10% as a Subgroup 24B; Greenhouse-grown reviewed the available scientific data dermal absorption factor based on the Peppers; and Crop Group Conversions and other relevant information in rat dermal absorption study and weight and Expansions’’ on pages 38–43 in support of this action. EPA has of evidence. docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018– sufficient data to assess the hazards of Evidence of qualitative susceptibility 0784. and to make a determination on was observed in the 2-generation B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ aggregate exposure for acetamiprid reproductive study, with the offspring Levels of Concern including exposure resulting from the effects (significant reductions in pup tolerances established by this action. weights, reduction in litter size and Once a pesticide’s toxicological EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks viability, significant delays in weaning profile is determined, EPA identifies associated with acetamiprid follows. indices and the age to attain vaginal toxicological points of departure (POD) opening and preputial separation) and levels of concern to use in A. Toxicological Profile considered more severe than the evaluating the risk posed by human EPA has evaluated the available decrease in parental body weights. exposure to the pesticide. For hazards toxicity data and considered its validity, Qualitative susceptibility was also seen that have a threshold below which there completeness, and reliability as well as in the developmental neurotoxicity is no appreciable risk, the toxicological the relationship of the results of the study (DNT) with offspring effects POD is used as the basis for derivation studies to human risk. EPA has also (decreased body weight, pre-weaning of reference values for risk assessment. considered available information survival, and startle response) occurring PODs are developed based on a careful concerning the variability of the in the presence of marginal parental analysis of the doses in each sensitivities of major identifiable body weight decreases. toxicological study to determine the subgroups of consumers, including Evidence of neurotoxicity was dose at which no adverse effects are infants and children. observed in the rat acute neurotoxicity observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest In all species tested, generalized study (decrease in locomotor activity, dose at which adverse effects of concern nonspecific toxicity was observed as and at higher doses: Tremors, difficulty are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ decreases in body weight/body weight in handling, walking on toes, dilated safety factors are used in conjunction gain, food consumption, and food pupils, chewing, coldness to the touch, with the POD to calculate a safe efficiency. Hepatocellular hypertrophy abnormal gaits and/or posture, exposure level—generally referred to as was observed in both mice and rats, and decreased forelimb grip strength, and a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a hepatocellular vacuolation in the rat, hind limb foot splay), subchronic reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin but these liver effects alone are toxicity study in mice (tremors), the of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold considered adaptive and not indicative DNT (decreased startle response), and risks, the Agency assumes that any of an adverse effect. Other effects comparative metabolism study amount of exposure will lead to some observed in the oral studies include (decreased alertness, reactivity, degree of risk. Thus, the Agency amyloidosis of multiple organs in the spontaneous activity, locomotor estimates risk in terms of the probability mouse carcinogenicity study, tremors in activity, rearing, muscle tone, and grip of an occurrence of the adverse effect high dose females in the mouse strength; as well as tremors, staggering, expected in a lifetime. For more subchronic study, and micro- and depressed reflexes in the rat, information on the general principles concretions in the kidney papilla and mouse, and/or rabbit). Subchronic EPA uses in risk characterization and a mammary hyperplasia in the rat immunotoxicity studies were performed complete description of the risk chronic/carcinogenicity study. in both sexes in rats and mice, with no assessment process, see http:// Acetamiprid is rapidly absorbed, effects on the immune system observed www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- metabolized, and eliminated. The up to the highest dose tested. assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing- metabolism study in rats indicates 96– Acetamiprid and its metabolites IC–0, human-health-risk-pesticides. 99% absorption following an oral IM–1–2, IM–1–4, IM–2–1, and IM–0 A summary of the toxicological administration. Peak blood tested negative for mutagenicity. With endpoints for acetamiprid used for concentrations in the rat occur within no treatment-related tumors seen in rats human risk assessment is shown in 1–2 hours at the low dose (1 mg/kg), 3– or mice, the Agency has classified Table 1 of this unit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8436 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR ACETAMIPRID FOR USE IN FFDCA HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Point of departure Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects safety factors risk assessment

Acute dietary (All Populations) NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/ Co-critical studies. day kg/day Developmental Neurotoxicity in rat. UFA = 10X aPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based on decreased early pup survival UFH = 10X day on PND 0–1, and decreased startle response on PND 20/60 FQPA SF = 1X in males. Acute Neurotoxicity Study in rat. LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day based on decreased locomotor activity.

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 7.1 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.071 Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study in rats. day mg/kg/day LOAEL = 17.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight UFA = 10X cPAD = 0.071 mg/ and body weight gains in females and hepatocellular UFH = 10X kg/day vacuolation in males. FQPA SF = 1X

Incidental oral short-term (1 to NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity in rat. 30 days). day LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and UFA = 10X body weight gains in offspring, decreased early pup survival UFH = 10X on PND 0–1, and decreased startle response on PND 20/60 FQPA SF = 1X in males.

Incidental oral long-term (great- NOAEL= 7.1 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study in rats. er than 6 months). day LOAEL = 17.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight UFA= 10X and body weight gains in females and hepatocellular UFH= 10X vacuolation in males. FQPA SF = 1X

Dermal short- and intermediate- Oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity in rat. term (1 to 30 days; 1 to 6 10 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and months). UFA = 10X body weight gains in offspring, decreased early pup survival UFH = 10X on PND 0–1, and decreased startle response on PND 20/60 DAF = 10% in males. FQPA SF = 1X

Dermal long-term (greater than Dermal (or oral) LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study in rats. 6 months). study NOAEL = LOAEL = 17.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight 7.1 mg/kg/day and body weight gains in females and hepatocellular UFA = 10X vacuolation in males. UFH = 10X DAF = 10% FQPA SF = 1X

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 Oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity in rat. days). 10 mg/kg/day In- LOAEL = 45 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and halation toxicity body weight gains in offspring, decreased early pup survival assumed to be on PND 0–1, and decreased startle response on PND 20/60 equivalent to oral in males. toxicity UFA = 10X UFH = 10X FQPA SF = 1X

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhala- Classification: ‘‘Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’. tion). 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). DAF = Dermal Absorption Factor.

C. Exposure Assessment exposures from acetamiprid in food as occurring as a result of a 1-day or single follows: exposure. 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute Such effects were identified for exposure to acetamiprid, EPA dietary exposure and risk assessments acetamiprid. In estimating acute dietary considered exposure under the are performed for a food-use pesticide, exposure, EPA used food consumption petitioned-for tolerances as well as all if a toxicological study has indicated the information from the United States existing acetamiprid tolerances in 40 possibility of an effect of concern Department of Agriculture (USDA) CFR 180.578. EPA assessed dietary 2003–2008 National Health and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8437

Nutrition Examination Survey, What We celery, 5% of cherries, 5% of cotton, residue levels higher than those Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As 2.5% of cucumbers, 2.5% of grapefruit, estimated by the Agency. Other than the to residue levels in food, the acute 2.5% of grapes, 2.5% of lemons, 15% of data available through national food dietary exposure assessment was lettuce, 1% of nectarines, 2.5% of consumption surveys, EPA does not unrefined and used tolerance-level onions, 2.5% of oranges, 5% of peaches, have available reliable information on residues and 100 percent crop treated 35% of pears, 1% of pecans, 5% of the regional consumption of food to (PCT). peppers, 5% of pistachios, 2.5% plums/ which acetamiprid may be applied in a ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting prunes, 2.5% of potatoes, 5% of particular area. the chronic dietary exposure pumpkins, 10% of spinach, 5% of 2. Dietary exposure from drinking assessment, EPA used the food squash, 30% of strawberries, 1% of water. The Agency used screening level consumption data from the USDA 2003– sweet corn, 5% of tomatoes, 15% of water exposure models in the dietary 2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue walnuts, and 5% of watermelons. exposure analysis and risk assessment levels in food, the chronic dietary In most cases, EPA uses available data for acetamiprid in drinking water. These exposure assessment was slightly from United States Department of simulation models take into account refined using PCT information for some Agriculture/National Agricultural data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ commodities. Aside from these Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), transport characteristics of acetamiprid. commodities, the analyses were based proprietary market surveys, and Further information regarding EPA on tolerance-level residues and the California Department of Pesticide drinking water models used in pesticide assumption of 100 PCT. In addition, Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use exposure assessment can be found at conservative default processing factors Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science- were used for many processed combination for the most recent 10 and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about- commodities, while empirical years. EPA uses an average PCT for water-exposure-models-used-pesticide. processing factors were used for a chronic dietary risk analysis and a Based on the Pesticide in Water limited number of processed maximum PCT for acute dietary risk Calculator (PWC) and Provisional commodities. analysis. The average PCT figure for Cranberry Model, the estimated iii. Cancer. Based on the data each existing use is derived by drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has combining available public and private of acetamiprid for acute exposures are concluded that acetamiprid does not market survey data for that use, estimated to be 88.1 parts per billion pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, averaging across all observations, and (ppb) in surface water and 211 ppb in a dietary exposure assessment for the rounding to the nearest 5%, except for ground water, and for chronic exposures purpose of assessing cancer risk is those situations in which the average are estimated to be 12.7 ppb in surface unnecessary. PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. water and 175 ppb in ground water. iv. Anticipated residue and PCT In those cases, the Agency would use Modeled estimates of drinking water information. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the concentrations were directly entered FFDCA states that the Agency may use average PCT value, respectively. The into the dietary exposure model. For the data on the actual percent of food maximum PCT figure is the highest acute dietary risk assessment, the water treated for assessing chronic dietary risk observed maximum value reported concentration value of 211 ppb was only if: within the most recent 10 years of used to assess the contribution from • Condition a: The data used are available public and private market drinking water. For the chronic dietary reliable and provide a valid basis to survey data for the existing use and risk assessment, the water concentration show what percentage of the food rounded up to the nearest multiple of of value 175 ppb was used to assess the derived from such crop is likely to 5%, except where the maximum PCT is contribution from drinking water. contain the pesticide residue. less than 2.5%, in which case, the 3. From non-dietary exposure. The • Condition b: The exposure estimate Agency uses less than 2.5% as the term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in does not underestimate exposure for any maximum PCT. this document to refer to non- significant subpopulation group. The Agency believes that the three occupational, non-dietary exposure • Condition c: Data are available on conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, pesticide use and food consumption in have been met. With respect to indoor pest control, termiticides, and a particular area and the exposure Condition a, PCT estimates are derived flea and tick control on pets). estimate does not understate exposure from Federal and private market survey Acetamiprid is currently registered for for the population in such area. data, which are reliable and have a valid the following uses that could result in In addition, the Agency must provide basis. The Agency is reasonably certain residential exposures: Gardens and for periodic evaluation of any estimates that the percentage of the food treated trees, spot-on pet treatment, fly control, used. To provide for the periodic is not likely to be an underestimation. indoor crack/crevice, mattresses for bed evaluation of the estimate of PCT as As to Conditions b and c, regional bug control, and animal barns. EPA required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), consumption information and assessed residential exposure using the EPA may require registrants to submit consumption information for significant following assumptions: Residential data on PCT. subpopulations is taken into account handler dermal and inhalation exposure The Agency estimated the PCT for through EPA’s computer-based model are expected to occur from the use of the existing uses as follows: for evaluating the exposure of registered acetamiprid formulations on In the acute assessment, 100 PCT was significant subpopulations including ornamentals, vegetables, and fruit trees. assumed for all commodities. several regional groups. Use of this All residential handler exposures are In the chronic assessment, the PCT consumption information in EPA’s risk expected to be short-term in duration. estimates used were as follows: 1% of assessment process ensures that EPA’s Residential handler dermal exposure is almonds, 30% of apples, 10% of exposure estimate does not understate expected to occur from the registered apricots, 5% of asparagus, 10% of exposure for any significant acetamiprid spot-on product when blueberries, 5% of broccoli, 10% of subpopulation group and allows the applied to dogs. Inhalation exposure cabbage, 5% of caneberries, 15% of Agency to be reasonably certain that no from spot-on products is considered to cantaloupes, 10% of cauliflower, 40% of regional population is exposed to be negligible. Residential handler

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8438 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

dermal and inhalation exposures from term durations, short-term exposure and opening and preputial separation) applications to indoor environments risk estimates are considered protective considered more severe than the was not assessed based on current of potential intermediate-term exposure decrease in parental body weights. Agency policy because the labels for the and risk. Qualitative susceptibility was also seen products that are used in indoor Further information regarding EPA in the DNT with offspring effects environments require personal standard assumptions and generic (decreased body weight, pre-weaning protective equipment (PPE). Residential inputs for residential exposures may be survival, and startle response) occurring handler exposure from the fly bait use found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide- in the presence of marginal parental was not assessed, as exposures are science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ body weight decreases. expected to be insignificant due to standard-operating-procedures- 3. Conclusion. EPA has determined incorporation of acetamiprid in the glue. residential-pesticide. that reliable data show the safety of 4. Cumulative effects from substances There is the potential for post- infants and children would be with a common mechanism of toxicity. application exposure for individuals adequately protected if the FQPA SF Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA exposed as a result of being in an were reduced to 1X. That decision is requires that, when considering whether environment that has been treated with based on the following findings: acetamiprid. The quantitative risk to establish, modify, or revoke a assessment for residential post- tolerance, the Agency consider i. The toxicity database for application exposures is based on the ‘‘available information’’ concerning the acetamiprid is complete. following scenarios: Short-term dermal cumulative effects of a particular ii. Acetamiprid produced signs of exposure to gardens (gardens, trees, pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other neurotoxicity in the high dose groups in indoor plants); short-, intermediate-, substances that have a common the acute and developmental and long-term dermal and incidental mechanism of toxicity.’’ neurotoxicity studies in rats and the oral exposure to the dog spot-on EPA has not found acetamiprid to subchronic toxicity study in mice. treatment; short-term dermal, share a common mechanism of toxicity However, no neurotoxic findings were inhalation, and incidental oral exposure with any other substances, and reported in the subchronic neurotoxicity from the indoor crack and crevice and acetamiprid does not appear to produce study in rats. Additionally, there are bed bug mattress uses; and short-term a toxic metabolite produced by other clear NOAELs identified for the effects dermal and incidental oral exposure substances. For the purposes of this observed in the toxicity studies. The from the fly bait granule use. Post- tolerance action, therefore, EPA has doses and endpoints selected for risk application dermal exposures from assumed that acetamiprid does not have assessment are protective and account foundation, perimeter, and spot a common mechanism of toxicity with for all toxicological effects observed in treatments outdoors, along with post- other substances. For information the database. regarding EPA’s efforts to determine application inhalation exposure, are iii. No quantitative or qualitative which chemicals have a common considered negligible and were not evidence of increased susceptibility of mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate assessed. Acetamiprid is also registered fetuses to in utero exposure to the cumulative effects of such for use as a termiticide. A quantitative acetamiprid was observed in the chemicals, see EPA’s website at http:// assessment for potential post- developmental toxicity study in either www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- application inhalation and dermal rats or rabbits. Although increased assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative- exposure resulting from a commercial qualitative susceptibility was seen in assessment-risk-pesticides. termiticide application in a residential the reproduction toxicity and the DNT setting is not needed, as all applications D. Safety Factor for Infants and study, the degree of concern for the are made to the soil/foundation around/ Children effects is low. There are clear NOAELs underneath a structure. In this case, for the offspring effects and regulatory exposure to acetamiprid vapors is not 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of doses were selected to be protective of expected. Additionally, EPA believes FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply these effects. No other residual that inhalation and dermal exposure to an additional tenfold (10X) margin of uncertainties were identified with acetamiprid from bed bug treatments safety for infants and children in the respect to susceptibility. The endpoints (applied directly to the space where case of threshold effects to account for and doses selected for acetamiprid are people are living vs. application to the prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the protective of adverse effects in both foundation/structure) would be completeness of the database on toxicity offspring and adults. protective of the termiticide uses of and exposure unless EPA determines acetamiprid. based on reliable data that a different iv. There are no residual uncertainties The lifestages selected for each post- margin of safety will be safe for infants identified in the exposure databases. application scenario are based on the and children. This additional margin of The acute dietary food exposure Agency’s 2012 Residential SOPs. While safety is commonly referred to as the assessment was performed based on 100 not the only lifestage potentially FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying PCT and tolerance-level residues, and exposed for these post-application this provision, EPA either retains the the chronic dietary exposure assessment scenarios, the lifestage that is included default value of 10X, or uses a different was slightly refined using PCT in the quantitative assessment, (i.e., additional safety factor when reliable information for some commodities. EPA Children (1 < 2 years), children (3 < 6 data available to EPA support the choice made conservative (protective) years), children (6 < 12 years), adult), is of a different factor. assumptions in the ground and surface health protective for the exposures and 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. water modeling used to assess exposure risk estimates for any other potentially Evidence of qualitative susceptibility to acetamiprid in drinking water. EPA exposed lifestage. was observed in the 2-generation used similarly conservative assumptions Based on the proposed uses, short- reproductive study, with the offspring to assess post-application exposure of and intermediate-term exposures are effects (significant reductions in pup children as well as incidental oral expected for the proposed use profile. weights, reduction in litter size and exposure of toddlers. These assessments Since the same endpoint and POD were viability, significant delays in weaning will not underestimate the exposure and selected for short- and intermediate- indices and the age to attain vaginal risks posed by acetamiprid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8439

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of old and 360 for adults. Because EPA’s using gas chromatography with electron Safety level of concern for acetamiprid is a capture detection (GC/ECD) analysis for EPA determines whether acute and MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are vegetables and non-citrus fruits, high- chronic dietary pesticide exposures are not of concern. performance liquid chromatography safe by comparing aggregate exposure 3. Short-term risk. Short-term with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and aggregate exposure takes into account analysis for citrus fruits only, and HPLC chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer short-term residential exposure plus with tandem mass spectrometric risks, EPA calculates the lifetime chronic exposure to food and water detection (LC/MS/MS) analysis for probability of acquiring cancer given the (considered to be a background vegetables and non-citrus fruits. An estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, exposure level). approved HPLC/UV tolerance intermediate-, and chronic-term risks Acetamiprid is currently registered for enforcement method for livestock are evaluated by comparing the uses that could result in short-term matrices is available. estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure, and the Agency The methods may be requested from: residential exposure to the appropriate has determined that it is appropriate to Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE aggregate chronic exposure through food Environmental Science Center, 701 exists. and water with short-term residential Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 1. Acute risk. Using the exposure exposures to acetamiprid. telephone number: (410) 305–2905; assumptions discussed in this unit for Using the exposure assumptions email address: residuemethods@ acute exposure, the acute dietary described in this unit for short-term epa.gov. exposures, EPA has concluded the exposure from food and water to B. International Residue Limits acetamiprid will occupy 89% of the combined short-term food, water, and aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the residential exposures result in aggregate In making its tolerance decisions, EPA population group receiving the greatest MOEs of 180 for adults, 460 for children seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with exposure. 6 to less than 12 years old, 340 for international standards whenever 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure children 3 to less than 6 years old, and possible, consistent with U.S. food assumptions described in this unit for 130 for children 1 to less than 2 years safety standards and agricultural chronic exposure, EPA has concluded old. Because EPA’s level of concern for practices. EPA considers the that chronic exposure to acetamiprid acetamiprid is a MOE of 100 or below, international maximum residue limits from food and water will utilize 48% of these MOEs are not of concern. (MRLs) established by the Codex the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, 4. Intermediate-term risk. Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as the population group receiving the Intermediate-term aggregate exposure required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). greatest exposure. takes into account intermediate-term The Codex Alimentarius is a joint residential exposure plus chronic Long-term aggregate risk assessments United Nations Food and Agriculture exposure to food and water (considered were conducted to assess risks for adults Organization/World Health to be a background exposure level). and children and include exposure Organization food standards program, through oral (children only) and dermal An intermediate-term adverse effect and it is recognized as an international routes. The oral and dermal endpoints was identified, and intermediate-term food safety standards-setting for long-term exposure durations are the exposure is expected; however, since organization in trade agreements to same (decreased body weight and body the same endpoint and POD were which the United States is a party. EPA weight gains), and therefore exposures selected for short- and intermediate- may establish a tolerance that is from these pathways are aggregated. In term durations, short-term exposure and different from a Codex MRL; however, accordance with the FQPA, the risk estimates are considered protective FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that combined exposure from these of potential intermediate-term exposure EPA explain the reasons for departing pathways is added to the background and risk. from the Codex level. dietary exposure from the chronic 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. The following table summarizes the dietary exposure assessment. population. Based on the lack of tolerances being established by this The Agency selected only the most evidence of carcinogenicity in two document and the corresponding Codex conservative, or worst case, scenarios adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, tolerances. The U.S. tolerance in for each lifestage. For both adults and acetamiprid is not expected to pose a Cottonseed subgroup 20C is harmonized children, worst-case long-term scenarios cancer risk to humans. with the Codex MRL in cotton seed. The reflect post-application exposure to pets 6. Determination of safety. Based on U.S. tolerance in Fruit, stone, group 12– treated with spot-on products. As the these risk assessments, EPA concludes 12 is harmonized with the Codex MRL LOCs are identical for all routes of that there is a reasonable certainty that in cherry, which has the highest MRL of exposure, and since the POD for all no harm will result to the general the individual group 12–12 routes of exposure is derived from an population, or to infants and children commodities with Codex MRLs. EPA is oral study, the long-term aggregate from aggregate exposure to acetamiprid not able to harmonize the other MOEs were calculated by adding the residues. tolerances with Codex MRLs because exposures and dividing the POD (7.1 IV. Other Considerations the U.S. tolerances are higher. mg/kg) by the sum of the exposures. Establishing a U.S. tolerance at a lower EPA has concluded the combined A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology level to harmonize with Codex would long-term food, water, and residential Approved tolerance enforcement put U.S. growers at risk of having exposures result in aggregate MOEs of methods for acetamiprid residues in violative residues despite legal use of 110 for children 1 to less than 2 years crops are available, including methods the pesticide according to the label.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8440 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. tolerances established in this rulemaking Codex (40 CFR § 180.578) Commodity Tolerance Commodity MRL (ppm) (mg/kg)

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B ...... 15 Chinese broccoli ...... 0.4 Celtuce ...... 3 ...... Cottonseed subgroup 20C ...... 0.7 Cotton seed ...... 0.7 Florence, fennel, fresh leaves and stalk ...... 3 ...... Fruit, stone, group 12–12 ...... 1.5 Cherry ...... 1.5 Nectarine, peach ...... 0.7 Dried prune ...... 0.6 Plum ...... 0.2 Kohlrabi ...... 1.2 ...... Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B ...... 3 Celery ...... 1.5 Leafy greens subgroup 4–16A ...... 3 ...... Nut, tree, group 14–12 ...... 0.1 Tree nuts ...... 0.06 Rapeseed subgroup 20A ...... 0.01 ...... Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, 0.5 ...... subgroup 24B. Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5–16 ...... 1.2 Broccoli, cauliflower ...... 0.4 Cabbage ...... 0.7

C. Response to Comments the tolerance in Fruit, stone, group 12– ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 One commenter stated that ‘‘EPA has 12; although not requested in the FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because original petition, the need to remove not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the this action has been exempted from this tolerance was confirmed in submitted data at this time or whether review under Executive Order 12866, subsequent correspondence with the the data support granting of the this action is not subject to Executive petitioner. pesticide petitions.’’ The commenter Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions does not indicate what additional data V. Conclusion Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, might be necessary, why the commenter Therefore, tolerances are established questions the sufficiency of the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May for residues of acetamiprid in or on 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, available data, or what about the Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B Agency’s findings is unsupported. entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from at 15 ppm; Celtuce at 3 ppm; Cottonseed Environmental Health Risks and Safety Contrary to the commenter’s position, subgroup 20C at 0.7 ppm; Fennel, the Agency has in fact fully evaluated Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 3 nor is it considered a regulatory action all the data submitted on acetamiprid ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 1.5 and determined that the toxicological under Executive Order 13771, entitled ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.2 ppm; Leaf petiole ‘‘Reducing Regulations and Controlling and exposure databases on acetamiprid vegetable subgroup 22B at 3 ppm; Leafy are complete, i.e., they do not contain Regulatory Costs’’ (82 FR 9339, February greens subgroup 4–16A at 3 ppm; Nut, 3, 2017). This action does not contain any data gaps at this time, and dietary tree, group 14–12 at 0.1 ppm; Rapeseed and residential exposure and risk have any information collections subject to subgroup 20A at 0.01 ppm; Tropical and OMB approval under the Paperwork not been underestimated. Taking all that subtropical, medium to large fruit, information into consideration, EPA has Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et smooth, inedible peel, subgroup 24B at seq.), nor does it require any special concluded that the tolerances for 0.5 ppm; and Vegetable, brassica, head acetamiprid are safe. considerations under Executive Order and stem, group 5–16 at 1.2 ppm. 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to The other comments submitted raised Additionally, the following existing Address Environmental Justice in more general concerns about the use of tolerances are removed as unnecessary Minority Populations and Low-Income pesticides and questioned a separate due to the establishment of the above Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, tolerance exemption. Neither raise tolerances: Brassica, head and stem, 1994). issues relevant to this tolerance subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, rulemaking. subgroup 5B; Canola, seed; Cotton, Since tolerances and exemptions that undelinted seed; Fruit, stone, group 12, are established on the basis of a petition D. Revisions to Petitioned-For under FFDCA section 408(d), such as Tolerances except plum, prune; Mustard, seed; Nut, tree, group 14; Pistachio; Plum, prune, the tolerances in this final rule, do not EPA is establishing some of the dried; Plum, prune, fresh; Turnip require the issuance of a proposed rule, tolerances at different levels than greens; and Vegetable, leafy, except the requirements of the Regulatory petitioned for in order to be consistent brassica, group 4. Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et with the Agency’s rounding class seq.), do not apply. practice, which is based on the VI. Statutory and Executive Order This action directly regulates growers, rounding procedures of the Organisation Reviews food processors, food handlers, and food for Economic Co-operation and This action establishes and modifies retailers, not States or tribes, nor does Development. EPA corrected the tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) this action alter the relationships or commodity definition for Fennel, in response to a petition submitted to distribution of power and Florence, fresh leaves and stalk. Finally, the Agency. The Office of Management responsibilities established by Congress EPA is removing the existing tolerance and Budget (OMB) has exempted these in the preemption provisions of FFDCA in Plum, prune, dried, because it is no types of actions from review under section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency longer needed with the establishment of Executive Order 12866, entitled has determined that this action will not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8441

have a substantial direct effect on States ■ c. Remove the entry for ‘‘Canola, Parts per or Tribal Governments, on the seed’’; Commodity million relationship between the National ■ d. Add alphabetically the entries Government and the States or Tribal ‘‘Celtuce’’ and ‘‘Cottonseed subgroup ***** Governments, or on the distribution of 20C’’; Tropical and subtropical, medium ■ e. Remove the entry for ‘‘Cotton, to large fruit, smooth, inedible power and responsibilities among the peel, subgroup 24B ...... 0.5 various levels of government or between undelinted seed’’; Vegetable, brassica, head and the Federal Government and Indian ■ f. Add alphabetically the entries stem, group 5–16 ...... 1.2 Tribes. Thus, the Agency has ‘‘Fennel, florence, fresh leaves and determined that Executive Order 13132, stalk’’ and ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12–12’’; ***** entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, ■ g. Remove the entry for ‘‘Fruit, stone, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order group 12, except plum, prune’’; * * * * * 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and ■ h. Add alphabetically the entries [FR Doc. 2020–02038 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Coordination with Indian Tribal ‘‘Kohlrabi’’; ‘‘Leaf petiole vegetable BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November subgroup 22B’’; and ‘‘Leafy greens 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In subgroup 4–16A’’; addition, this action does not impose ■ i. Remove the entries for ‘‘Mustard, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION any enforceable duty or contain any seed’’ and ‘‘Nut, tree, group 14’’; AGENCY ■ j. Add alphabetically the entry ‘‘Nut, unfunded mandate as described under 40 CFR Part 180 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates tree, group 14–12’’; Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et ■ k. Remove the entries for ‘‘Pistachio’’; [EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0129; FRL–10002–96] seq.). ‘‘Plum, prune, dried’’; and ‘‘Plum, This action does not involve any prune, fresh’’; Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- technical standards that would require ■ l. Add alphabetically the entries butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]; Agency consideration of voluntary ‘‘Rapeseed subgroup 20A’’ and Exemption From the Requirement of a consensus standards pursuant to section ‘‘Tropical and subtropical, medium to Tolerance large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, 12(d) of the National Technology AGENCY: Environmental Protection subgroup 24B’’; Transfer and Advancement Act Agency (EPA). (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). ■ m. Remove the entry for ‘‘Turnip greens’’; ACTION: Final rule. VII. Congressional Review Act ■ n. Add alphabetically the entry SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an Pursuant to the Congressional Review ‘‘Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, exemption from the requirement of a Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will group 5–16’’; and tolerance for residues of submit a report containing this rule and ■ o. Remove the entry for ‘‘Vegetable, ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- other required information to the U.S. leafy, except brassica, group 4’’. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] Senate, the U.S. House of The revisions and additions read as when used as an inert ingredient Representatives, and the Comptroller follows: (stabilizer) limited to 1% (by weight) in General of the United States prior to § 180.578 Acetamiprid; tolerances for pesticide formulations applied to publication of the rule in the Federal residues. growing crops, and raw agricultural Register. This action is not a ‘‘major (a) * * * commodities after harvest. Syngenta rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). (1) * * * Crop Protection, LLC submitted a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Parts per Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), Environmental protection, Commodity million requesting establishment of an Administrative practice and procedure, exemption from the requirement of a Agricultural commodities, Pesticides tolerance. This regulation eliminates the and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping ***** need to establish a maximum requirements. Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B ...... 15 permissible level for residues of Dated: January 24, 2020. ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- Michael Goodis, ***** butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] Director, Registration Division, Office of Celtuce ...... 3 when used in accordance with the terms Pesticide Programs. of this exemption. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is ***** DATES: This regulation is effective Cottonseed subgroup 20C ...... 0.7 amended as follows: February 14, 2020. Objections and Fennel, florence, fresh leaves requests for hearings must be received and stalk ...... 3 PART 180—[AMENDED] on or before April 14, 2020, and must be filed in accordance with the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 ***** Fruit, stone, group 12–12 ...... 1.5 instructions provided in 40 CFR part continues to read as follows: 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. ***** SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). ■ 2. In § 180.578, amend the table in Kohlrabi ...... 1.2 ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup identified by docket identification (ID) paragraph (a)(1) as follows: 22B ...... 3 ■ number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0129, is a. Remove the entries for ‘‘Brassica, Leafy greens subgroup 4–16A ... 3 head and stem, subgroup 5A’’ and Nut, tree, group 14–12 ...... 0.1 available at http://www.regulations.gov ‘‘Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B’’; or at the Office of Pesticide Programs ■ b. Add alphabetically the entry ***** Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) ‘‘Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4– Rapeseed subgroup 20A ...... 0.01 in the Environmental Protection Agency 16B’’; Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8442 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 must be in writing, and must be III. Inert Ingredient Definition Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC received by the Hearing Clerk on or Inert ingredients are all ingredients 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room before April 14, 2020. Addresses for that are not active ingredients as defined is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., mail and hand delivery of objections in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hearing requests are provided in 40 not limited to, the following types of holidays. The telephone number for the CFR 178.25(b). ingredients (except when they have a In addition to filing an objection or Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, pesticidal efficacy of their own): hearing request with the Hearing Clerk and the telephone number for the OPP Solvents such as alcohols and as described in 40 CFR part 178, please Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review hydrocarbons; surfactants such as submit a copy of the filing (excluding the visitor instructions and additional polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty any Confidential Business Information information about the docket available acids; carriers such as clay and (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as Information not marked confidential FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: carrageenan and modified cellulose; Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior wetting, spreading, and dispersing (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, agents; propellants in aerosol Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified dispensers; microencapsulating agents; Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not 20460–0001; main telephone number: by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 2019–0129, by one of the following intended to imply nontoxicity; the (703) 305–7090; email address: ingredient may or may not be [email protected]. methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// chemically active. Generally, EPA has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online exempted inert ingredients from the I. General Information instructions for submitting comments. requirement of a tolerance based on the Do not submit electronically any low toxicity of the individual inert A. Does this action apply to me? information you consider to be CBI or ingredients. You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and this action if you are an agricultural restricted by statute. Determination of Safety producer, food manufacturer, or • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental pesticide manufacturer. The following Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA list of North American Industrial DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. allows EPA to establish an exemption Classification System (NAICS) codes is NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. from the requirement for a tolerance (the not intended to be exhaustive, but rather • Hand Delivery: To make special legal limit for a pesticide chemical provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or residue in or on a food) only if EPA determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http:// Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on reasonable certainty that no harm will • Animal production (NAICS code commenting or visiting the docket, result from aggregate exposure to the 112). along with more information about pesticide chemical residue, including • Food manufacturing (NAICS code dockets generally, is available at http:// all anticipated dietary exposures and all 311). www.epa.gov/dockets. other exposures for which there is • reliable information.’’ This includes Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS II. Petition for Exemption code 32532). exposure through drinking water and in In the Federal Register of June 7, 2019 residential settings, but does not include B. How can I get electronic access to (84 FR 26630) (FRL–9993–93), EPA occupational exposure. Section other related information? issued a document pursuant to FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to You may access a frequently updated section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing give special consideration to exposure electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN– of infants and children to the pesticide through the Government Publishing 11245) by Syngenta Crop Protection, chemical residue in establishing a Office’s e-CFR site at http:// LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- Greensboro, NC 27419–8300. The reasonable certainty that no harm will idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ petition requested the establishment of result to infants and children from 40tab_02.tpl. an exemption from the requirement of a aggregate exposure to the pesticide tolerance for residues of chemical residue. . . .’’ C. How can I file an objection or hearing ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- EPA establishes exemptions from the request? butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] requirement of a tolerance only in those Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 (CAS Reg. No. 36443–68–2) when used cases where it can be clearly U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) at no demonstrated that the risks from objection to any aspect of this regulation more than 1% by weight in pesticide aggregate exposure to pesticide and may also request a hearing on those formulations applied to or on raw chemical residues under reasonably objections. You must file your objection agricultural commodities and growing foreseeable circumstances will pose no or request a hearing on this regulation crops under 40 CFR 180.910. That appreciable risks to human health. In in accordance with the instructions document referenced a summary of the order to determine the risks from provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure petition prepared by Syngenta Crop aggregate exposure to pesticide inert proper receipt by EPA, you must Protection, LLC, the petitioner, which is ingredients, the Agency considers the identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– available in the docket at http:// toxicity of the inert in conjunction with OPP–2019–0129 in the subject line on www.regulations.gov. There were no possible exposure to residues of the the first page of your submission. All comments received in response to the inert ingredient through food, drinking objections and requests for a hearing notice of filing. water, and through other exposures that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8443

occur as a result of pesticide use in No fetal susceptibility was observed In a metabolism study in rats, residential settings. If EPA is able to in the developmental studies. Maternal ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- determine that a finite tolerance is not toxicity (reduced bodyweight gain and butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] necessary to ensure that there is a food consumption) occurs at 100 mg/kg/ administered orally is rapidly absorbed reasonable certainty that no harm will day while developmental toxicity and metabolized. It is primarily excreted result from aggregate exposure to the (reduced bodyweight and delayed in the urine and feces. Metabolites were inert ingredient, an exemption from the skeletal maturation) occurs at 300 mg/ not identified in this study; however, it requirement of a tolerance may be kg/day. The maternal NOAEL was not is a phenolic antioxidant and based on established. established, and the developmental the classical metabolic pathway for this Consistent with FFDCA section NOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day. class of chemicals, it would be subject 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in Qualitative fetal susceptibility was to glucuronide or sulphate conjugation, FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has observed in the 2-generation hydroxylation of the phenyl ring, and reviewed the available scientific data reproduction toxicity study. Pup side chain oxidation. The resulting and other relevant information in mortality and reduced body weight were metabolites are expected to be 3-(3-tert- support of this action. EPA has observed in offsprings at 900 parts per butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methyl- ∼ sufficient data to assess the hazards of million (ppm) ( 54 to 62 mg/kg/day). In phenyl)propanoic acid and 2-[2-(2- and to make a determination on parents, decreased bodyweight gain and hydroxyethoxy)ethoxy]ethanol aggregate exposure for food consumption occurred at the same (triethylene glycol). ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- dose. However, the established chronic Dermal absorption rate was calculated butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] reference dose (cRfD) of 0.15 mg/kg/day to be 0.53% in a dermal absorption including exposure resulting from the will be protective of offspring effects. study in miniature pigs. The parental and offspring NOAELs are exemption established by this action. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ 300 ppm (∼21 to 26 mg/kg/day). EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks Levels of Concern associated with Reproduction toxicity was not observed up to 1,800 ppm (∼108 to 124 mg/kg/ Once a pesticide’s toxicological ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- profile is determined, EPA identifies butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] day), the highest dose tested. The combined chronic/ toxicological points of departure (POD) follows. carcinogenicity study showed focal and levels of concern to use in A. Toxicological Profile cystic dilatation of the liver sinusoids evaluating the risk posed by human and thyroid follicle hyperplasia at doses exposure to the pesticide. For hazards EPA has evaluated the available greater than 50 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL that have a threshold below which there toxicity data and considered their is 15 mg/kg/day. There was a treatment- is no appreciable risk, the toxicological validity, completeness, and reliability as related increase in thyroid tumor POD is used as the basis for derivation well as the relationship of the results of incidence at 100 mg/kg/day in both of reference values for risk assessment. the studies to human risk. EPA has also sexes. However, it is well established PODs are developed based on a careful considered available information that alterations in rat thyroid hormones analysis of the doses in each concerning the variability of the can alter the thyroid gland resulting in toxicological study to determine the sensitivities of major identifiable tumor formation. Based on the dose at which no adverse effects are subgroups of consumers, including mechanistic studies, the postulated observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest infants and children. Specific mode of action is that dose at which adverse effects of concern information on the studies received and ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ the nature of the adverse effects caused butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] safety factors are used in conjunction by ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bi[3-(5-tert- disrupts the rat thyroid-pituitary axis with the POD to calculate a safe butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl)propionate] as primarily through interference of exposure level—generally referred to as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect- peripheral T4 metabolism. The a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- relevancy of thyroid tumors to man is reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the limited, as rats are very sensitive to of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold toxicity studies are discussed in this small changes in plasma T4 levels while risks, the Agency assumes that any unit. humans are insensitive due to a number amount of exposure will lead to some Acute toxicity is low for of physiological differences including degree of risk. Thus, the Agency ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- the amount of thyroxin-binding globulin estimates risk in terms of the probability butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]. In present, half-life of T4 between different of an occurrence of the adverse effect rats, the lethal dose (LD50) for acute oral species, and difference in expected in a lifetime. For more and dermal toxicity is greater than 7,000 responsiveness to thyrotropin releasing information on the general principles and 2,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/ hormone. Therefore, the thyroid gland EPA uses in risk characterization and a kg/day), respectively. It is not a dermal tumors observed in this study are not complete description of the risk or eye irritant, or a sensitizer. considered relevant to humans. assessment process, see http:// Subchronic exposure to The Ames test, mammalian cell gene www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- mutation and micronucleus assays were riskassess.htm. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] in conducted with The chronic/carcinogenicity toxicity rats resulted in increased liver weights ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- study in rats was selected for all and alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]. exposure scenarios. The NOAEL is 15 activity at 112 mg/kg/day and minimal These studies were negative; therefore, mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL is 50 mg/kg/ thyroid follicular hypertrophy at doses it is not expected to be mutagenic. day based on focal cystic dilatation of greater than 250 mg/kg/day. The Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity the liver sinusoids and thyroid follicle NOAELs were 37.4 and 50 mg/kg/day, studies are not available for review. hyperplasia. This represents the lowest respectively. In dogs, no toxicity is seen However, evidence of neurotoxicity and NOAEL in the database in the most at doses up to 300 mg/kg/day, the immunotoxicity is not observed in the sensitive species. However, in the highest dose tested. submitted studies. developmental study, the maternal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8444 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

NOAEL is not established and the description of the general approach consumption even though monitoring maternal LOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day taken to assess inert ingredient risks in data shows that tolerance level residues based on decreased bodyweight gain the absence of residue data is contained are typically one to two orders of and food consumption. Also, decreased in the memorandum entitled ‘‘Alkyl magnitude higher than actual residues bodyweight gain and food consumption Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): in food when distributed in commerce. are observed in parental animals at 900 Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Accordingly, although sufficient ppm (∼ 54 to 62 mg/kg/day) in the two- Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and information to quantify actual residue generation reproduction toxicity study, Risk Assessments for the Inerts,’’ levels in food is not available, the the NOAEL is 300 ppm (∼ 21 to 26 mg/ (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be compounding of these conservative kg/day). Since, maternal and parental found at http://www.regulations.gov in assumptions will lead to a significant effects are the same in both studies, a docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– exaggeration of actual exposures. EPA parental NOAEL is established and 0738. does not believe that this approach treatment duration is longer in the two- In the dietary exposure assessment, underestimates exposure in the absence generation reproduction toxicity study, the Agency assumed that the residue of residue data. it is considered adequate to address the level of the inert ingredient would be no 2. Dietary exposure from drinking lack of a maternal NOAEL in the higher than the highest tolerance for a water. For the purpose of the screening developmental study. The standard given commodity. Implicit in this level dietary risk assessment to support inter- and intra-species uncertainty assumption is that there would be this request for an exemption from the factors of 10x are applied; as discussed similar rates of degradation (if any) requirement of a tolerance for below in Unit IV.D., the Agency applied between the active and inert ingredient ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- a 1X Food Quality Protection Act Safety and that the concentration of inert butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate], a Factor (FQPA) SF. The dermal ingredient in the scenarios leading to conservative drinking water absorption factor of 0.53% is applied these highest levels of tolerances would concentration value of 100 ppb based on based on a dermal absorption study in be no higher than the concentration of screening level modeling was used to miniature pigs. The default factor of the active ingredient. assess the contribution to drinking Although EPA is assessing 100% is applied for the inhalation water for the chronic dietary risk ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- absorption rate. assessments for parent compound. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate at C. Exposure Assessment 1.75% (to account for the requested 1% These values were directly entered into 1. Dietary exposure from food and (by weight) limitation in pesticide the dietary exposure model. feed uses. In evaluating dietary formulations and up to 0.75% limitation 3. From non-dietary exposure. The exposure to ethylenebis(oxyethylene) for the FDA approved uses as an term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) antioxidant and/or stabilizer for this document to refer to non- propionate], EPA considered exposure polymers used for food contact occupational, non-dietary exposure under the proposed exemption from the applications, the Agency believes the (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, requirement of a tolerance. EPA assumptions used to estimate dietary indoor pest control, termiticides, and assessed dietary exposures from exposures lead to an very conservative flea and tick control on pets). ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- assessment of dietary risk due to other Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] in conservative assumptions. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl)propionate] is food as follows: First, EPA assumes that, for each registered for use as an inert ingredient No adverse effects attributable to a commodity, the active ingredient which in pesticide products that are registered single exposure of endpoint was will serve as a guide to the potential for specific uses that may result in identified for ethylenebis(oxyethylene) level of inert ingredient residues is the residential exposure, specifically lawn, bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) active ingredient with the highest turf, and garden use, and in indoor propionate]; therefore, an acute dietary tolerance level. This assumption cleaning products. A conservative exposure assessment was not overstates residue values because it residential exposure and risk conducted. would be highly unlikely, given the assessment was completed for pesticide In conducting the chronic dietary high number of inert ingredients, that a products containing exposure assessment using the Dietary single inert ingredient or class of ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM– ingredients would be present at the butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] as FCIDTM, Version 3.16, EPA used food level of the active ingredient in the inert ingredients. The Agency assessed consumption information from the U.S. highest tolerance for every commodity. ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Also, EPA’s assumes that all foods butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] in 2003–2008 National Health and contain the inert ingredient at the pesticide formulations (outdoor Nutrition Examination Survey, What We highest tolerance level. In other words, scenarios) and in disinfectant-type uses Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As EPA assumed 100 percent of all foods (indoor scenarios) at no more than 1% to residue levels in food, no residue data are treated with the inert ingredient at in the final formulation. The Agency’s were submitted for the rate and manner necessary to assessment of adult residential exposure ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- produce the highest residue legally combines high end dermal and butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]. In possible for an active ingredient. In inhalation handler exposure from the absence of specific residue data, summary, EPA chose a very indoor hard surface, aerosol spray with EPA has developed an approach which conservative method for estimating a high-end post application dermal uses surrogate information to derive what level of inert residue could be on exposure from contact with treated upper bound exposure estimates for the food, then used this methodology to lawns. The Agency’s assessment of subject inert ingredient. Upper bound choose the highest possible residue that children’s residential exposure includes exposure estimates are based on the could be found on food and assumed total post-application exposures highest tolerance for a given commodity that all food contained this residue. No associated with contact with treated from a list of high use insecticides, consideration was given to potential surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth herbicides, and fungicides. A complete degradation between harvest and exposures).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8445

4. Cumulative effects from substances Fetal susceptibility is not observed in 3. Short-term risk. Short-term with a common mechanism of toxicity. developmental toxicity studies in the aggregate exposure takes into account Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA rat. Developmental toxicity (reduced short-term residential exposure plus requires that, when considering whether fetal body weight and delayed skeletal chronic exposure to food and water to establish, modify, or revoke a maturation) occurred at a higher dose, (considered to be a background tolerance, the Agency consider 300 mg/kg/day, than maternal toxicity exposure level). ‘‘available information’’ concerning the (reduced body weight gain), which Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- cumulative effects of a particular occurred at 100 mg/kg/day. Qualitative butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other fetal susceptibility toxicity is observed currently used as an inert ingredient in substances that have a common 2-generation reproduction toxicity pesticide products that are registered for mechanism of toxicity.’’ study. Pup mortality and reduced pup uses that could result in short-term EPA has not found body weight is observed at 900 ppm residential exposure, and the Agency ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- (∼54–62 mg/kg/day), while parental has determined that it is appropriate to butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] to toxicity is manifested as decreased aggregate chronic exposure through food share a common mechanism of toxicity bodyweight gain and food consumption and water with short-term residential with any other substances, and at the same dose. However, the exposures to ethylenebis(oxyethylene) ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- established cRfD of 0.15 mg/kg/day will bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] be protective of any offspring effects propionate]. does not appear to produce a toxic seen at 900 ppm (∼54–62 mg/kg/day). Using the exposure assumptions metabolite produced by other Therefore, there is no concern for fetal described in this unit for short-term substances. For the purposes of this susceptibility. Reproduction toxicity is exposures, EPA has concluded the tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not observed up to 1,800 ppm (87–221 combined short-term food, water, and assumed that ethylenebis(oxyethylene) mg/kg/day), the highest dose tested. residential exposures result in aggregate bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) Based on the adequacy of the toxicity MOEs of 1,235 for adult males and propionate] does not have a common database, the conservative nature of the females. Adult residential exposure mechanism of toxicity with other exposure assessment, and the lack of combines high-end dermal and substances. For information regarding concern for prenatal and postnatal inhalation handler exposure from EPA’s efforts to determine which sensitivity, the Agency has concluded indoor hard surface, aerosol spray with chemicals have a common mechanism that there is reliable data to determine a high-end post-application dermal of toxicity and to evaluate the that infants and children will be safe if exposure from contact with treated cumulative effects of such chemicals, the FQPA SF of 10X is reduced to 1X. lawns. The combined short-term see EPA’s website at http:// aggregated food, water, and residential www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of pesticide exposures result in an Safety aggregate MOE of 511 for children. D. Safety Factor for Infants and EPA determines whether acute and Children’s residential exposure includes Children chronic dietary pesticide exposures are total exposures associated with contact Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA safe by comparing aggregate exposure with treated surfaces (dermal and hand- provides that EPA shall apply an estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and to-mouth exposures). Because EPA’s additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer level of concern for for infants and children in the case of risks, EPA calculates the lifetime ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- threshold effects to account for prenatal probability of acquiring cancer given the butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is and postnatal toxicity and the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are completeness of the database on toxicity intermediate-, and chronic-term risks not of concern. and exposure unless EPA determines are evaluated by comparing the 4. Intermediate-term risk. based on reliable data that a different estimated aggregate food, water, and Intermediate-term aggregate exposure margin of safety will be safe for infants residential exposure to the appropriate takes into account intermediate-term and children. This additional margin of PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE residential exposure plus chronic safety is commonly referred to as the exists. exposure to food and water (considered FQPA SF. In applying this provision, 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk to be a background exposure level). EPA either retains the default value of assessment takes into account acute Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- 10X, or uses a different additional safety exposure estimates from dietary butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is factor when reliable data available to consumption of food and drinking currently used as an inert ingredient in EPA support the choice of a different water. No adverse effect resulting from pesticide products that are registered for factor. a single oral exposure was identified uses that could result in intermediate- The Agency has concluded that there and no acute dietary endpoint was term residential exposure, and the is reliable data to determine that infants selected. Therefore, Agency has determined that it is and children will be safe if the FQPA SF ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- appropriate to aggregate chronic of 10X is reduced to 1X for all exposure butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is exposure through food and water with scenarios for the following reasons. The not expected to pose an acute risk. intermediate-term residential exposures toxicity database for 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure to ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- assumptions described in this unit for butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate]. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] chronic exposure, EPA has concluded Using the exposure assumptions contains subchronic, developmental, that chronic exposure to described in this unit for intermediate- reproduction, chronic/carcinogenicity, ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- term exposures, EPA has concluded that and mutagenicity studies. There is no butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] the combined intermediate-term food, indication of immunotoxicity or from food and water will utilize 18.4% water, and residential exposures result neurotoxicity in the available studies; of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years in aggregate MOEs of 1,729 for adult therefore, there is no need to require an old, the population group receiving the males and females. Adult residential immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity study. greatest exposure. exposure includes high-end post-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8446 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

application dermal exposure from under 40 CFR 180.910 for governments, or on the distribution of contact with treated lawns. The ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- power and responsibilities among the combined intermediate-term aggregated butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] various levels of government or between food, water, and residential exposures (CAS Reg No. 36443–68–2) when used the Federal Government and Indian result in an aggregate MOE of 413 for as an inert ingredient (stabilizer), tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined children. Children’s residential limited to 1% (by weight) in pesticide that Executive Order 13132, entitled exposure includes total exposures formulations applied to growing crops ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, associated with contact with treated and raw agricultural commodities after 1999) and Executive Order 13175, surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth harvest. entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination exposures). Because EPA’s level of VII. Statutory and Executive Order with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR concern for ethylenebis(oxyethylene) Reviews 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) to this action. In addition, this action propionate] is a MOE of 100 or below, This action establishes an exemption does not impose any enforceable duty or these MOEs are not of concern.] from the requirement of a tolerance contain any unfunded mandate as 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. under FFDCA section 408(d) in described under Title II of the Unfunded population. In a chronic/carcinogenicity response to a petition submitted to the Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. study, thyroid gland tumors are Agency. The Office of Management and 1501 et seq.). observed at 100 mg/kg/day in rats. Budget (OMB) has exempted these types This action does not involve any However, based on the postulated mode of actions from review under Executive technical standards that would require of action for these tumors, they are not Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory considered relevant to humans. Also, Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, Agency consideration of voluntary ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- October 4, 1993). Because this action consensus standards pursuant to section butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is has been exempted from review under 12(d) of the National Technology not mutagenic. Therefore, Executive Order 12866, this action is Transfer and Advancement Act ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- not subject to Executive Order 13211, (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] is entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning VIII. Congressional Review Act not expected to pose a cancer risk to Regulations That Significantly Affect humans. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Pursuant to the Congressional Review 6. Determination of safety. Based on FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will these risk assessments, EPA concludes Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of submit a report containing this rule and that there is a reasonable certainty that Children from Environmental Health other required information to the U.S. no harm will result to the general Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, Senate, the U.S. House of population, or to infants and children April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a Representatives, and the Comptroller from aggregate exposure to regulatory action under Executive Order General of the United States prior to ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations publication of the rule in the Federal butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 Register. This action is not a ‘‘major residues. FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). does not contain any information List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology collections subject to OMB approval An analytical method is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act Environmental protection, for enforcement purposes since the (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does Administrative practice and procedure, Agency is not establishing a numerical it require any special considerations Agricultural commodities, Pesticides tolerance for residues of under Executive Order 12898, entitled and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- ‘‘Federal Actions to Address requirements. butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] in Environmental Justice in Minority or on any food commodities. EPA is Populations and Low-Income Dated: January 17, 2020. establishing limitations on the amount Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Donna Davis, of ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- 1994). Acting Director, Registration Division, Office butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] Since tolerances and exemptions that of Pesticide Programs. are established on the basis of a petition that may be used in pesticide Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is under FFDCA section 408(d), such as formulations applied to growing crops amended as follows: and raw agricultural commodities after the exemption in this final rule, do not harvest. These limitations will be require the issuance of a proposed rule, PART 180—[AMENDED] enforced through the pesticide the requirements of the Regulatory registration process under the Federal Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide seq.), do not apply. continues to read as follows: Act (‘‘FIFRA’’), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA This action directly regulates growers, Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. will not register any pesticide food processors, food handlers, and food formulation for use on growing crops retailers, not States or tribes, nor does ■ 2. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the and raw agricultural commodities after this action alter the relationships or inert ingredient harvest for sale or distribution that distribution of power and ‘‘Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- exceeds 1% by weight of responsibilities established by Congress butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert- in the preemption provisions of FFDCA (CAS Reg. No. 36443–68–2)’’ to the table butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency to read as follows: unless additional data are submitted. has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and VI. Conclusions or tribal governments, on the post-harvest; exemptions from the Therefore, an exemption from the relationship between the National requirement of a tolerance. requirement of a tolerance is established Government and the States or tribal * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8447

TABLE 1 TO 180.910

Inert ingredients Limits Uses

******* Ethylenebis(oxyethylene) bis[3-(5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-m-tolyl) propionate] (CAS Reg. No. 36443–68– 1% by weight ...... Stabilizer. 2).

*******

[FR Doc. 2020–02043 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] information about the docket available first page of your submission. All BILLING CODE 6560–50–P at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. objections and requests for a hearing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: must be in writing, and must be Michael Goodis, Registration Division received by the Hearing Clerk on or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, before April 14, 2020. Addresses for AGENCY Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 mail and hand delivery of objections Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC and hearing requests are provided in 40 40 CFR Part 180 20460–0001; main telephone number: CFR 178.25(b). [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0718 and EPA–HQ– (703) 305–7090; email address: In addition to filing an objection or OPP–2019–0076; FRL–10002–06] [email protected]. hearing request with the Hearing Clerk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: as described in 40 CFR part 178, please Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances submit a copy of the filing (excluding I. General Information any Confidential Business Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A. Does this action apply to me? (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential ACTION: You may be potentially affected by Final rule. pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be this action if you are an agricultural disclosed publicly by EPA without prior SUMMARY: This regulation establishes producer, food manufacturer, or notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your tolerances for residues of pesticide manufacturer. The following difenoconazole in or on vegetable, root, list of North American Industrial objection or hearing request, identified subgroup 1A, except ginseng; vegetable, Classification System (NAICS) codes is by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– leaves of root and tuber, group 2; and not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 2018–0718 and EPA–HQ–OPP–2019– tea, dried. In addition, this regulation provides a guide to help readers 0076, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// amends the tolerances for residues of determine whether this document www.regulations.gov. Follow the online difenoconazole in or ginseng; cattle, applies to them. Potentially affected instructions for submitting comments. liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, entities may include: liver. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC • Crop production (NAICS code 111) Do not submit electronically any requested these tolerances under the • Animal production (NAICS code information you consider to be CBI or Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 112) other information whose disclosure is (FFDCA). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code restricted by statute. • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental DATES: This regulation is effective 311) • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ February 14, 2020. Objections and code 32532) DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. requests for hearings must be received NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. on or before April 14, 2020, and must B. How can I get electronic access to • Hand Delivery: To make special be filed in accordance with the other related information? arrangements for hand delivery or instructions provided in 40 CFR part You may access a frequently updated delivery of boxed information, please 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the electronic version of EPA’s tolerance follow the instructions at http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, the Government Publishing Office’s e- Additional instructions on identified by docket identification (ID) CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ commenting or visiting the docket, number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0718 and text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ along with more information about EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0076, is available Title40/40tab_02.tpl. dockets generally, is available at http:// at http://www.regulations.gov or at the www.epa.gov/dockets. Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory C. How can I file an objection or hearing Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the request? II. Summary of Petitioned-For Environmental Protection Agency Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 Tolerance Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an In the Federal Register of June 7, 2019 Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 objection to any aspect of this regulation (84 FR 26630) (FRL–9993–93) and in the Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC and may also request a hearing on those Federal Register of May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room objections. You must file your objection 20320) (FRL–9992–36), EPA issued is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., or request a hearing on this regulation documents pursuant to FFDCA section Monday through Friday, excluding legal in accordance with the instructions 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), holidays. The telephone number for the provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure announcing the filing of pesticide Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, proper receipt by EPA, you must petitions (PP 8F8695 and 8E8728, and the telephone number for the OPP identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– respectively) by Syngenta Crop Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review OPP–2018–0718 and EPA–HQ–OPP– Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, the visitor instructions and additional 2019–0076 in the subject line on the Greensboro, NC 27419. Pesticide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8448 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

petition 8F8695 requested that 40 CFR A. Toxicological Profile Although there is some evidence that 180.475 be amended by establishing EPA has evaluated the available difenoconazole affects antibody levels at tolerances for residues of the fungicide toxicity data and considered its validity, doses that cause systemic toxicity, there difenoconazole in or on root vegetable completeness, and reliability as well as are no indications in the available crop subgroup 1A at 0.60 parts per the relationship of the results of the studies that organs associated with million (ppm) and leaves of root and studies to human risk. EPA has also immune function, such as the thymus tuber vegetables crop group 2 at 8.0 considered available information and spleen, are affected by ppm; PP 8E8728 requested the concerning the variability of the difenoconazole. Difenoconazole is not establishment of a tolerance for residues sensitivities of major identifiable mutagenic or genotoxic, and no of difenoconazole in or on tea at 30 subgroups of consumers, including evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in rats. Evidence for carcinogenicity was ppm. Those documents referenced infants and children. summaries of the petitions prepared by Subchronic and chronic toxicity seen in mice as induction of liver Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the studies with difenoconazole in mice and tumors at doses which were considered registrant, which are available in their rats showed decreased body weights to be excessively high for respective dockets, http:// and effects on the liver (e.g., carcinogenicity testing. Difenoconazole has been classified as ‘‘Suggestive www.regulations.gov. One comment was hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential’’ received on EPA’s May 9, 2019 notice of necrosis, fatty changes in the liver). No based on liver tumors observed in mice. filing in docket number EPA–HQ–OPP– systemic toxicity was observed at the EPA has concluded that the chronic 2019–0076. EPA’s response to this limit dose in a rat dermal toxicity study. point of departure (POD) for assessing comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. Difenoconazole exhibits low acute chronic risk will be protective of any Based upon review of the data toxicity by the oral, dermal and cancer effects for the following reasons: supporting the petition, EPA is inhalation routes of exposure. It is not (1) Tumors were seen in only one establishing tolerances that vary from an eye or skin irritant and is not a species; (2) carcinoma tumors were what the petitioner requested as sensitizer. observed only at the two highest doses permitted by FFDCA section Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity in the mouse carcinogenicity study; (3) 408(d)(4)(A)(i). These differences are studies showed evidence of mild benign tumors and necrosis were explained in Unit IV.D. neurotoxic effects. However, the observed at the mid-dose; (4) the selected endpoints of toxicity for risk III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and absence of tumors at the study’s lower assessment are protective of any Determination of Safety doses; (5) the absence of genotoxic or potential neurotoxicity. mutagenic effects. The cRfD is well Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA The available toxicity studies below the no-observed- adverse-effect- allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the indicated no increased susceptibility of level (NOAEL) of the mouse legal limit for a pesticide chemical rats or rabbits from in utero or postnatal carcinogenicity study, at which no residue in or on a food) only if EPA exposure to difenoconazole. In prenatal determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ effects on the biological endpoints developmental toxicity studies in rats relevant to tumor development (i.e., Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA and rabbits and in the 2-generation hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reproduction study in rats, fetal and necrosis, fatty changes in the liver and reasonable certainty that no harm will offspring toxicity, when observed, bile stasis) were seen. As a result, EPA result from aggregate exposure to the occurred at equivalent or higher doses has concluded that a nonlinear RfD pesticide chemical residue, including than in the maternal and parental approach is appropriate for assessing all anticipated dietary exposures and all animals. In a rat developmental toxicity cancer risk to difenoconazole and a other exposures for which there is study, developmental effects were separate quantitative cancer exposure reliable information.’’ This includes observed at doses higher than those assessment is unnecessary. exposure through drinking water and in which caused maternal toxicity. Specific information on the studies residential settings, but does not include Developmental effects in the rat received and the nature of the adverse occupational exposure. Section included increased incidence of effects caused by difenoconazole as well 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to ossification of the thoracic vertebrae and as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level give special consideration to exposure thyroid, decreased number of sternal (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- of infants and children to the pesticide centers of ossification, increased adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the chemical residue in establishing a number of ribs and thoracic vertebrae, toxicity studies can be found at http:// tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a and decreased number of lumbar www.regulations.gov in document reasonable certainty that no harm will vertebrae. In the rabbit study, ‘‘Difenoconazole. Human Health Risk result to infants and children from developmental effects (increases in post- Assessment for Proposed New Foliar aggregate exposure to the pesticide implantation loss and resorptions and Uses on All Members of Vegetable, Root, chemical residue. . . .’’ decreases in fetal body weight) were Subgroup 1A and Vegetable, Leaves of Consistent with FFDCA section also seen at maternally toxic (decreased Root and Tuber, Group 2 and 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in body weight gain and food Establishment of a Tolerance with No FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has consumption) doses. Since the U.S. Registration in/on Imported Tea’’ reviewed the available scientific data developmental effects are more severe in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– and other relevant information in than the maternal effects, qualitative 2018–0718. support of this action. EPA has susceptibility is indicated in the rabbit sufficient data to assess the hazards of developmental study; however, the B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ and to make a determination on selected POD is protective of this effect. Levels of Concern aggregate exposure for difenoconazole In the 2-generation reproduction study Once a pesticide’s toxicological including exposure resulting from the in rats, toxicity to the fetuses and profile is determined, EPA identifies tolerances established by this action. offspring, when observed, occurred at toxicological POD and levels of concern EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks equivalent or higher doses than in the to use in evaluating the risk posed by associated with difenoconazole follows. maternal and parental animals. human exposure to the pesticide. For

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8449

hazards that have a threshold below to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) description of the risk assessment which there is no appreciable risk, the or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure process, see http://www2.epa.gov/ toxicological POD is used as the basis (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the pesticide-science-and-assessing- for derivation of reference values for Agency assumes that any amount of pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health- risk assessment. PODs are developed exposure will lead to some degree of risk-pesticides. based on a careful analysis of the doses risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in A summary of the toxicological in each toxicological study to determine terms of the probability of an occurrence the NOAEL and the LOAEL. of the adverse effect expected in a endpoints for difenoconazole used for Uncertainty/safety factors are used in lifetime. For more information on the human risk assessment is shown in conjunction with the POD to calculate a general principles EPA uses in risk Table 1 of this unit. safe exposure level—generally referred characterization and a complete

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR DIFENOCONAZOLE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Point of departure Exposure scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects safety factors risk assessment

Acute dietary (All populations) .. NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 0.25 Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats. day mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day in males based on reduced fore-limb UFA = 10x aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/ grip strength in males on Day 1 and increased motor activity UFH = 10x day on Day 1. FQPA SF = 1x

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 0.96 mg/ Chronic RfD = 0.01 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity (rat, dietary). kg/day mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 24.1/32.8 mg/kg/day (male/female) based on cumu- UFA = 10x cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/ lative decreases in body-weight gains. UFH = 10x day. FQPA SF = 1x

Oral short-term (1 to 30 days) .. NOAEL= 1.25 mg/ Residential LOC for Reproduction and Fertility Study (rat dietary). kg/day MOE = <100. Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on de- UFA = 10x creased pup weight in in males on Day 21 and reduction in UFH = 10x body weight gain of F0 females prior to mating, gestation and FQPA SF = 1x lactation.

Dermal short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL = 1.25 mg/ LOC for MOE = Reproduction and Fertility Study (rat, dietary). days) and intermediate-term kg/day (dermal ab- <100. Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on de- (1 to 6 months). sorption factor = creased pup weight in males on Day 21 and reduction in 6%) body weight gain of F0 females prior to mating, gestation and UFA = 10x lactation. UFH = 10x FQPA SF = 1x

Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL= 1.25 mg/ LOC for MOE = Reproduction and Fertility Study (rat, dietary). days) and intermediate-term kg/day <100. Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on de- (1 to 6 months). UFA = 10x creased pup weight in males on Day 21 and reduction in * Inhalation and oral absorption UFH = 10x body weight gain of F0 females prior to mating, gestation and assumed equivalent. FQPA SF = 1x lactation.

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhala- Difenoconazole is classified ‘‘Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential’’. Quantification of cancer risk is tion). not required. The RfD would address the concern for chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to difenoconazole. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment if a toxicological study has indicated the percent crop treated (PCT), and 1. Dietary exposure from food and possibility of an effect of concern available empirical or default processing feed uses. In evaluating dietary occurring as a result of a 1-day or single factors. exposure to difenoconazole, EPA exposure. Such effects were identified ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting considered exposure under the for difenoconazole. In estimating acute the chronic dietary exposure assessment petitioned-for tolerances as well as all dietary exposure, EPA used food EPA used the food consumption data existing difenoconazole tolerances in 40 consumption information from the from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA 2003 CFR 180.475. EPA assessed dietary United States Department of Agriculture to 2008. As to residue levels in food, exposures from difenoconazole in food (USDA) National Health and Nutrition EPA used tolerance-level residues for as follows: Examination Survey, What We Eat in some commodities, average field trial i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute America, (NHANES/WWEIA) 2003 to residues and USDA Pesticide Data dietary exposure and risk assessments 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA Program monitoring samples for the are performed for a food-use pesticide, assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 remaining commodities, available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8450 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

empirical or default processing factors, soybean 2.5%, squash 10%, strawberry was performed using a total toxic and average PCT assumptions for some 2.5%, sugar beets 20%, sweet corn 5%, residue method, which considers both commodities. tangerine 5%, tomato 35%, walnut 5%, parent difenoconazole and its major iii. Cancer. Based on the data watermelon 15%, and wheat 15%. metabolite, CGA 205375, or total toxic summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has In most cases, EPA uses available data residues (TTR) from difenoconazole concluded that a nonlinear RfD from United States Department of uses, in surface and groundwater. The approach is appropriate for assessing Agriculture/National Agricultural Agency used screening level water cancer risk due to difenoconazole. Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), exposure models in the dietary exposure Cancer risk was assessed using the same proprietary market surveys, and analysis and risk assessment for exposure estimates as discussed in Unit California Department of Pesticide difenoconazole in drinking water. These III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure. Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use simulation models take into account iv. Anticipated residue and PCT Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of combination for the most recent 10 transport characteristics of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available years. EPA uses an average PCT for difenoconazole plus CGA 205375. data and information on the anticipated chronic dietary risk analysis. The Further information regarding EPA residue levels of pesticide residues in average PCT figures for each existing drinking water models used in pesticide food and the actual levels of pesticide use is derived by combining available exposure assessment can be found at residues that have been measured in public and private market survey data http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science- food. If EPA relies on such information, for that use, averaging across all and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about- EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA observations, and rounding up to the water-exposure-models-used-pesticide. section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 nearest 5%, except for those situations Based on the Tier II Pesticide in Water years after the tolerance is established, in which the average PCT is less than Calculator (PWC v1.52) model and Tier modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the 1 Rice Model, the estimated drinking that the levels in food are not above the Agency would use less than 1% or less water concentrations (EDWCs) of TTR of levels anticipated. For the present than 2.5% as the average PCT value, difenoconazole for acute exposures are action, EPA will issue such data call-ins respectively. The maximum PCT figure estimated to be 33.4 parts per billion as are required by FFDCA section is the highest observed maximum value (ppb) for surface water and 2.0 ppb for 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under reported within the most recent 10 years ground water. Chronic exposure EDWCs FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be of available public and private market for non-cancer assessments are required to be submitted no later than survey data for the existing use and estimated to be 27.4 ppb for surface 5 years from the date of issuance of rounded up to the nearest multiple of water and 0.60 ppb for ground water. these tolerances. 5%, except where the maximum PCT is Modeled estimates of drinking water Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states less than 2.5%, in which case, the concentrations were directly entered that the Agency may use data on the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the into the dietary exposure model. For actual percent of food treated for maximum PCT. acute dietary risk assessment, the water assessing chronic dietary risk only if: The Agency believes that the three • Condition a: The data used are conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. concentration value of 33.4 ppb was reliable and provide a valid basis to have been met. With respect to used to assess the contribution to show what percentage of the food Condition a, PCT estimates are derived drinking water. For chronic dietary risk derived from such crop is likely to from Federal and private market survey assessment, the water concentration of contain the pesticide residue. data, which are reliable and have a valid value 27.4 ppb was used to assess the • Condition b: The exposure estimate basis. The Agency is reasonably certain contribution to drinking water. does not underestimate exposure for any that the percentage of the food treated 3. From non-dietary exposure. The significant subpopulation group. is not likely to be an underestimation. term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in • Condition c: Data are available on As to Conditions b and c, regional this document to refer to non- pesticide use and food consumption in consumption information and occupational, non-dietary exposure a particular area, the exposure estimate consumption information for significant (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, does not understate exposure for the subpopulations is taken into account indoor pest control, termiticides, and population in such area. through EPA’s computer-based model flea and tick control on pets). In addition, the Agency must provide for evaluating the exposure of Difenoconazole is currently registered for periodic evaluation of any estimates significant subpopulations including for the following uses that could result used. To provide for the periodic several regional groups. Use of this in residential exposures: Treatment of evaluation of the estimate of PCT as consumption information in EPA’s risk ornamental plants in commercial and required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), assessment process ensures that EPA’s residential landscapes and interior EPA may require registrants to submit exposure estimate does not understate plantscapes as well as turf applications data on PCT. exposure for any significant to golf courses. EPA assessed residential The Agency estimated the PCT for subpopulation group and allows the exposure using the following existing uses as follows: Almond 15%, Agency to be reasonably certain that no assumptions: For residential handlers, apples 25%, apricot 10%, artichoke regional population is exposed to adult short-term dermal and inhalation 15%, blueberry 10%, broccoli 2.5%, residue levels higher than those exposure is expected from mixing, cabbage 10%, cantaloupe 2.5%, carrot estimated by the Agency. Other than the loading, and applying difenoconazole 2.5%, cauliflower 2.5%, cherry 2.5%, data available through national food on ornamentals (gardens and trees). For cucumbers 5%, garlic 10%, grapefruit consumption surveys, EPA does not residential post-application exposures, 10%, grape (raisin) 10%, grape (table) have available reliable information on short-term dermal exposure is expected 25%, grape (wine) 15%, hazelnut 2.5%, the regional consumption of food to for both adults and children (6 < 11 lemon 5%, onions 10%, orange 5%, which difenoconazole may be applied years old and 11 < 16 years old) from peach 10%, pear 10%, pecan 5%, in a particular area. post-application activities in treated peppers 15%, pistachio 10%, plum/ 2. Dietary exposure from drinking residential landscapes and on golf prune 10%, potato 20%, pumpkin 5%, water. The drinking water assessment courses. There are no residential uses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8451

for difenoconazole that would result in mechanism of toxicity with other equivalent or higher doses than in the incidental oral exposure to children. substances. For information regarding maternal/parental animals (reductions The scenarios used in the aggregate EPA’s efforts to determine which in body weight gain). assessment were those that resulted in chemicals have a common mechanism 3. Conclusion. EPA has determined the highest exposures. The highest of toxicity and to evaluate the that reliable data show the safety of exposures consist of the short-term cumulative effects of such chemicals, infants and children would be dermal exposure to adults from post- see EPA’s website at https:// adequately protected if the FQPA SF application activities in treated gardens www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- were reduced to 1X. That decision is and short-term dermal exposure to assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative- based on the following findings: children 6 to 11 years old from post- assessment-risk-pesticides. i. The toxicity database for application activities in treated gardens. difenoconazole is sufficient for a full Further information regarding EPA D. Safety Factor for Infants and hazard evaluation and is considered standard assumptions and generic Children adequate to evaluate risks to infants and inputs for residential exposures may be 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of children. found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide- FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply ii. There are no clear signs indication science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ an additional tenfold (10X) margin of that difenoconazole is a neurotoxic standard-operating-procedures- safety for infants and children in the chemical following acute, subchronic, residential-pesticide. case of threshold effects to account for or chronic dosing in multiple species in 4. Cumulative effects from substances prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the the difenoconazole database. The effects with a common mechanism of toxicity. completeness of the database on toxicity observed in acute and subchronic Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA and exposure unless EPA determines neurotoxicity studies are considered requires that, when considering whether based on reliable data that a different non-adverse as they were transient in to establish, modify, or revoke a margin of safety will be safe for infants nature and were only observed in one tolerance, the Agency consider and children. This additional margin of sex (males as reduced fore-limb grip ‘‘available information’’ concerning the safety is commonly referred to as the strength with no histologic findings) cumulative effects of a particular FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying and the selected endpoints of toxicity pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other this provision, EPA either retains the for risk assessment are protective of any substances that have a common default value of 10X, or uses a different potential neurotoxicity. There is no mechanism of toxicity.’’ additional safety factor when reliable need for a developmental neurotoxicity Unlike other pesticides for which EPA data available to EPA support the choice study or additional UFs to account for has followed a cumulative risk approach of a different factor. neurotoxicity. based on a common mechanism of 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. iii. There is no evidence that toxicity, EPA has not made a common The available toxicity studies indicated difenoconazole results in increased mechanism of toxicity finding as to no increased quantitative susceptibility quantitative susceptibility in in utero difenoconazole and any other of rats or rabbits from in utero or rats or rabbits in the prenatal substances, although EPA has postnatal exposure to difenoconazole. In developmental studies or in young rats previously concluded that there are no prenatal developmental toxicity studies in the 2-generation reproduction study. conclusive data that difenoconazole in rats and rabbits and in the 2- However, in the developmental toxicity shares a common mechanism of toxicity generation reproduction study in rats, study in rabbits, developmental effects with other conazole pesticides. fetal/offspring toxicity, when observed, (increases in post-implantation loss and Although the conazole fungicides occurred at equivalent or higher doses resorptions and decreases in fetal body (triazoles) produce 1,2,4 triazole and its than in the maternal/parental animals. weight) were also seen at maternally acid-conjugated metabolites In rabbits there was qualitative toxic doses (decreased body weight gain (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic susceptibility since the developmental and food consumption). Because these acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid- effects were more severe than the effects are more severe, qualitative conjugated metabolites do not maternal effects seen at the same dose; susceptibility is evident in the rabbit. contribute to the toxicity of the parent however, the selected POD is protective The PODs selected to assess dietary conazole fungicides (triazoles). A of this effect. In a rat developmental exposures are protective of these effects. separate aggregate risk assessment was toxicity study, developmental effects iv. There are no residual uncertainties conducted for triazole and the were observed at doses higher than identified in the exposure databases. conjugated triazole metabolites those which caused maternal toxicity. The dietary food exposure assessments (Common Triazole Metabolites: Developmental effects in the rat were performed based on tolerance-level Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk included increased incidence of residues and 100% CT for the acute Assessment to Address New Section 3 ossification of the thoracic vertebrae and assessment while the chronic Registrations For Use of Difenoconazole hyoid, decreased number of sternal assessment used USDA Pesticide Data and Mefentrifluconazole; DP451447, centers of ossification, increased Program (PDP) monitoring data, average dated May 15, 2019) and it can be found number of ribs and thoracic vertebrae, field trial residues for some at https://www.regulations.gov at docket and decreased number of lumbar commodities, tolerance level residues ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0002. vertebrae. In the rabbit study, for remaining commodities, and average These new uses of difenoconazole developmental effects (increases in post- percent crop treated for some considered with existing uses of triazole implantation loss and resorptions and commodities. These assumptions will compounds do not result in a risk of decreases in fetal body weight) were not underestimate dietary exposure to concern for 1,2,4-trizaole and its also seen at maternally toxic (decreased difenoconazole. EPA made conservative metabolites. Difenoconazole does not body weight gain and food (protective) assumptions in the ground appear to produce any other toxic consumption) doses. In the two- and surface water modeling used to metabolite produced by other generation reproduction study in rats, assess exposure to difenoconazole in substances. For the purposes of this toxicity to the fetuses/offspring drinking water. EPA used similarly action, therefore, EPA has not assumed (reduction in the body weight of F1 conservative assumptions to assess post- that difenoconazole has a common male pups), when observed, occurred at application exposure of children. These

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

assessments will not underestimate the identified; however, difenoconazole is The method may be requested from: exposure and risks posed by not registered for any use patterns that Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, difenoconazole. would result in intermediate-term Environmental Science Center, 701 residential exposure. Intermediate-term Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of risk is assessed based on intermediate- telephone number: (410) 305–2905; Safety term residential exposure plus chronic email address: residuemethods@ EPA determines whether acute and dietary exposure. Because there is no epa.gov. chronic dietary pesticide exposures are intermediate-term residential exposure B. International Residue Limits safe by comparing aggregate exposure and chronic dietary exposure has estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For already been assessed under the In making its tolerance decisions, EPA linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the appropriately protective cPAD (which is seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with lifetime probability of acquiring cancer at least as protective as the POD used to international standards whenever given the estimated aggregate exposure. assess intermediate-term risk), no possible, consistent with U.S. food Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term further assessment of intermediate-term safety standards and agricultural risks are evaluated by comparing the risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the practices. EPA considers the estimated aggregate food, water, and chronic dietary risk assessment for international maximum residue limits residential exposure to the appropriate evaluating intermediate-term risk for (MRLs) established by the Codex PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE difenoconazole. Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as exists. required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 1. Acute risk. Using the exposure 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint assumptions discussed in this unit for population. As discussed in Unit III.A., United Nations Food and Agriculture acute exposure, the acute dietary EPA has determined that use of the Organization/World Health exposure from food and water to chronic reference dose will be Organization food standards program, difenoconazole will occupy 52% of the protective of the potential for cancer and it is recognized as an international aPAD for all infants <1 year old, the risk. Because the chronic exposure does food safety standards-setting population group receiving the greatest not exceed the Agency’s level of organization in trade agreements to exposure. concern, EPA concludes that exposure which the United States is a party. EPA 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure to difenoconazole would not pose an may establish a tolerance that is assumptions described in this unit for unacceptable cancer risk. different from a Codex MRL; however, chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 6. Determination of safety. Based on FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that that chronic exposure to difenoconazole these risk assessments, EPA concludes EPA explain the reasons for departing from food and water will utilize 53% of that there is a reasonable certainty that from the Codex level. the cPAD for all infants <1 year old, the no harm will result to the general Codex has established MRLs for population group receiving the greatest population, or to infants and children difenoconazole in or on carrot at 0.2 exposure. Based on the explanation in from aggregate exposure to ppm; edible offal at 1.5 ppm; sugar beet Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use difenoconazole residues. at 0.2 ppm; ginseng at 0.08 ppm; patterns, chronic residential exposure to ginseng, dried at 0.8 ppm; and ginseng, IV. Other Considerations residues of difenoconazole is not extracts at 0.6 ppm. Several of these expected. A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology MRLs are different than the tolerances 3. Short-term risk. Short-term established for difenoconazole in the aggregate exposure takes into account An adequate tolerance enforcement United States. The U.S. tolerance in/on short-term residential exposure plus method, gas chromatography with crop subgroup 1A, except ginseng (0.6 average exposure levels to food and nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/ ppm), being established in this water (considered to be a background NPD) method AG–575B, is available for rulemaking, is based on radish root data exposure level). Difenoconazole is the determination of residues of and cannot be harmonized with the currently registered for uses that could difenoconazole in/on plant Codex MRL for carrot, which is lower result in short-term residential commodities. An adequate enforcement than the subgroup tolerance; doing so exposure, and the Agency has method, gas chromatography with mass could result in exceedances of the determined that it is appropriate to spectrometry detection (GC/MSD) tolerances even when growers followed aggregate chronic exposure through food method AG–676A, is also available for label directions. The U.S. tolerance for and water with short-term residential the determination of residues of ginseng has been harmonized with the exposures to difenoconazole. difenoconazole per se in/on canola and Codex MRL for ginseng, dried and is Using the exposure assumptions barley commodities. A confirmatory inclusive of the lower tolerances for described in this unit for short-term method, GC/MSD method AG–676, is ginseng and ginseng, extracts. The exposures, EPA has concluded the also available. tolerances for cattle, liver; goat, liver; combined short-term food, water, and An adequate tolerance enforcement horse, liver; and sheep, liver cannot be residential exposures result in aggregate method, Method REM 147.07b, is harmonized with Codex MRLs due to MOEs of 180 for adults and 240 for available for livestock commodities. The different dietary burdens. children 6 to <11 years old. Because method determines residues of EPA’s level of concern for difenoconazole and CGA–205375 in C. Response to Comments difenoconazole is an MOE of 100 or livestock commodities by liquid EPA received one comment opposing below, these MOEs are not of concern. chromatography with tandem mass pesticide residues in food, although no 4. Intermediate-term risk. spectrometry detection (LC–MS/MS). substantive information was provided Intermediate-term aggregate exposure Adequate confirmatory methods, for EPA to take into consideration in its takes into account intermediate-term Method AG–544A and Method REM safety assessment. Although the residential exposure plus chronic 147.06, are available for the commenter generally expressed concern exposure to food and water (considered determination of residues of about the potential for exposure to to be a background exposure level). An difenoconazole and CGA–205375, difenoconazole to be carcinogenic, EPA intermediate-term adverse effect was respectively, in livestock commodities. has evaluated the available data on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8453

carcinogenicity and exposure and expires, residues of difenoconazole on Since tolerances and exemptions that determined that aggregate exposure to ginseng cannot exceed the new are established on the basis of a petition difenoconazole will not cause a cancer tolerance of 0.8 ppm. under FFDCA section 408(d), such as risk. The FFDCA authorizes EPA to This reduction in tolerance levels is the tolerance in this final rule, do not establish tolerances that permit certain not discriminatory; the same food safety require the issuance of a proposed rule, levels of pesticide residues in or on food standard contained in the FFDCA the requirements of the Regulatory when the Agency can determine that applies equally to domestically Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et such residues are safe. EPA has made produced and imported foods. The new seq.), do not apply. that determination for the tolerances tolerance levels are supported by This action directly regulates growers, subject to this action; the commenter available residue data. provided no information relevant to that food processors, food handlers, and food conclusion. V. Conclusion retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or Therefore, tolerances are established D. Revisions to Petitioned-For distribution of power and Tolerances for residues of difenoconazole, difenoconazole, in or on vegetable, root, responsibilities established by Congress The terms ‘‘tea;’’ ‘‘root vegetable crop subgroup 1A, except ginseng at 0.6ppm; in the preemption provisions of FFDCA subgroup 1A;’’ ‘‘leaves of root and tuber vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency vegetables crop group 2’’ requested in group 2 at 8 ppm; and tea, dried at 15 has determined that this action will not the petition are being replaced with ppm. Tolerances are amended for have a substantial direct effect on States ‘‘tea, dried;’’ ‘‘vegetable, root, subgroup ginseng from 1.0 to 0.8 ppm; and cattle, or tribal governments, on the 1A, except ginseng;’’ and ‘‘vegetable, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, relationship between the National leaves of root and tuber, group 2’’, Government and the States or tribal respectively, to reflect the correct liver from 0.40 ppm to 0.7 ppm. In governments, or on the distribution of commodity definitions. The EPA has addition, the Agency is removing the modified the tolerance on tea, dried existing tolerances for beet, sugar; and power and responsibilities among the from the requested 30 ppm to 15 ppm carrot as they are unnecessary upon the various levels of government or between to harmonize with Japan’s draft MRL. establishment of the tolerance for the Federal Government and Indian The ginseng tolerance has been removed vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined from the vegetable, root, subgroup 1A ginseng. Finally, the Agency is that Executive Order 13132, entitled and set at 0.8 to harmonize with the amending the existing tolerance for ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, highest Codex MRL. Tolerances for ginseng by adding an expiration date. 1999) and Executive Order 13175, cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and VI. Statutory and Executive Order entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination sheep, liver have been increased from Reviews with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 0.40 to 0.7 ppm based on the re- 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply calculated dairy cattle dietary burden This action establishes tolerances to this action. In addition, this action and the available feeding study data for under FFDCA section 408(d) in does not impose any enforceable duty or residues of difenoconazole and its response to a petition submitted to the contain any unfunded mandate as Agency. The Office of Management and metabolite CGA–205375. Trailing zeroes described under Title II of the Unfunded Budget (OMB) has exempted these types have been removed from tolerances in Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. of actions from review under Executive accordance with current Agency 1501 et seq.). practices. Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, This action does not involve any E. International Trade Considerations October 4, 1993). Because this action technical standards that would require In this final rule, EPA is reducing the has been exempted from review under Agency consideration of voluntary existing tolerance for ginseng from 1.0 Executive Order 12866, this action is consensus standards pursuant to section ppm to 0.8 ppm in order to harmonize not subject to Executive Order 13211, 12(d) of the National Technology with the Codex MRL. Available residue entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Transfer and Advancement Act data demonstrates that the new Regulations That Significantly Affect (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). tolerance is sufficient to cover residues Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 on ginseng. FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive VII. Congressional Review Act In accordance with the World Trade Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Pursuant to the Congressional Review Organization’s (WTO) Sanitary and Children from Environmental Health Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, submit a report containing this rule and Agreement, EPA intends to notify the April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a WTO of this revision in order to satisfy regulatory action under Executive Order other required information to the U.S. its obligation. In addition, the SPS 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations Senate, the U.S. House of Agreement requires that Members and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 Representatives, and the Comptroller provide a ‘‘reasonable interval’’ between FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action General of the United States prior to the publication of a regulation subject to does not contain any information publication of the rule in the Federal the Agreement and its entry into force collections subject to OMB approval Register. This action is not a ‘‘major to allow time for producers in exporting under the Paperwork Reduction Act rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Member countries to adapt to the new (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 requirement. At this time, EPA is it require any special considerations establishing an expiration date for the under Executive Order 12898, entitled Environmental protection, existing ginseng tolerance to allow that ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Administrative practice and procedure, tolerance to remain in effect for a period Environmental Justice in Minority Agricultural commodities, Pesticides of six months after the effective date of Populations and Low-Income and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping this final rule, in order to address this Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, requirements. requirement. After the six month period 1994).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: December 19, 2019. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Commodity Parts per Michael Goodis, million I. General Information Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. A. Does this action apply to me? ***** Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is Sheep, liver ...... 0.7 You may be potentially affected by amended as follows: this action if you are an agricultural ***** producer, food manufacturer, or PART 180—[AMENDED] pesticide manufacturer. The following ■ * * * * * list of North American Industrial 1. The authority citation for part 180 [FR Doc. 2020–02241 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: Classification System (NAICS) codes is BILLING CODE 6560–50–P not intended to be exhaustive, but rather Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. provides a guide to help readers ■ 2. In § 180.475: determine whether this document ■ a. In the table in paragraph (a)(1): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION applies to them. Potentially affected ■ i. Remove the entries ‘‘Beet, sugar’’ AGENCY entities may include: and ‘‘Carrot’’. • Crop production (NAICS code 111). 40 CFR Part 180 ■ ii. Revise the entry for ‘‘Ginseng’’. • Animal production (NAICS code ■ iii. Add a second entry for ‘‘Ginseng’’ [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0694; FRL–10004–23] 112). after the existing entry for ‘‘Ginseng’’ • Food manufacturing (NAICS code and add alphabetically the entries ‘‘Tea, Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances 311). dried’’; ‘‘Vegetable, leaves of root and • AGENCY: Environmental Protection Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS tuber, group 2’’; and ‘‘Vegetable, root, code 32532). subgroup 1A, except ginseng’’. Agency (EPA). ■ iv. Add footnotes 1 and 2 to the end ACTION: Final rule. B. How can I get electronic access to of the table. other related information? ■ b. Revise the entries ‘‘Cattle, liver’’; SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of You may access a frequently updated ‘‘Goat, liver’’; ‘‘Horse, liver’’; and electronic version of EPA’s tolerance ‘‘Sheep, liver’’ in the table in paragraph cyantraniliprole in or on strawberry. The Interregional Research Project No. 4 regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through (a)(2). the Government Publishing Office’s e- The additions and revisions read as (IR–4) requested this tolerance under CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ follows: the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ _ § 180.475 Difenoconazole; tolerances for DATES: This regulation is effective Title40/40tab 02.tpl. To access the residues. February 14, 2020. Objections and OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this (a) * * * requests for hearings must be received document electronically, please go to (1) * * * on or before April 14, 2020 and must be https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about- filed in accordance with the instructions office-chemical-safety-and-pollution- Parts per prevention-ocspp and select ‘‘Test Commodity million provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY Methods and Guidelines.’’ INFORMATION). C. How can I file an objection or hearing ***** ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, request? Ginseng 2 ...... 1.0 Ginseng ...... 0.8 identified by docket identification (ID) Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0694, is U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an ***** available at https://www.regulations.gov objection to any aspect of this regulation Tea, dried 1 ...... 15 or at the Office of Pesticide Programs and may also request a hearing on those Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) objections. You must file your objection ***** in the Environmental Protection Agency or request a hearing on this regulation Vegetable, leaves of root and Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William in accordance with the instructions tuber, group 2 ...... 8 Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure except ginseng ...... 0.6 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC proper receipt by EPA, you must 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– ***** is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., OPP–2017–0694 in the subject line on Monday through Friday, excluding legal 1 the first page of your submission. All There are no U.S. registrations for these holidays. The telephone number for the commodities. objections and requests for a hearing 2 This tolerance expires on August 14, 2020. Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, must be in writing and must be received and the telephone number for the OPP (2) * * * by the Hearing Clerk on or before April Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 14, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand the visitor instructions and additional Parts per delivery of objections and hearing Commodity million information about the docket available requests are provided in 40 CFR at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 178.25(b). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In addition to filing an objection or ***** Michael Goodis, Registration Division hearing request with the Hearing Clerk Cattle, liver ...... 0.7 (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, as described in 40 CFR part 178, please ***** Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 submit a copy of the filing (excluding Goat, liver ...... 0.7 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC any Confidential Business Information 20460–0001; main telephone number: (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. ***** (703) 305–7090; email address: Information not marked confidential Horse, liver ...... 0.7 [email protected]. pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8455

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior reasonable certainty that no harm will Except Strawberry, Lowbush Blueberry notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your result from aggregate exposure to the and Lingonberry; Brassica Leafy Greens objection or hearing request, identified pesticide chemical residue, including Subgroup 4–16A; Leafy Greens by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– all anticipated dietary exposures and all Subgroup 4–16B; Brassica Head and 2017–0694, by one of the following other exposures for which there is Stem Vegetable Group 5–16; Leaf Petiole methods: reliable information.’’ This includes Vegetable Subgroup 22B; Celtuce; • Federal eRulemaking Portal: exposure through drinking water and in Florence Fennel; Kohlrabi; Rice; https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the residential settings but does not include Soybean; and Aspirated Grain online instructions for submitting occupational exposure. Section Fractions’’ on pages 36–45 in docket ID comments. Do not submit electronically 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0694. any information you consider to be CBI give special consideration to exposure B. Exposure Assessment or other information whose disclosure is of infants and children to the pesticide restricted by statute. chemical residue in establishing a A summary of EPA’s consideration of • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a dietary exposure under the petitioned- Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ reasonable certainty that no harm will for tolerance as well as existing DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. result to infants and children from cyantraniliprole tolerances, as well as NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. aggregate exposure to the pesticide non-dietary exposure and exposure to • Hand Delivery: To make special chemical residue. . . .’’ substances with a common mechanism arrangements for hand delivery or Consistent with FFDCA section of toxicity is discussed in Unit III.C. of delivery of boxed information, please 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in the November 13, 2018 final rule follow the instructions at https:// FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has published in the Federal Register. www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send- reviewed the available scientific data C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children comments-epa-dockets. and other relevant information in Additional instructions on support of this action. EPA has Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA commenting or visiting the docket, sufficient data to assess the hazards of provides that EPA shall apply an along with more information about and to make a determination on additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety dockets generally, is available at https:// aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole for infants and children in the case of www.epa.gov/dockets. including exposure resulting from the threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the II. Summary of Petitioned-For tolerance established by this action. completeness of the database on toxicity Tolerance EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyantraniliprole and exposure unless EPA determines In the Federal Register of August 2, follows. based on reliable data that a different 2019 (84 FR 37818) (FRL–9996–78), margin of safety will be safe for infants A. Toxicological Profile and Points of EPA issued a document pursuant to and children. This additional margin of Departure/Levels of Concern FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. safety is commonly referred to as the 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a EPA has evaluated the available FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying pesticide petition (PP 9E8739) by The toxicity data and considered its validity, this provision, EPA either retains the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR– completeness, and reliability as well as default value of 10X, or uses a different 4), Rutgers, The State University of New the relationship of the results of the additional safety factor when reliable Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 studies to human risk. EPA has also data available to EPA support the choice W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition considered available information of a different factor. requested that 40 CFR 180.672 be concerning the variability of the EPA has determined that reliable data amended by establishing a tolerance for sensitivities of major identifiable show the safety of infants and children residues of the insecticide, subgroups of consumers, including would be adequately protected if the cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2- infants and children. FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6- A summary of the toxicological decision is based on the findings [((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H- profile for cyantraniliprole is discussed summarized in Unit III.D. of the pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on in Unit III.A. of the final rule published November 13, 2018 final rule. strawberry at 1.5 parts per million in the Federal Register of November 13, D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of (ppm). Upon the establishment of the 2018 (84 FR 56262) (FRL–9985–32). A Safety above tolerance, IR–4 proposed to summary of the toxicological endpoints remove the existing tolerance in 40 CFR for cyantraniliprole used for human risk EPA determines whether acute and 180.672 in or on strawberry at 1.0 ppm. assessment is discussed in Unit III.B of chronic dietary pesticide exposures are That document referenced a summary of the final rule published in the Federal safe by comparing aggregate exposure the petition prepared by DuPont Crop Register of February 5, 2014 (79 FR estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and Protection, the registrant, which is 6826) (FRL–9388–7). chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer available in the docket, https:// Specific information on the studies risks, EPA calculates the lifetime www.regulations.gov. No comments received and the nature of the adverse probability of acquiring cancer given the were received on the notice of filing. effects caused by cyantraniliprole as estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, well as the no-observed-adverse-effect- intermediate-, and chronic-term risks III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- are evaluated by comparing the Determination of Safety adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the estimated aggregate food, water, and Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA toxicity studies can be found at http:// residential exposure to the appropriate allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the www.regulations.gov in document PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE legal limit for a pesticide chemical ‘‘Cyantraniliprole. Human Health Risk exists. residue in or on a food) only if EPA Assessment for Proposed Uses and 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Tolerance Requests on Coffee; assessment takes into account acute Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA Caneberry Subgroup 13–07A; Low exposure estimates from dietary defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a Growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H, consumption of food and drinking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

water. No adverse effect resulting from IV. Other Considerations Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 a single oral exposure was identified FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology and no acute dietary endpoint was Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of selected. Therefore, cyantraniliprole is Adequate enforcement methodology Children from Environmental Health not expected to pose an acute risk. (liquid chromatography with tandem Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS)) is April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a assumptions cited in this unit for available to enforce the tolerance regulatory action under Executive Order chronic exposure, EPA has concluded expression. 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations that chronic exposure to The method may be requested from: and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 cyantraniliprole from food and water Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action will utilize 99% of the cPAD for Environmental Science Center, 701 does not contain any information children 1 to 2 years old, the population Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; collections subject to OMB approval group receiving the greatest exposure. telephone number: (410) 305–2905; under the Paperwork Reduction Act Based on the explanation cited in Unit email address: residuemethods@ (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does III.B., regarding residential use patterns, epa.gov. it require any special considerations chronic residential exposure to residues B. International Residue Limits under Executive Order 12898, entitled of cyantraniliprole is not expected. ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 3. Short-term risk. Short-term In making its tolerance decisions, EPA Environmental Justice in Minority aggregate exposure takes into account seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Populations and Low-Income short-term residential exposure plus international standards whenever Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, chronic exposure to food and water possible, consistent with U.S. food 1994). (considered to be a background safety standards and agricultural exposure level). Cyantraniliprole is practices. EPA considers the Since tolerances and exemptions that currently registered for uses that could international maximum residue limits are established on the basis of a petition result in short-term residential (MRLs) established by the Codex under FFDCA section 408(d), such as exposure, and the Agency has Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as the tolerance in this final rule, do not determined that it is appropriate to required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). require the issuance of a proposed rule, aggregate chronic exposure through food The Codex Alimentarius is a joint the requirements of the Regulatory and water with short-term residential United Nations Food and Agriculture Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et exposures to cyantraniliprole. Organization/World Health seq.), do not apply. Using the exposure assumptions cited Organization food standards program, This action directly regulates growers, in this unit for short-term exposures, and it is recognized as an international food processors, food handlers, and food EPA has concluded the combined short- food safety standards-setting retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does term food, water, and residential organization in trade agreements to this action alter the relationships or exposures result in an aggregate MOE of which the United States is a party. EPA distribution of power and 149 for children 1 to 2 years old. For may establish a tolerance that is responsibilities established by Congress adults, the oral and inhalation routes of different from a Codex MRL; however, in the preemption provisions of FFDCA exposure are not appropriate to be FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency aggregated since the endpoints of EPA explain the reasons for departing has determined that this action will not concern are not common. Because EPA’s from the Codex level. have a substantial direct effect on States level of concern for cyantraniliprole is Codex has not established an MRL for or Tribal Governments, on the an MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is cyantraniliprole residues in or on relationship between the National not of concern. strawberry. Government and the States or Tribal 4. Intermediate-term risk. Governments, or on the distribution of Intermediate-term aggregate exposure V. Conclusion power and responsibilities among the takes into account intermediate-term Therefore, the existing tolerance for various levels of government or between residential exposure plus chronic residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1- the Federal Government and Indian exposure to food and water (considered (3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2- Tribes. Thus, the Agency has to be a background exposure level). methyl-6-[((methylamino) determined that Executive Order 13132, Cyantraniliprole is currently registered carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5- entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, for uses that could result in carboxamide, in or on strawberry is August 10, 1999) and Executive Order intermediate-term residential exposure, modified from 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm. 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and however, the short-term aggregate risk VI. Statutory and Executive Order Coordination with Indian Tribal estimate described above is protective of Reviews Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November potential intermediate-term exposures 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In and risks in children. This action modifies a tolerance 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. under FFDCA section 408(d) in addition, this action does not impose population. Based on the lack of response to a petition submitted to the any enforceable duty or contain any evidence of carcinogenicity in two Agency. The Office of Management and unfunded mandate as described under adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, Budget (OMB) has exempted these types Title II of the Unfunded Mandates cyantraniliprole is not expected to pose of actions from review under Executive Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et a cancer risk to humans. Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory seq.). 6. Determination of safety. Based on Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, This action does not involve any these risk assessments, EPA concludes October 4, 1993). Because this action technical standards that would require that there is a reasonable certainty that has been exempted from review under Agency consideration of voluntary no harm will result to the general Executive Order 12866, this action is consensus standards pursuant to section population, or to infants and children not subject to Executive Order 13211, 12(d) of the National Technology from aggregate exposure to entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Transfer and Advancement Act cyantraniliprole residues. Regulations That Significantly Affect (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8457

VII. Congressional Review Act corn forage, grain, and stover. regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through Pursuant to the Congressional Review Interregional Research Project Number 4 the Government Publishing Office’s e- Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will (IR–4) requested these tolerances under CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ submit a report containing this rule and _ other required information to the U.S. Act (FFDCA). Title40/40tab 02.tpl. Senate, the U.S. House of DATES: This regulation is effective C. How can I file an objection or hearing Representatives, and the Comptroller February 14, 2020. Objections and request? requests for hearings must be received General of the United States prior to Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 publication of the rule in the Federal on or before April 14, 2020, and must be filed in accordance with the U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an Register. This action is not a ‘‘major objection to any aspect of this regulation rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the and may also request a hearing on those List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation Environmental protection, ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, Administrative practice and procedure, identified by docket identification (ID) in accordance with the instructions Agricultural commodities, Pesticides number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0785, is provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping available at http://www.regulations.gov proper receipt by EPA, you must requirements. or at the Office of Pesticide Programs identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) OPP–2018–0785 in the subject line on Dated: January 24, 2020. the first page of your submission. All Michael Goodis, in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William objections and requests for a hearing Director, Registration Division, Office of must be in writing, and must be Pesticide Programs. Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC received by the Hearing Clerk on or Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room before April 14, 2020. Addresses for amended as follows: is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., mail and hand delivery of objections Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hearing requests are provided in 40 PART 180—[AMENDED] holidays. The telephone number for the CFR 178.25(b). In addition to filing an objection or Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 hearing request with the Hearing Clerk and the telephone number for the OPP continues to read as follows: as described in 40 CFR part 178, please Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review submit a copy of the filing (excluding Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. the visitor instructions and additional any Confidential Business Information ■ 2. In § 180.672, revise the entry for information about the docket available (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. ‘‘Strawberry’’ in the table in paragraph at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Information not marked confidential (a) to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be Michael Goodis, Registration Division § 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for disclosed publicly by EPA without prior residues. (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 (a) * * * objection or hearing request, identified Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 20460–0001; main telephone number: Commodity Parts per 2018–0785, by one of the following million (703) 305–7090; email address: methods: [email protected]. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online ***** Strawberry ...... 1.5 I. General Information instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any A. Does this action apply to me? ***** information you consider to be CBI or You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is * * * * * this action if you are an agricultural restricted by statute. • [FR Doc. 2020–02238 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] producer, food manufacturer, or Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental BILLING CODE 6560–50–P pesticide manufacturer. The following Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ list of North American Industrial DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. Classification System (NAICS) codes is NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. • ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION not intended to be exhaustive, but rather Hand Delivery: To make special AGENCY provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please 40 CFR Part 180 applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http:// [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0785; FRL–10003–04] entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on Prohexadione Calcium; Pesticide • Animal production (NAICS code commenting or visiting the docket, Tolerances 112). along with more information about • Food manufacturing (NAICS code dockets generally, is available at http:// AGENCY: Environmental Protection 311). www.epa.gov/dockets. Agency (EPA). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS II. Summary of Petitioned-For ACTION: code 32532). Final rule. Tolerance SUMMARY: This regulation establishes B. How can I get electronic access to In the Federal Register of April 19, tolerances with a regional registration other related information? 2019 (84 FR 16430) (FRL–9991–14), for residues of prohexadione calcium in You may access a frequently updated EPA issued a document pursuant to or on alfalfa forage, alfalfa hay, and field electronic version of EPA’s tolerance FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a calcium including exposure resulting from the toxicity studies can be found pesticide petition (PP 8E8716) by IR–4, from the tolerances established by this at http://www.regulations.gov in the IR–4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The action. EPA’s assessment of exposures document titled ‘‘Prohexadione State University of New Jersey, 500 and risks associated with prohexadione Calcium. Section 3 Registration for Use College Road East, Suite 201 W, calcium follows. on Strawberry and Watercress. Human Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition Health Risk Assessment’’ on pages 26– A. Toxicological Profile requested that 40 CFR 180.547 be 28 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– amended by establishing tolerances EPA has evaluated the available 2018–0785. with regional registrations in Wisconsin toxicity data and considered its validity, B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ and Pennsylvania for residues of completeness, and reliability as well as Levels of Concern prohexadione calcium (calcium 3-oxido- the relationship of the results of the 5-oxo-4-propionylcyclohex-3- studies to human risk. EPA has also Once a pesticide’s toxicological enecarboxylate) in or on the raw considered available information profile is determined, EPA identifies agricultural commodities corn, field, concerning the variability of the toxicological points of departure (POD) forage at 0.10 parts per million (ppm); sensitivities of major identifiable and levels of concern to use in corn, field, grain at 0.10 ppm; corn, subgroups of consumers, including evaluating the risk posed by human field, stover at 0.10 ppm; alfalfa, forage infants and children. exposure to the pesticide. For hazards at 0.10 ppm; and alfalfa, hay at 0.10 By the oral route, the most sensitive that have a threshold below which there ppm. That document referenced a effect in the prohexadione calcium is no appreciable risk, the toxicological summary of the petition prepared by hazard database is kidney toxicity in POD is used as the basis for derivation Fine Agrochemicals, Ltd., the registrant, dogs for both the subchronic and of reference values for risk assessment. which is available in the docket, http:// chronic durations. Minor hematological PODs are developed based on a careful www.regulations.gov. There were no changes (decreased white blood cell analysis of the doses in each comments received in response to the counts in males), and fore-stomach toxicological study to determine the notice of filing. hyperplasia were seen only at very high dose at which no adverse effects are EPA is establishing the requested doses in rodents. No dermal toxicity observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest tolerances, although the tolerance was observed up to the limit dose of dose at which adverse effects of concern values have been adjusted to be 1000 mg/kg/day. are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ consistent with Organization for In rats and rabbits, no increased safety factors are used in conjunction Economic Cooperation and quantitative or qualitative pre- or with the POD to calculate a safe Development (OECD) Rounding Class postnatal susceptibility was observed. In exposure level—generally referred to as Practice. rats, no maternal or developmental a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a toxicity was observed up to the limit reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and dose (1000 mg/kg/day). Three of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold Determination of Safety developmental studies in rabbits are risks, the Agency assumes that any Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA available in the toxicological database amount of exposure will lead to some allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the for prohexadione calcium. In one study, degree of risk. Thus, the Agency legal limit for a pesticide chemical late abortions occurred during estimates risk in terms of the probability residue in or on a food) only if EPA gestational days (GD) 24–29 at 200 mg/ of an occurrence of the adverse effect determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ kg/day, with increased mortality in expected in a lifetime. For more Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA maternal animals (GD 15–24) also noted information on the general principles defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a at this dose. In another rabbit EPA uses in risk characterization and a reasonable certainty that no harm will developmental study, two premature complete description of the risk result from aggregate exposure to the deliveries (on GD 24 and 26) were noted assessment process, see http:// pesticide chemical residue, including at the highest-dose tested (350 mg/kg/ www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- all anticipated dietary exposures and all day) with no developmental effects assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing- other exposures for which there is observed. No maternal or developmental human-health-risk-pesticide. reliable information.’’ This includes effects were seen in a third rabbit A summary of the toxicological exposure through drinking water and in developmental study up to 150 mg/kg/ endpoints for prohexadione calcium residential settings, but does not include day. In the 2-generation reproductive used for human risk assessment is occupational exposure. Section toxicity study with rats, parental discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to toxicity (minimal mortality) occurred at published in the Federal Register of give special consideration to exposure a dose well below the dose that caused July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38976) (FRL–9927– of infants and children to the pesticide decreases in offspring body weight. 25). chemical residue in establishing a There is no evidence of neurotoxicity tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a in the toxicological database for C. Exposure Assessment reasonable certainty that no harm will prohexadione calcium, which includes 1. Dietary exposure from food and result to infants and children from acute and subchronic neurotoxicity feed uses. In evaluating dietary aggregate exposure to the pesticide studies. exposure to prohexadione calcium, EPA chemical residue. . . .’’ Prohexadione calcium is classified as considered exposure under the Consistent with FFDCA section not likely to be carcinogenic to humans petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in based on lack of evidence of existing prohexadione calcium FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has carcinogenicity in rats and mice. tolerances in 40 CFR 180.547. EPA reviewed the available scientific data Specific information on the studies assessed dietary exposures from and other relevant information in received and the nature of the adverse prohexadione calcium in food as support of this action. EPA has effects caused by prohexadione calcium follows: sufficient data to assess the hazards of as well as the no-observed-adverse- i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute and to make a determination on effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest- dietary exposure and risk assessments aggregate exposure for prohexadione observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) are performed for a food-use pesticide,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8459

if a toxicological study has indicated the indoor pest control, termiticides, and safety for infants and children in the possibility of an effect of concern flea and tick control on pets). case of threshold effects to account for occurring as a result of a 1-day or single Prohexadione calcium is currently prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the exposure. registered for the following uses that completeness of the database on toxicity No such effects were identified in the could result in residential exposures: and exposure unless EPA determines toxicological studies for prohexadione Residential lawns, ornamentals, athletic based on reliable data that a different calcium; therefore, a quantitative acute fields, parks, and golf courses. EPA margin of safety will be safe for infants dietary exposure assessment is assessed residential exposure using the and children. This additional margin of unnecessary. following assumptions: Residential safety is commonly referred to as the ii. Chronic exposure. In estimating handler exposure is not expected FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying chronic dietary exposure, EPA used because all registered labels require the this provision, EPA either retains the 2003–2008 food consumption use of personal protective equipment default value of 10X, or uses a different information from the U.S. Department of (PPE) and are not intended for additional safety factor when reliable Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health application by homeowners. Short-term data available to EPA support the choice and Nutrition Examination Survey, exposure was assessed for post- of a different factor. What We Eat in America, (NHANES/ application incidental oral exposures of 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, children 1 to less than 2 years old. The In rats and rabbits, no increased the chronic assessment was based on Agency assessed hand-to-mouth quantitative or qualitative pre- or tolerance-level residues and 100 percent exposures and incidental soil ingestion postnatal susceptibility was observed. In crop treated (PCT). from applications to turf for children. the 2-generation reproductive toxicity iii. Cancer. Based on the data Intermediate- and long-term exposures study with rats, parental toxicity summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has are not expected since there are no (minimal mortality) occurred at a dose concluded that prohexadione calcium registered or proposed uses of well below the dose that caused does not pose a cancer risk to humans. prohexadione calcium that result in decreases in offspring body weight. Therefore, a dietary exposure intermediate- or long-term residential 3. Conclusion. EPA has determined assessment for the purpose of assessing exposures. that reliable data show the safety of Further information regarding EPA cancer risk is unnecessary. infants and children would be standard assumptions and generic iv. Anticipated residue and PCT adequately protected if the FQPA SF inputs for residential exposures may be information. EPA did not use were reduced to 1X. That decision is found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide- anticipated residue or PCT information based on the following findings: science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ i. The toxicity database for in the dietary assessment for standard-operating-procedures- prohexadione calcium is complete. prohexadione calcium. Tolerance level residential-pesticide. ii. There is no indication that residues and 100 PCT were assumed for 4. Cumulative effects from substances prohexadione calcium is a neurotoxic all food commodities. with a common mechanism of toxicity. chemical and there is no need for a 2. Dietary exposure from drinking Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA developmental neurotoxicity study or water. The Agency used screening level requires that, when considering whether additional UFs to account for water exposure models in the dietary to establish, modify, or revoke a neurotoxicity. exposure analysis and risk assessment tolerance, the Agency consider iii. There is no evidence that for prohexadione calcium in drinking ‘‘available information’’ concerning the prohexadione calcium results in water. These simulation models take cumulative effects of a particular increased susceptibility in in utero rats into account data on the physical, pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other or rabbits in the prenatal developmental chemical, and fate/transport substances that have a common studies or in young rats in the 2- characteristics of prohexadione calcium. mechanism of toxicity.’’ generation reproduction study. Further information regarding EPA EPA has not found prohexadione iv. There are no residual uncertainties drinking water models used in pesticide calcium to share a common mechanism identified in the exposure databases. exposure assessment can be found at of toxicity with any other substances, The dietary food exposure assessment http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science- and prohexadione calcium does not was performed based on 100 PCT and and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about- appear to produce a toxic metabolite tolerance-level residues. EPA made water-exposure-models-used-pesticide. produced by other substances. For the conservative (protective) assumptions in Based on the Pesticide in Water purposes of this tolerance action, the ground and surface water modeling Calculator (PWC), the estimated therefore, EPA has assumed that used to assess exposure to prohexadione drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) prohexadione calcium does not have a calcium in drinking water. EPA used of prohexadione calcium for chronic common mechanism of toxicity with similarly conservative assumptions to exposures are estimated to be 29 ppb for other substances. For information assess post-application exposure of × ¥7 surface water and 5.1 10 ppb for regarding EPA’s efforts to determine children as well as incidental oral ground water. which chemicals have a common exposure of toddlers. These assessments Modeled estimates of drinking water mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate will not underestimate the exposure and concentrations were directly entered the cumulative effects of such risks posed by prohexadione calcium. into the dietary exposure model. For the chemicals, see EPA’s website at http:// E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of chronic dietary risk assessment, the www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- Safety water concentration of value 29 ppb was assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative- used to assess the contribution to assessment-risk-pesticides. EPA determines whether acute and drinking water. chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 3. From non-dietary exposure. The D. Safety Factor for Infants and safe by comparing aggregate exposure term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in Children estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and this document to refer to non- 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer occupational, non-dietary exposure FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply risks, EPA calculates the lifetime (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, an additional tenfold (10X) margin of probability of acquiring cancer given the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, residential exposure and chronic dietary V. Conclusion intermediate-, and chronic-term risks exposure has already been assessed Therefore, tolerances with regional are evaluated by comparing the under the appropriately protective registration are established for residues estimated aggregate food, water, and cPAD (which is at least as protective as of prohexadione calcium in or on residential exposure to the appropriate the POD used to assess intermediate- alfalfa, forage at 0.1 ppm; alfalfa, hay at PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE term risk), no further assessment of 0.1 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.1 ppm; exists. intermediate-term risk is necessary, and corn, field, grain at 0.1 ppm; and corn, 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk field, stover at 0.1 ppm. assessment takes into account acute assessment for evaluating intermediate- exposure estimates from dietary term risk for prohexadione calcium. VI. Statutory and Executive Order consumption of food and drinking 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. Reviews water. No adverse effect resulting from population. Based on the lack of This action establishes and modifies a single oral exposure was identified evidence of carcinogenicity in two tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) and no acute dietary endpoint was adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, in response to a petition submitted to selected. Therefore, prohexadione prohexadione calcium is not expected to the Agency. The Office of Management calcium is not expected to pose an acute pose a cancer risk to humans. and Budget (OMB) has exempted these risk. types of actions from review under 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 6. Determination of safety. Based on Executive Order 12866, entitled assumptions described in this unit for these risk assessments, EPA concludes chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 that chronic exposure to prohexadione no harm will result to the general FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because calcium from food and water will utilize population, or to infants and children this action has been exempted from 17% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 from aggregate exposure to review under Executive Order 12866, years old, the population group prohexadione calcium residues. this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions receiving the greatest exposure. Based IV. Other Considerations on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., Concerning Regulations That regarding residential use patterns, A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Significantly Affect Energy Supply, chronic residential exposure to residues Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Adequate enforcement methodology 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, of prohexadione calcium is not (gas chromatography/mass-selective expected. entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from detector (GC/MSD) and liquid Environmental Health Risks and Safety 3. Short-term risk. Short-term chromatography with tandem mass aggregate exposure takes into account Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), spectroscopy (LC–MS/MS)) is available nor is it considered a regulatory action short-term residential exposure plus to enforce the tolerance expression. chronic exposure to food and water under Executive Order 13771, entitled The method may be requested from: (considered to be a background ‘‘Reducing Regulations and Controlling Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, exposure level). Regulatory Costs’’ (82 FR 9339, February Prohexadione calcium is currently Environmental Science Center, 701 3, 2017). This action does not contain registered for uses that could result in Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; any information collections subject to short-term residential exposure, and the telephone number: (410) 305–2905; OMB approval under the Paperwork Agency has determined that it is email address: residuemethods@ Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et appropriate to aggregate chronic epa.gov. seq.), nor does it require any special exposure through food and water with B. International Residue Limits considerations under Executive Order short-term residential exposures to 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to prohexadione calcium. In making its tolerance decisions, EPA Address Environmental Justice in Using the exposure assumptions seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Minority Populations and Low-Income described in this unit for short-term international standards whenever Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, exposures, EPA has concluded the possible, consistent with U.S. food 1994). combined short-term food, water, and safety standards and agricultural Since tolerances and exemptions that residential exposures result in an practices. EPA considers the are established on the basis of a petition aggregate MOE of 2,300 for children 1 to international maximum residue limits under FFDCA section 408(d), such as less than 2 years old. Because EPA’s (MRLs) established by the Codex the tolerances in this final rule, do not level of concern for prohexadione Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as require the issuance of a proposed rule, calcium is an MOE below 100, this MOE required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). the requirements of the Regulatory is not of concern. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 4. Intermediate-term risk. United Nations Food and Agriculture seq.), do not apply. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure Organization/World Health This action directly regulates growers, takes into account intermediate-term Organization food standards program, food processors, food handlers, and food residential exposure plus chronic and it is recognized as an international retailers, not States or tribes, nor does exposure to food and water (considered food safety standards-setting this action alter the relationships or to be a background exposure level). organization in trade agreements to distribution of power and An intermediate-term adverse effect which the United States is a party. EPA responsibilities established by Congress was identified; however, prohexadione may establish a tolerance that is in the preemption provisions of FFDCA calcium is not registered for any use different from a Codex MRL; however, section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency patterns that would result in FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that has determined that this action will not intermediate-term residential exposure. EPA explain the reasons for departing have a substantial direct effect on States Intermediate-term risk is assessed based from the Codex level. or tribal governments, on the on intermediate-term residential The Codex has not established MRLs relationship between the National exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. on alfalfa or corn for prohexadione Government and the States or tribal Because there is no intermediate-term calcium. governments, or on the distribution of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8461

power and responsibilities among the levels specified in table 2 in this information about the docket available various levels of government or between paragraph (c) is to be determined by at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. the Federal Government and Indian measuring only prohexadione calcium FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined (calcium 3-oxido-5-oxo-4- Michael Goodis, Registration Division that Executive Order 13132, entitled propionylcyclohex-3-enecarboxylate) in (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, or on the following commodities. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 1999) and Executive Order 13175, Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c) 20460–0001; main telephone number: with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR (703) 305–7090; email address: 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply Parts per [email protected]. Commodity million to this action. In addition, this action SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: does not impose any enforceable duty or Alfalfa, forage ...... 0.1 I. General Information contain any unfunded mandate as Alfalfa, hay ...... 0.1 described under Title II of the Unfunded Corn, field, forage ...... 0.1 A. Does this action apply to me? Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. Corn, field, grain ...... 0.1 1501 et seq.). Corn, field, stover ...... 0.1 You may be potentially affected by This action does not involve any this action if you are an agricultural technical standards that would require * * * * * producer, food manufacturer, or Agency consideration of voluntary [FR Doc. 2020–02036 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] pesticide manufacturer. The following consensus standards pursuant to section BILLING CODE 6560–50–P list of North American Industrial 12(d) of the National Technology Classification System (NAICS) codes is Transfer and Advancement Act not intended to be exhaustive, but rather (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION provides a guide to help readers AGENCY determine whether this document VII. Congressional Review Act applies to them. Potentially affected Pursuant to the Congressional Review 40 CFR Part 180 entities may include: Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will • Crop production (NAICS code 111). submit a report containing this rule and [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0297; FRL–10004–03] • Animal production (NAICS code 112). other required information to the U.S. Flutriafol; Pesticide Tolerances Senate, the U.S. House of • Food manufacturing (NAICS code Representatives, and the Comptroller AGENCY: Environmental Protection 311). • General of the United States prior to Agency (EPA). Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). publication of the rule in the Federal ACTION: Final rule. Register. This action is not a ‘‘major B. How can I get electronic access to rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). SUMMARY: This regulation establishes other related information? tolerances for residues of flutriafol in or List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 on multiple commodities which are You may access a frequently updated Environmental protection, identified and discussed later in this electronic version of EPA’s tolerance Administrative practice and procedure, document. Cheminova A/S on behalf of regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through Agricultural commodities, Pesticides FMC Corporation requested these the Government Publishing Office’s e- and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping tolerances under the Federal Food, CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ requirements. Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ Title40/40tab_02.tpl. Dated: December 30, 2019. DATES: This regulation is effective Michael Goodis, February 14, 2020. Objections and C. How can I file an objection or hearing Director, Registration Division, Office of requests for hearings must be received request? Pesticide Programs. on or before April 14, 2020, and must Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is be filed in accordance with the U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an amended as follows: instructions provided in 40 CFR part objection to any aspect of this regulation 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the and may also request a hearing on those PART 180—[AMENDED] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). objections. You must file your objection ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, or request a hearing on this regulation ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 identified by docket identification (ID) in accordance with the instructions continues to read as follows: number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0297, is provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. available at http://www.regulations.gov proper receipt by EPA, you must ■ 2. In § 180.547, revise paragraph (c) to or at the Office of Pesticide Programs identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– read as follows: Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) OPP–2018–0297 in the subject line on in the Environmental Protection Agency the first page of your submission. All § 180.547 Prohexadione calcium; Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William objections and requests for a hearing tolerances for residues. Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 must be in writing, and must be * * * * * Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC received by the Hearing Clerk on or (c) Tolerances with regional 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room before April 14, 2020. Addresses for registrations. Tolerances with regional is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., mail and hand delivery of objections registration are established for residues Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hearing requests are provided in 40 of the plant growth regulator, holidays. The telephone number for the CFR 178.25(b). prohexadione calcium, including its Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, In addition to filing an objection or metabolites and degradates, in or on the and the telephone number for the OPP hearing request with the Hearing Clerk commodities in table 2 in this paragraph Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review as described in 40 CFR part 178, please (c). Compliance with the tolerance the visitor instructions and additional submit a copy of the filing (excluding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8462 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

any Confidential Business Information petition prepared by Cheminova A/S on were in the liver. Effects consisted of (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. behalf of FMC Corporation, the increases in liver enzyme release Information not marked confidential registrant, which is available in the (alkaline phosphatase), liver weights, pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be docket, http://www.regulations.gov. and histopathology findings (hepatocyte disclosed publicly by EPA without prior There were no comments received in vacuolization to centrilobular notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your response to the notice of filing. hypertrophy and slight increases in objection or hearing request, identified Based upon review of the data hemosiderin-laden Kupffer cells, by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– supporting the petition, EPA is issuing minimal to severe fatty changes, and 2018–0297, by one of the following some tolerances that vary from what the bile duct proliferation/cholangiolar methods: petitioner requested. The reason for fibrosis). Progression of toxicity • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// these changes are explained in Unit occurred with time as some effects were www.regulations.gov. Follow the online IV.D. only observed at chronic durations. instructions for submitting comments. Slight indications of effects in the III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Do not submit electronically any hematopoietic system were sporadically Determination of Safety information you consider to be CBI or seen in all species consisting of slight other information whose disclosure is Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA anemia, increased platelets, white blood restricted by statute. allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the cells, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental legal limit for a pesticide chemical The effects in the neurotoxicity Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ residue in or on a food) only if EPA screening batteries were observed only DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ at higher doses and were considered NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA secondary effects (decreased motor • Hand Delivery: To make special defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a activity and hindlimb grip strength, arrangements for hand delivery or reasonable certainty that no harm will ptosis, lost righting reflex, hunched delivery of boxed information, please result from aggregate exposure to the posture, and ataxia). Flutriafol showed follow the instructions at http:// pesticide chemical residue, including no evidence of dermal toxicity, or www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. all anticipated dietary exposures and all immunotoxicity. Flutriafol showed no Additional instructions on other exposures for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in rodents commenting or visiting the docket, reliable information.’’ This includes or in vitro. along with more information about exposure through drinking water and in There is evidence of increased dockets generally, is available at http:// residential settings but does not include quantitative and qualitative prenatal www.epa.gov/dockets. occupational exposure. Section and postnatal susceptibility for flutriafol II. Summary of Petitioned-For 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to in rats and rabbits. In the first of two rat Tolerance give special consideration to exposure developmental toxicity studies, of infants and children to the pesticide developmental effects (delayed In the Federal Register of July 24, chemical residue in establishing a ossification or non-ossification of the 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL–9980–31), tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a skeleton in the fetuses) were observed at EPA issued a document pursuant to reasonable certainty that no harm will a lower dose than that where maternal FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. result to infants and children from effects were observed. In the second rat 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a aggregate exposure to the pesticide developmental study, developmental pesticide petition (PP 8F8661) by chemical residue .... ’’ effects (external, visceral, and skeletal Cheminova A/S, on behalf of FMC Consistent with FFDCA section malformations; embryo lethality; Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in skeletal variations; a generalized delay Philadelphia, PA 19104. The petition FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has in fetal development; and fewer live requested that 40 CFR 180.629 be reviewed the available scientific data fetuses) were more severe than the amended by establishing tolerances for and other relevant information in decreased food consumption and body- ± residues of the fungicide flutriafol, (( )- support of this action. EPA has weight gains observed in the dams at the a-(2-fluorophenyl-a-(4-fluorophenyl)- sufficient data to assess the hazards of same dose. For rabbits, intrauterine 1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol), in or on and to make a determination on deaths occurred at a dose level that also alfalfa, forage at 15.0 parts per million aggregate exposure for flutriafol caused adverse effects in maternal (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 50 ppm; barley, including exposure resulting from the animals. In the 2-generation grain at 1.5 ppm; barley, hay at 7.0 ppm; tolerances established by this action. reproduction studies, effects in the barley, straw at 8.0 ppm; corn, sweet, EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks offspring [decreased litter size and forage at 9.0 ppm; corn, sweet kernels associated with flutriafol follows. percentage of live births (increased pup plus cobs with husks removed at 0.03 mortality) and liver toxicity] can be ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 8 ppm; rice, A. Toxicological Profile attributed to the systemic toxicity of the bran at 0.4 ppm; rice, grain at 0.5 ppm; EPA has evaluated the available parental animals (decreased body rice, hulls at 1.5 ppm; rice, straw at 0.9 toxicity data and considered its validity, weight and food consumption and liver ppm. Although the Agency’s document completeness, and reliability as well as toxicity) observed at the same dose. did not expressly include the following, the relationship of the results of the Flutriafol is categorized as having the petition also requested the removal studies to human risk. EPA has also high oral acute toxicity in the mouse. It of the following tolerances upon considered available information is categorized as having low acute establishment of the petitioned-for concerning the variability of the toxicity via the oral, dermal and tolerances: Existing tolerances for sensitivities of major identifiable inhalation routes in rats. Flutriafol is inadvertent or indirect residues of subgroups of consumers, including minimally irritating to the eyes and is flutriafol in corn, sweet, forage at 0.09 infants and children. not a dermal irritant. Flutriafol was not ppm; corn, sweet, kernels plus cobs Consistent with the mammalian shown to be a skin sensitizer when with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; and toxicity profiles of the other triazole tested in guinea pigs. corn, sweet, stover at 0.07 ppm. That fungicides, the prevalent adverse effects Specific information on the studies document referenced a summary of the following oral exposure to flutriafol received and the nature of the adverse

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8463

effects caused by flutriafol as well as the evaluating the risk posed by human of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold no-observed-adverse-effect-level exposure to the pesticide. For hazards risks, the Agency assumes that any (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- that have a threshold below which there amount of exposure will lead to some adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the is no appreciable risk, the toxicological degree of risk. Thus, the Agency toxicity studies can be found at http:// POD is used as the basis for derivation estimates risk in terms of the probability www.regulations.gov in document of reference values for risk assessment. of an occurrence of the adverse effect ‘‘Human Health Risk Assessment in PODs are developed based on a careful expected in a lifetime. For more Support of a Section 3 Registration for analysis of the doses in each information on the general principles Application to Alfalfa, Barley, Sweet toxicological study to determine the EPA uses in risk characterization and a Corn, Rice (as a Rotated Crop), Turf, and dose at which no adverse effects are complete description of the risk Ornamentals at 18’’ in docket ID number observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest assessment process, see http:// EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0297. dose at which adverse effects of concern www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing- Levels of Concern safety factors are used in conjunction human-health-risk-pesticides. Once a pesticide’s toxicological with the POD to calculate a safe A summary of the toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies exposure level—generally referred to as endpoints for flutriafol used for human toxicological points of departure (POD) a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of and levels of concern to use in reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin this unit.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUTRIAFOL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Point of departure Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects safety factors risk assessment

Acute dietary (Females 13 to NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 0.075 Developmental study—rabbit. 49 years of age). day mg/kg/day LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day based on decreased number of live UFA = 10X aPAD = 0.075 mg/ fetuses, complete litter resorptions and increased post-im- UFH = 10X kg/day plantation loss. FQPA SF = 1X

Acute dietary (General popu- NOAEL = 250 mg/ Acute RfD = 2,5 mg/ Neurotoxicity screening battery—rat. lation including infants and kg/day kg/day LOAEL = 750 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, children). UFA = 10X aPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/ body-weight gain, absolute and relative food consumption, UFH = 10X day and clinical signs of toxicity in both sexes: Dehydration, FQPA SF = 1X urine-stained abdominal fur, ungroomed coat, ptosis, de- creased motor activity, prostration, limp muscle tone, muscle flaccidity, hypothermia, hunched posture, impaired or lost righting reflex, scant feces; in males: Red or tan perioral sub- stance, chromodacryorrhea, chromorhinorrhea and labored breathing, and in females: Piloerection and bradypnea.

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.05 Chronic toxicity—dog. day mg/kg/day LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on adverse liver findings (in- UFA = 10X cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/ creased liver weights, increased centrilobular hepatocyte lipid UFH = 10X day in the liver, and increases in alkaline phosphatase, albumin, FQPA SF = 1X and triglycerides), increased adrenal cortical vacuolation of the zona fasciculata, and marked hemosiderin pigmentation in the liver and spleen in both sexes; mild anemia (character- ized by decreased hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cell count) in the males; and initial body weight losses, de- creased cumulative body-weight gains, and increased adre- nal weights in the females.

Dermal short-term (1 to 30 Dermal (or oral) LOC for MOE = Developmental toxicity—rabbit. days). study NOAEL = <100 LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day based on decreased number of live 7.5 mg/kg/day fetuses, complete litter resorptions and increased post-im- (dermal absorption plantation loss. factor = 15% UFA = 10X UFH = 10X FQPA SF = 1X

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhala- Classification: ‘‘Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ tion). based on the carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. 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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

C. Exposure Assessment selected commodities in calculation of proprietary market surveys, and 1. Dietary exposure from food and the dietary burden estimates (100 PCT California Department of Pesticide feed uses. In evaluating dietary assumed) and through the incorporation Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use exposure to flutriafol, EPA considered of average residues from the feeding Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop exposure under the petitioned-for study. The Agency used the same combination for the most recent 10 tolerances as well as all existing processing factors for the chronic years. EPA uses an average PCT for flutriafol tolerances in 40 CFR 180.629. dietary assessment as it used for the chronic dietary risk analysis and a EPA assessed dietary exposures from acute assessment. maximum PCT for acute dietary risk iii. Cancer. Based on the data flutriafol in food as follows: analysis. The average PCT figure for summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute each existing use is derived by concluded that flutriafol does not pose dietary exposure and risk assessments combining available public and private a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a are performed for a food-use pesticide, market survey data for that use, dietary exposure assessment for the if a toxicological study has indicated the averaging across all observations, and purpose of assessing cancer risk is possibility of an effect of concern rounding up to the nearest 5%, except unnecessary. for those situations in which the average occurring as a result of a 1-day or single iv. Anticipated residue and PCT PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. exposure. information. Section 408 (b)(2)(E) of Such effects were identified for In those cases, the Agency would use FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available flutriafol. In estimating acute dietary less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the data and information on the anticipated exposure, EPA used food consumption average PCT value, respectively. The residue levels of pesticide residues in maximum PCT figure is the highest information from the United States food and the actual levels of pesticide observed maximum value reported Department of Agriculture (USDA) residues that have been measured in within the most recent 10 years of National Health and Nutrition food. If EPA relies on such information, available public and private market Examination Survey, What We Eat in EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA survey data for the existing use and America, (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 rounded up to the nearest multiple of from 2003–2008. As to residue levels in years after the tolerance is established, 5%, except where the maximum PCT is food, EPA made the following modified, or left in effect, demonstrating less than 2.5%, in which case, the assumptions for the acute exposure that the levels in food are not above the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the assessment: Tolerance-level residues or levels anticipated. For the present maximum PCT. tolerance-level residues adjusted to action, EPA will issue such data call-ins The Agency believes that the three account for the residues of concern as are required by FFDCA section conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. (ROC) for risk assessment, and 100 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under have been met. With respect to percent crop treated (PCT). Since FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be Condition a, PCT estimates are derived adequate processing studies have been required to be submitted no later than from Federal and private market survey submitted that indicate that residues do 5 years from the date of issuance of data, which are reliable and have a valid not concentrate as a result of processing these tolerances. basis. The Agency is reasonably certain at levels which would require a Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the percentage of the food treated tolerance in or on apple juice (translated that the Agency may use data on the is not likely to be an underestimation. to pear juice), grape juice, dried prunes, actual percent of food treated for As to Conditions b and c, regional and tomato puree, the Agency’s 2018 assessing chronic dietary risk only if: consumption information and default processing factors for these • Condition a: The data used are consumption information for significant commodities were reduced to 1. In reliable and provide a valid basis to subpopulations is taken into account addition, the Agency used a processing show what percentage of the food through EPA’s computer-based model factor of 1 for raisin and tomato paste derived from such crop is likely to for evaluating the exposure of since those existing tolerances already contain the pesticide residue. significant subpopulations including account for the concentration of • Condition b: The exposure estimate several regional groups. Use of this residues during the processing of the does not underestimate exposure for any consumption information in EPA’s risk RACs, i.e., grape and tomato, into those significant subpopulation group. assessment process ensures that EPA’s processed commodities. The default • Condition c: Data are available on exposure estimate does not understate processing factors were retained for the pesticide use and food consumption in exposure for any significant remaining relevant commodities. a particular area, the exposure estimate subpopulation group and allows the ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting does not understate exposure for the Agency to be reasonably certain that no the chronic dietary exposure assessment population in such area. regional population is exposed to EPA used the food consumption data In addition, the Agency must provide residue levels higher than those from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA for periodic evaluation of any estimates estimated by the Agency. Other than the conducted from 2003–2008. As to used. To provide for the periodic data available through national food residue levels in food, for the chronic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as consumption surveys, EPA does not analysis EPA assumed the same residue required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), have available reliable information on estimates as that used in the acute EPA may require registrants to submit the regional consumption of food to assessment excluding wheat, apple, and data on PCT. which flutriafol may be applied in a grape, where average field-trial residues The acute analysis assumed 100 PCT particular area. were assumed and apple and grape for all commodities. For the chronic 2. Dietary exposure from drinking where screening-level usage analysis analysis, the Agency used PCT for the water. The Agency used screening level (SLUA) percent crop treated estimates following uses: Apple 15%; grape 5%; water exposure models in the dietary were assumed (100 PCT assumed for the and raisin 1%. exposure analysis and risk assessment remaining crops). The chronic analysis In most cases, EPA uses available data for flutriafol in drinking water. These also incorporated refinements to the from United States Department of simulation models take into account livestock residue estimates through Agriculture/National Agricultural data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ incorporation of median residues for Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), transport characteristics of flutriafol.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8465

Further information regarding EPA science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ this provision, EPA either retains the drinking water models used in pesticide standard-operating-procedures- default value of 10X, or uses a different exposure assessment can be found at residential-pesticide. additional safety factor when reliable http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science- 4. Cumulative effects from substances data available to EPA support the choice and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about- with a common mechanism of toxicity. of a different factor. water-exposure-models-used-pesticide. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the First Index Reservoir requires that, when considering whether There is evidence of increased Screening Tool (FIRST), Pesticide Root to establish, modify, or revoke a quantitative and qualitative prenatal Zone Model/Exposure Analysis tolerance, the Agency consider and postnatal susceptibility for flutriafol Modeling System (PRZM5–VVWM) and ‘‘available information’’ concerning the in rats. In the first of two rat Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground cumulative effects of a particular developmental toxicity studies, Water (PRZM GW), the estimated pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other developmental effects (delayed drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) substances that have a common ossification or non-ossification of the of flutriafol for acute exposures are mechanism of toxicity.’’ skeleton in the fetuses) were observed at estimated to be 29.5 parts per billion Unlike other pesticides for which EPA a lower dose than that where maternal (ppb) for surface water and 630 ppb for has followed a cumulative risk approach effects were observed. In the second rat ground water. For chronic exposure based on a common mechanism of developmental study, developmental assessments, the EDWCs are estimated toxicity, EPA has not made a common effects (external, visceral, and skeletal to be 5.8 ppb for surface water and 540 mechanism of toxicity finding as to malformations; embryo lethality; ppb for ground water. flutriafol and any other substances. skeletal variations; a generalized delay Modeled estimates of drinking water Although the conazole fungicides in fetal development; and fewer live concentrations were directly entered (triazoles) produce 1,2,4 triazole and its fetuses) were more severe than the into the dietary exposure model. For acid-conjugated metabolites decreased food consumption and body- acute dietary risk assessment, the water (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic weight gains observed in the dams at the concentration value of 630 ppb was acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid- same dose. For rabbits, decreased used to assess the contribution to conjugated metabolites do not number of live fetuses, complete litter drinking water. For chronic dietary risk contribute to the toxicity of the parent resorptions and increased post- assessment, the water concentration of conazole fungicides (triazoles). The implantation loss were observed. Under value 540 ppb was used to assess the Agency has assessed the aggregate risks current practices, these effects are contribution to drinking water. from the 1,2,4 triazole and its acid- considered both maternal and 3. From non-dietary exposure. The conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine developmental effects, and it is term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in and triazolylacetic acid) separately. The unknown whether the effects occurred this document to refer to non- new uses of flutriafol are not expected from toxicity to maternal animals or the occupational, non-dietary exposure to quantitatively alter the dietary fetuses. In the two-generation (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, exposure estimates used in the most reproduction studies, effects in the indoor pest control, termiticides, and recent aggregate risk assessment for the offspring [decreased litter size and flea and tick control on pets). common triazole metabolites. The most percentage of live births (increased pup Flutriafol is currently registered for recent triazole aggregate risk assessment mortality) and liver toxicity] was the following uses that could result in (Common Triazole Metabolites: observed at the same dose as systemic residential exposures: Golf course turf. Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk toxicity in the parental animals EPA assessed residential exposure using Assessment to Address New Section 3 (decreased body weight and food the following assumptions: Residential Registrations For Use of Difenoconazole consumption and liver toxicity). handler exposure is not expected as and Mefentrifluconazole; DP451447, 3. Conclusion. EPA has determined result of the golf course use. There is the dated May 15, 2019) can be found at that reliable data show the safety of potential for post-application exposure https://www.regulations.gov at docket infants and children would be for individuals exposed as a result of ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0002. adequately protected if the FQPA SF being in an environment that has been Flutriafol does not appear to produce were reduced to 1X. That decision is previously treated with flutriafol (i.e. any other toxic metabolite produced by based on the following findings: golf courses). The quantitative other substances. For the purposes of i. The toxicity database for flutriafol is exposure/risk assessment for residential this action, therefore, EPA has not complete. post-application exposures is based on assumed that flutriafol has a common ii. There is no indication that the following scenario: mechanism of toxicity with other flutriafol is a neurotoxic chemical, and • Dermal exposures for children (6 to substances. there is no need for a developmental <11 years old), children (11 to <16 years neurotoxicity study or additional D. Safety Factor for Infants and old), and adults contacting residues uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for Children deposited on turf resulting from neurotoxicity. Signs of neurotoxicity broadcast golf course applications. 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of were reported in the acute and These lifestages are not the only FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply subchronic neurotoxicity studies at the lifestages that could be potentially an additional tenfold (10X) margin of highest dose tested only. In the acute exposed for these post-application safety for infants and children in the neurotoxicity study, these effects were scenarios; however, the assessment of case of threshold effects to account for primarily seen in animals that were these lifestages are considered health prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the agonal (at the point of death) and, thus, protective for the exposures and risks completeness of the database on toxicity are not indicative of neurotoxicity. In for any other potentially exposed and exposure unless EPA determines addition, there was no evidence of lifestages. based on reliable data that a different neurotoxicity in any additional short- Further information regarding EPA margin of safety will be safe for infants term or long-term toxicity studies in standard assumptions and generic and children. This additional margin of rats, mice, and dogs. inputs for residential exposures may be safety is commonly referred to as the iii. There are no concerns or residual found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide- FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying uncertainties for prenatal and/or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

postnatal toxicity. There is evidence of chronic exposure, EPA has concluded from aggregate exposure to flutriafol increased quantitative and qualitative that chronic exposure to flutriafol from residues. susceptibility in developmental and food and water will utilize 75% of the IV. Other Considerations reproduction toxicity studies; however, cPAD for all infants <1 years old, the there concern is low based on the population group receiving the greatest A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology following: exposure. Based on the explanation in Adequate enforcement methodology • Clear NOAELs and LOAELs were Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use based on validation data were provided established for effects in the fetuses/ patterns, chronic residential exposure to as part of the magnitude residues offspring. residues of flutriafol is not expected. • The dose-response for these effects 3. Short-term risk. Short-term studies. In addition, the QuECHERS are well defined and characterized. aggregate exposure takes into account method has been shown to support and • Developmental endpoints are used short-term residential exposure plus enforce the tolerance expression. for assessing acute dietary risks to the chronic exposure to food and water The method may be requested from: most sensitive population (females 13 to (considered to be a background Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 49) as well as all other short-term and exposure level). Flutriafol is currently Environmental Science Center, 701 intermediate-term exposure scenarios. registered for uses that could result in Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; • The acute reference dose for short-term residential exposure, and the telephone number: (410) 305–2905; females 13 to 49 is 1,000-fold lower than Agency has determined that it is email address: residuemethods@ the dose at which quantitative appropriate to aggregate chronic epa.gov. susceptibility in the first developmental exposure through food and water with B. International Residue Limits rat study was observed. short-term residential exposures to • The chronic reference dose is flutriafol. In making its tolerance decisions, EPA greater than 300-fold lower than the Using the exposure assumptions seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with doses at which the offspring effects were described in this unit for short-term international standards whenever observed in the 2-generation exposures, EPA has concluded the possible, consistent with U.S. food reproduction studies. combined short-term food, water, and safety standards and agricultural iv. There are no residual uncertainties residential exposures result in aggregate practices. EPA considers the identified in the exposure databases. MOEs of 380 for adults, 500 for youth international maximum residue limits The dietary food exposure assessments ages 11 to <16 years old, and 160 for (MRLs) established by the Codex were somewhat refined in that the children ages 6 to <11 years old. Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as chronic analysis used some average Because EPA’s level of concern for required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). field trial residue data as well as some flutriafol is an MOE of 100 or below, The Codex Alimentarius is a joint percent crop treated information. EPA these MOEs are not of concern. United Nations Food and Agriculture made conservative (protective) 4. Intermediate-term risk. Organization/World Health assumptions in the ground and surface Intermediate-term aggregate exposure Organization food standards program, water modeling used to assess exposure takes into account intermediate-term and it is recognized as an international to flutriafol in drinking water. These residential exposure plus chronic food safety standards-setting assessments will not underestimate the exposure to food and water (considered organization in trade agreements to exposure and risks posed by flutriafol. to be a background exposure level). An which the United States is a party. EPA intermediate-term adverse effect was may establish a tolerance that is E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of identified; however, flutriafol is not different from a Codex MRL; however, Safety registered for any use patterns that FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA determines whether acute and would result in intermediate-term EPA explain the reasons for departing chronic dietary pesticide exposures are residential exposure. Intermediate-term from the Codex level. safe by comparing aggregate exposure risk is assessed based on intermediate- There are no Codex MRLs established estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and term residential exposure plus chronic for residues of flutriafol in/on the chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer dietary exposure. Because there is no proposed commodities. risks, EPA calculates the lifetime intermediate-term residential exposure C. Revisions to Petitioned-For probability of acquiring cancer given the and chronic dietary exposure has Tolerances estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, already been assessed under the intermediate-, and chronic-term risks appropriately protective cPAD (which is Based on the analysis of available are evaluated by comparing the at least as protective as the POD used to field trial data and the Organization for estimated aggregate food, water, and assess intermediate-term risk), no Economic Co-operation and residential exposure to the appropriate further assessment of intermediate-term Development (OECD) tolerance PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the calculation procedure, EPA is exists. chronic dietary risk assessment for establishing higher tolerance levels for 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk evaluating intermediate-term risk for residues in/on alfalfa forage and hay assessment takes into account acute flutriafol. than what the petitioner proposed as it exposure estimates from dietary 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. appears the petitioner averaged the consumption of food and drinking population. Based on the lack of residues from the two cuttings for both water. Using the exposure assumptions evidence of carcinogenicity in two commodities. EPA used the higher discussed in this unit for acute adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, residues of the two cuttings as this exposure, the acute dietary exposure flutriafol is not expected to pose a represents a worst-case scenario. Based from food and water to flutriafol will cancer risk to humans. on the increased dietary burden from occupy 69% of the aPAD for females 6. Determination of safety. Based on new additional feed commodities (i.e., 13–49 years old, the population group these risk assessments, EPA concludes alfalfa forage and hay), EPA calculates receiving the greatest exposure. that there is a reasonable certainty that that the established tolerances for 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure no harm will result to the general residues of flutriafol in/on fat, liver, and assumptions described in this unit for population, or to infants and children meat byproducts, except liver of cattle,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8467

goat, horse, and sheep; eggs; and fat and FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because consensus standards pursuant to section meat byproducts of poultry need to be this action has been exempted from 12(d) of the National Technology increased to avoid adulteration of those review under Executive Order 12866, Transfer and Advancement Act commodities. In accordance with 40 this action is not subject to Executive (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). CFR 180.6, EPA is increasing those Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions VII. Congressional Review Act tolerances in this rulemaking. Concerning Regulations That EPA is not recommending tolerances Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Pursuant to the Congressional Review for rice hulls or rice straw as these Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will commodities are no longer considered 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, submit a report containing this rule and to be significant feed items or for rice entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from other required information to the U.S. bran as it is lower than the rice, grain Environmental Health Risks and Safety Senate, the U.S. House of (RAC) tolerance. Finally, EPA is Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), Representatives, and the Comptroller expressing tolerance values to be nor is it considered a regulatory action General of the United States prior to consistent with OECD’s rounding class under Executive Order 13771, entitled publication of the rule in the Federal practice. ‘‘Reducing Regulations and Controlling Register. This action is not a ‘‘major V. Conclusion Regulatory Costs’’ (82 FR 9339, February rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 3, 2017). This action does not contain Therefore, tolerances are established any information collections subject to List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 for residues of flutriafol, OMB approval under the Paperwork ± Environmental protection, ( )-a-(2-fluorophenyl-a-(4-fluorophenyl) Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et Administrative practice and procedure, -1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol), in or on seq.), nor does it require any special Agricultural commodities, Pesticides alfalfa, forage at 20 parts per million considerations under Executive Order and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 70 ppm; barley, 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to requirements. grain at 1.5 ppm; barley, hay at 7 ppm; Address Environmental Justice in barley, straw at 8 ppm; corn, sweet, Minority Populations and Low-Income Dated: January 23, 2020. forage at 9 ppm; corn, sweet kernels Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Michael Goodis, plus cobs with husks removed at 0.03 1994). Director, Registration Division, Office of ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 8 ppm; rice, Since tolerances and exemptions that Pesticide Programs. grain at 0.5 ppm. Based on the increased are established on the basis of a petition Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is dietary burden from the new additional under FFDCA section 408(d), such as amended as follows: feed commodities, that agency is the tolerances in this final rule, do not revising the following established require the issuance of a proposed rule, PART 180—[AMENDED] tolerances of flutriafol in or on cattle, fat the requirements of the Regulatory at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); cattle, Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 liver at 1.5 ppm; cattle, meat seq.), do not apply. continues to read as follows: byproducts, except liver at 0.08 ppm; This action directly regulates growers, Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. egg at 0.02 ppm; goat, fat at 0.2 ppm; food processors, food handlers, and food goat, liver at 1.5 ppm; goat, meat retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does ■ 2. In § 180.629: byproducts, except liver at 0.08 ppm; this action alter the relationships or ■ a. In the table in paragraph (a): horse, fat at 0.2 ppm; horse, liver at 1.5 distribution of power and ■ i. Add alphabetically the entries for ppm; horse, meat byproducts, except responsibilities established by Congress ‘‘Alfalfa, forage’’; ‘‘Alfalfa, hay’’; liver at 0.08 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.02 in the preemption provisions of FFDCA ‘‘Barley, grain’’; ‘‘Barley, hay’’; and ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency ‘‘Barley, straw’’; ppm; sheep, fat at 0.2 ppm; sheep, liver has determined that this action will not ■ ii. Revise the entries for ‘‘Cattle, fat’’; at 1.5 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts, have a substantial direct effect on States ‘‘Cattle, liver’’; and ‘‘Cattle, meat except liver at 0.08 ppm. Also, this or Tribal Governments, on the byproducts, except liver’’; regulation removes established relationship between the National ■ iii. Add alphabetically the entries for tolerances for inadvertent or indirect Government and the States or Tribal ‘‘Corn, sweet, forage’’; ‘‘Corn, sweet, residues of flutriafol in corn, sweet, Governments, or on the distribution of kernel plus cob with husk removed’’; forage at 0.09 ppm; corn, sweet, kernels power and responsibilities among the and ‘‘Corn, sweet, stover’’; and various levels of government or between plus cobs with husks removed at 0.01 ■ iv. Revise the entries for ‘‘Egg’’; ‘‘Goat, the Federal Government and Indian ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.07 fat’’; ‘‘Goat, liver’’; ‘‘Goat, meat Tribes. Thus, the Agency has ppm the entries for the tolerances byproducts, except liver’’; ‘‘Horse, fat’’; determined that Executive Order 13132, contained in paragraph (d) of § 180.629. ‘‘Horse, liver’’; ‘‘Horse, meat entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, These tolerances are superseded and no byproducts, except liver’’; ‘‘Poultry, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order longer necessary with the establishment fat’’; ‘‘Poultry, meat byproducts’’; 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and of the new tolerances for sweet corn ‘‘Sheep, fat’’; ‘‘Sheep, liver’’; and commodities. Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November ‘‘Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver’’; VI. Statutory and Executive Order 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In and ■ Reviews addition, this action does not impose b. In paragraph (d): This action establishes and modifies any enforceable duty or contain any ■ i. In the introductory text, remove tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) unfunded mandate as described under ‘‘table below’’ and ‘‘specified below’’ in response to a petition submitted to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates and add in their places ‘‘table 2 to this the Agency. The Office of Management Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et paragraph (d)’’ and ‘‘specified in table 2 and Budget (OMB) has exempted these seq.). to this paragraph (d),’’ respectively; and types of actions from review under This action does not involve any ■ ii. Revise the table. Executive Order 12866, entitled technical standards that would require The revisions and additions read as ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 Agency consideration of voluntary follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8468 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

§ 180.629 Flutriafol; tolerances for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Classification System (NAICS) codes is residues. AGENCY not intended to be exhaustive, but rather (a) * * * provides a guide to help readers 40 CFR Part 180 determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected Parts per [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0783; FRL–10004–05] Commodity million entities may include: Chlorfenapyr; Pesticide Tolerances • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code ***** AGENCY: Environmental Protection 112). Alfalfa, forage ...... 20 Agency (EPA). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code Alfalfa, hay ...... 70 ACTION: Final rule. 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS ***** SUMMARY: This regulation establishes code 32532). Barley, grain ...... 1.5 tolerances for residues of chlorfenapyr Barley, hay ...... 7 in or on basil, fresh leaves; chive, fresh B. How can I get electronic access to Barley, straw ...... 8 leaves; and cucumber and increases the other related information? established tolerance on vegetable, You may access a frequently updated ***** fruiting, group 8–10. Interregional electronic version of EPA’s tolerance Cattle, fat ...... 0.2 Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through Cattle, liver ...... 1.5 requested these tolerances under the the Government Publishing Office’s e- Cattle, meat byproducts, except Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act liver ...... 0.08 CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ (FFDCA). text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ _ ***** DATES: This regulation is effective Title40/40tab 02.tpl. Corn, sweet, forage ...... 9 February 14, 2020. Objections and C. How can I file an objection or hearing Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob requests for hearings must be received request? with husk removed ...... 0.03 on or before April 14, 2020, and must Corn, sweet, stover ...... 8 be filed in accordance with the Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 instructions provided in 40 CFR part U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an ***** 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the objection to any aspect of this regulation Egg ...... 0.02 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). and may also request a hearing on those ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, objections. You must file your objection ***** identified by docket identification (ID) or request a hearing on this regulation Goat, fat ...... 0.2 number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0783, is in accordance with the instructions Goat, liver ...... 1.5 available at http://www.regulations.gov provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure Goat, meat byproducts, except or at the Office of Pesticide Programs proper receipt by EPA, you must liver ...... 0.08 Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– in the Environmental Protection Agency OPP–2018–0783 in the subject line on ***** Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William the first page of your submission. All Horse, fat ...... 0.2 Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 objections and requests for a hearing Horse, liver ...... 1.5 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC must be in writing, and must be Horse, meat byproducts, except 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room received by the Hearing Clerk on or liver ...... 0.08 is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., before April 14, 2020. Addresses for Monday through Friday, excluding legal mail and hand delivery of objections ***** holidays. The telephone number for the and hearing requests are provided in 40 Poultry, fat ...... 0.02 CFR 178.25(b). Poultry, meat byproducts ...... 0.02 Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk ***** Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional as described in 40 CFR part 178, please Sheep, fat ...... 0.2 submit a copy of the filing (excluding Sheep, liver ...... 1.5 information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. any Confidential Business Information Sheep, meat byproducts, except (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. liver ...... 0.08 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information not marked confidential Michael Goodis, Registration Division pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be ***** (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, disclosed publicly by EPA without prior Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your * * * * * Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC objection or hearing request, identified 20460–0001; main telephone number: (d) * * * by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– (703) 305–7090; email address: 2018–0783, by one of the following [email protected]. TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (d) methods: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Commodity Parts per I. General Information www.regulations.gov. Follow the online million instructions for submitting comments. A. Does this action apply to me? Do not submit electronically any Rice, grain ...... 0.5 You may be potentially affected by information you consider to be CBI or [FR Doc. 2020–02035 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] this action if you are an agricultural other information whose disclosure is BILLING CODE 6560–50–P producer, food manufacturer, or restricted by statute. pesticide manufacturer. The following • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental list of North American Industrial Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8469

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. residential settings but does not include decreased pup weights were seen at a NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. occupational exposure. Section lower dose than parental toxicity • Hand Delivery: To make special 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to (decreased body-weight). In the DNT arrangements for hand delivery or give special consideration to exposure study, offspring toxicity (decreased delivery of boxed information, please of infants and children to the pesticide motor activity and increased pup deaths follow the instructions at http:// chemical residue in establishing a on postnatal days 1–4) was seen in the www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a absence of maternal toxicity. Additional Additional instructions on reasonable certainty that no harm will effects on the CNS (vacuolation of white commenting or visiting the docket, result to infants and children from matter in the brain and decreased along with more information about aggregate exposure to the pesticide hippocampus size) were also observed dockets generally, is available at http:// chemical residue. . . .’’ in offspring at a higher dose in this www.epa.gov/dockets. Consistent with FFDCA section study. There was no evidence of II. Summary of Petitioned-For 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in increased susceptibility to offspring in Tolerance FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has the developmental toxicity studies. In reviewed the available scientific data both the rat and rabbit developmental In the Federal Register of March 18, and other relevant information in toxicity studies, although no maternal or 2019 (84 FR 9737) (FRL–9989–71), EPA support of this action. EPA has developmental effects were noted up to issued a document pursuant to FFDCA sufficient data to assess the hazards of the highest doses tested (HDT), maternal section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), and to make a determination on observations are limited in these announcing the filing of a pesticide aggregate exposure for chlorfenapyr developmental studies. Consequently, petition (PP 8E8717) by IR–4 including exposure resulting from the the data from the DNT are considered Headquarters, 500 College Road East, tolerances established by this action. more robust for assessing the effects of Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks chlorfenapyr on the nervous system. petition requested that 40 CFR 180.513 associated with chlorfenapyr follows. be amended by establishing tolerances Chlorfenapyr has a relatively high for residues of the insecticide A. Toxicological Profile octanol-water partition coefficient and due to its lipophilic nature has been chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4- EPA has evaluated the available chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5- toxicity data and considered its validity, shown to accumulate in milk in a (trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3- completeness, and reliability as well as dietary cow study. Additionally, in the carbonitrile, in or on Basil, fresh leaves the relationship of the results of the rat metabolism study, chlorfenapyr was at 80 parts per million (ppm); Chive, studies to human risk. EPA has also found to accumulate in the fat tissue, fresh leaves at 20 ppm; Cucumber at 0.5 considered available information such that females exhibited greater ppm; and Vegetable, fruiting, group 8– concerning the variability of the accumulation than males. This 10 at 2.0 ppm. Upon establishment of sensitivities of major identifiable observation suggests chlorfenapyr is the above tolerance, the petitioner subgroups of consumers, including capable of accumulating in breast milk requested removal of the existing infants and children. and leading to the early pup deaths seen tolerance on Vegetable, fruiting, group Chlorfenapyr has moderate acute in the reproduction toxicity and DNT 8–10 at 1.0 ppm. That document toxicity via the oral route of exposure studies through lactation. referenced a summary of the petition and low acute toxicity via the dermal Furthermore, the lack of toxicity in prepared by BASF Corporation, the and inhalation routes of exposure. It is the rat and rabbit developmental studies registrant, which is available in the a mild eye irritant, but it is not a dermal suggests that the early pup deaths in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. irritant or sensitizer. Chlorfenapyr reproduction toxicity and DNT studies There were no comments received in targets the central nervous system is the result of postnatal exposure response to the notice of filing. (CNS), inducing neurohistological through lactation. Based upon review of the data changes (spongiform myelinopathy of EPA has concluded that a nonlinear supporting the petition and pursuant to the brain and spinal cord and approach using the chronic RfD for its authority in section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), vacuolization of the brain, spinal cord, assessing cancer risk is appropriate for EPA is establishing the requested and optic nerve) from subchronic and chlorfenapyr. For more information tolerances and one tolerance at a chronic dietary administration in mice about this conclusion, see section 4.5.3 different level than requested. The and rats. In addition to neuropathology, in the document entitled ‘‘SUBJECT: reason for this change is explained in rats also exhibited neurobehavioral Chlorfenapyr. Human Health Risk Unit IV.C. changes on the day of dosing in the Assessment for the Proposed New Uses acute neurotoxicity study. Decreased on Greenhouse-Grown Basil, Chive, III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and motor activity was observed in the acute Cucumber, and Small Tomatoes,’’ in Determination of Safety neurotoxicity study as well as in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018– Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA offspring in the developmental 0783. allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the neurotoxicity (DNT) study. Several rat Specific information on the studies legal limit for a pesticide chemical studies also noted effects in the liver received and the nature of the adverse residue in or on a food) only if EPA (increased organ weights and tumors) at effects caused by chlorfenapyr as well as determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ similar doses or above those where CNS the no-observed-adverse-effect-level Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA effects were seen. The liver was (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed- defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a identified in metabolism studies as the adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the reasonable certainty that no harm will single organ to have the highest toxicity studies can be found at http:// result from aggregate exposure to the recovery of administered dose. www.regulations.gov in the document pesticide chemical residue, including There was evidence of increased entitled ‘‘SUBJECT: Chlorfenapyr. all anticipated dietary exposures and all quantitative susceptibility to offspring Human Health Risk Assessment for the other exposures for which there is in the database as a result of Proposed New Uses on Greenhouse- reliable information.’’ This includes chlorfenapyr exposure. In the 2- Grown Basil, Chive, Cucumber, and exposure through drinking water and in generation reproduction study, Small Tomatoes,’’ at pages 24–28 in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8470 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2018– FCID), Version 3.16, which uses food Chlorfenapyr is currently registered 0783. consumption data from the U.S. for the following uses that could result Department of Agriculture’s National in residential exposures: Crack/crevice/ B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ Health and Nutrition Examination spot treatment on indoor and outdoor Levels of Concern Survey, What We Eat in America residential sites (including as a bed bug Once a pesticide’s toxicological (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003–2008. As treatment). There are no residential uses profile is determined, EPA identifies to residue levels in food, EPA’s acute associated with the petitioned-for new toxicological points of departure (POD) unrefined analysis used tolerance-level uses; therefore, an updated residential and levels of concern to use in residues and 100% crop-treated (PCT). exposure assessment was not necessary evaluating the risk posed by human DEEM processing factors were set to 1 for the proposed uses. The most exposure to the pesticide. For hazards for all commodities except tomato and conservative residential exposure that have a threshold below which there peppers. EPA 2018 default processing scenarios were selected for use in the is no appreciable risk, the toxicological factors were used in the acute dietary aggregate risk assessment. EPA POD is used as the basis for derivation analyses for tomato and pepper combined post-application dermal and of reference values for risk assessment. processed raw agricultural commodities inhalation exposure from indoor PODs are developed based on a careful (RACs) to account for potential imports applications (surfaces and mattresses) to analysis of the doses in each of foreign agricultural use of control bed bugs to assess risks to adults toxicological study to determine the chlorfenapyr. and post-application dermal, inhalation, dose at which no adverse effects are ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting and hand-to-mouth exposures from observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest the chronic dietary exposure indoor applications (surfaces and dose at which adverse effects of concern assessment, EPA used the DEEM–FCID, mattresses) to control bed bugs to assess are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ Version 3.16, which uses food risks to children 1 to <2 years old. The safety factors are used in conjunction consumption data from the U.S. residential exposures are short- and with the POD to calculate a safe Department of Agriculture’s National intermediate-term for incidental oral, exposure level—generally referred to as Health and Nutrition Examination dermal and inhalation. No long-term a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a Survey, What We Eat in America exposures is expected. reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003–2008. As Further information regarding EPA of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold to residue levels in food, EPA’s chronic standard assumptions and generic risks, the Agency assumes that any analysis was unrefined and used inputs for residential exposures may be amount of exposure will lead to some tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT. found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide- degree of risk. Thus, the Agency DEEM processing factors were set to 1 science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ estimates risk in terms of the probability for all commodities except tomato and standard-operating-procedures- of an occurrence of the adverse effect peppers. EPA 2018 default processing residential-pesticide. expected in a lifetime. For more factors were used in the chronic dietary 4. Cumulative effects from substances information on the general principles analyses for tomato and pepper with a common mechanism of toxicity. EPA uses in risk characterization and a processed RACs to account for potential Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA complete description of the risk imports of foreign agricultural use of requires that, when considering whether assessment process, see http:// chlorfenapyr. to establish, modify, or revoke a www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- iii. Cancer. As indicated in Unit III.A., tolerance, the Agency consider assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing- EPA has concluded that a nonlinear ‘‘available information’’ concerning the human-health-risk-pesticides. approach using the chronic RfD for cumulative effects of a particular A summary of the toxicological assessing cancer risk is appropriate for pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other endpoints for chlorfenapyr used for chlorfenapyr; therefore, a separate substances that have a common human risk assessment is discussed in quantitative cancer risk assessment is mechanism of toxicity.’’ Unit III of the final rule published in the not required. EPA has not found chlorfenapyr to Federal Register of January 26, 2018 (83 iv. Anticipated residue and percent share a common mechanism of toxicity FR 3605) (FRL–9970–88). crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did with any other substances, and not use anticipated residue and/or PCT chlorfenapyr does not appear to produce C. Exposure Assessment information in the dietary assessment a toxic metabolite produced by other 1. Dietary exposure from food and for chlorfenapyr. Tolerance level substances. For the purposes of this feed uses. In evaluating dietary residues for proposed and established tolerance action, therefore, EPA has exposure to chlorfenapyr, EPA uses and 100 PCT were assumed for all assumed that chlorfenapyr does not considered exposure under the food commodities. have a common mechanism of toxicity petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 2. Dietary exposure from drinking with other substances. For information existing chlorfenapyr tolerances in 40 water. Contamination of drinking water regarding EPA’s efforts to determine CFR 180.513. EPA assessed dietary from chlorfenapyr is not expected to which chemicals have a common exposures from chlorfenapyr in food as occur since none of the registered uses mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate follows: (which are all indoor uses) would result the cumulative effects of such i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute in residues in drinking water. Therefore, chemicals, see EPA’s website at http:// dietary exposure and risk assessments a dietary exposure assessment for www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- are performed for a food-use pesticide, chlorfenapyr in drinking water is assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative- if a toxicological study has indicated the unnecessary. assessment-risk-pesticides. possibility of an effect of concern 3. From non-dietary exposure. The occurring as a result of a 1-day or single term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in D. Safety Factor for Infants and exposure. Such effects were identified this document to refer to non- Children for chlorfenapyr. In estimating acute occupational, non-dietary exposure 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply Exposure Evaluation Model—Food indoor pest control, termiticides, and an additional tenfold (10X) margin of Consumption Intake Database (DEEM– flea and tick control on pets). safety for infants and children in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8471

case of threshold effects to account for estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and no harm will result to the general prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer population, or to infants and children completeness of the database on toxicity risks, EPA calculates the lifetime from aggregate exposure to chlorfenapyr and exposure unless EPA determines probability of acquiring cancer given the residues. based on reliable data that a different estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, IV. Other Considerations margin of safety will be safe for infants intermediate-, and chronic-term risks and children. This additional margin of are evaluated by comparing the A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology safety is commonly referred to as the estimated aggregate food, water, and FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying residential exposure to the appropriate The plant analytical enforcement this provision, EPA either retains the PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE method is designated as M2427, a gas default value of 10X, or uses a different exists. chromatography/electron-capture additional safety factor when reliable 1. Acute risk. Using the exposure detection (GC/ECD) method with a limit data available to EPA support the choice assumptions discussed in this unit for of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm. The of a different factor. acute exposure, the acute dietary method has been subjected to a 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. exposure from food and water to successful independent laboratory Although DNT studies show evidence of chlorfenapyr will occupy 75% of the validation (ILV) as well as an acceptable neurotoxicity/neuropathology and aPAD (at the 95th percentile of radio validation using samples obtained reproduction studies show exposure) for children 3 to 5 years old, from lettuce and tomato metabolism susceptibility/sensitivity to offspring, the population group receiving the studies. EPA has concluded that method the effects are well-characterized with greatest exposure. M2427 is adequate for data collection clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure and tolerance enforcement purposes. values and selected endpoints are assumptions described in this unit for The method may be requested from: protective for the observed effects. chronic exposure, EPA has concluded Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 3. Conclusion. EPA determined that that chronic exposure to chlorfenapyr Environmental Science Center, 701 the FQPA SF should be reduced to 1X from food and water will utilize 19% of Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; for all exposure scenarios. That decision the cPAD for children 3 to 5 years old, telephone number: (410) 305–2905; is based on the following findings: the population group receiving the email address: residuemethods@ i. The toxicity database for greatest exposure. There are no chronic epa.gov. chlorfenapyr is complete. drinking water or residential exposure ii. Although the central nervous scenarios, therefore, the chronic B. International Residue Limits system is the primary target for aggregate risk is equivalent to the In making its tolerance decisions, EPA chlorfenapyr and neurotoxic effects chronic dietary risk which is below the seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with were observed across studies, concern is Agency’s LOC. international standards whenever low since the selected PODs are 3. Short- and intermediate-term risks. possible, consistent with U.S. food protective of observed neurotoxic Short- and intermediate-term aggregate safety standards and agricultural risk assessments were conducted since effects. practices. EPA considers the there is potential for short- and iii. Although there is evidence of international maximum residue limits intermediate-term post-application increased quantitative susceptibility in (MRLs) established by the Codex exposures from previously registered available DNT and reproduction studies, Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as uses of chlorfenapyr in residential concern is low since the offspring required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). settings. Short-term residential exposure effects are well-characterized with The Codex Alimentarius is a joint estimates were aggregated with the clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL United Nations Food and Agriculture average dietary exposure to provide a values and the endpoints selected for Organization/World Health worst-case estimate of short-term risk assessment are protective of Organization food standards program, aggregate risk for adults and children 1 observed offspring effects. and it is recognized as an international iv. There are no residual uncertainties to 2 years old (considered protective for food safety standards-setting identified in the exposure databases. children of all ages). Short-term organization in trade agreements to The dietary analysis assumed tolerance- aggregate MOEs are protective of which the United States is a party. EPA level residues, EPA’s 2018 default intermediate-term exposure durations may establish a tolerance that is processing factors (except for tomatoes since the same endpoints and PODs different from a Codex MRL; however, and peppers), and 100 PCT. The dietary were selected for both durations. FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that analysis did not include exposure from Resulting short-term aggregate MOEs for EPA explain the reasons for departing drinking water as contamination of adults at 660 and 120 for children (1 to from the Codex level. drinking water with chlorfenapyr as the 2 years old) are not of concern. result of all registered uses, including 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. There are no Codex maximum residue greenhouses or food/feed handling uses, population. As discussed in Unit III, the limits (MRLs) for residues of is not expected to occur. EPA used Agency has determined that chlorfenapyr in/on the proposed similarly conservative assumptions to quantification of risk using a non-linear commodities. assess post-application exposure of approach (i.e., using a cRfD) adequately C. Revisions to Petitioned-For children as well as incidental oral accounts for all chronic toxicity, Tolerances exposure of toddlers. These assessments including carcinogenicity that could will not underestimate the exposure and result from exposure to chlorfenapyr. EPA revised the proposed tolerances risks posed by chlorfenapyr. Since there are no chronic risks of for residues of chlorfenapyr on concern, the Agency concludes that vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 based on E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of aggregate exposure to chlorfenapyr will current OECD rounding classes. There is Safety not pose a cancer risk. no need to remove the existing tolerance EPA determines whether acute and 5. Determination of safety. Based on for vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 1.0 chronic dietary pesticide exposures are these risk assessments, EPA concludes ppm; rather EPA is simply amending safe by comparing aggregate exposure that there is a reasonable certainty that the existing tolerance as requested.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8472 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

V. Conclusion relationship between the National § 180.513 Chlorfenapyr; tolerances for residues. Therefore, tolerances are established Government and the States or Tribal for residues of the insecticide Governments, or on the distribution of (a) * * * (1) * * * chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4- power and responsibilities among the chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5- various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Parts per (trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3- Commodity million carbonitrile, in or on Basil, fresh leaves Tribes. Thus, the Agency has at 80 ppm; Chive, fresh leaves at 20 determined that Executive Order 13132, Basil, fresh leaves ...... 80 ppm; and Cucumber at 0.5 ppm; and entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Chive, fresh leaves ...... 20 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 2 August 10, 1999) and Executive Order Cucumber ...... 0.5 ppm. 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal ***** VI. Statutory and Executive Order Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 .. 2 Reviews 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In * * * * * This action establishes tolerances addition, this action does not impose [FR Doc. 2020–02037 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] under FFDCA section 408(d) in any enforceable duty or contain any response to a petition submitted to the unfunded mandate as described under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Agency. The Office of Management and Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Budget (OMB) has exempted these types Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of actions from review under Executive AGENCY Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory This action does not involve any Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, technical standards that would require 40 CFR Parts 281 and 282 October 4, 1993). Because this action Agency consideration of voluntary has been exempted from review under consensus standards pursuant to section [EPA–R04–UST–2019–0310; FRL–10004– 27–Region 4] Executive Order 12866, this action is 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act not subject to Executive Order 13211, Georgia: Final Approval and (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Incorporation by Reference of State Regulations That Significantly Affect VII. Congressional Review Act Underground Storage Tank Program Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Revisions FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Pursuant to the Congressional Review Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will AGENCY: Environmental Protection Children from Environmental Health submit a report containing this rule and Agency (EPA). Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, other required information to the U.S. ACTION: Final rule. April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a Senate, the U.S. House of regulatory action under Executive Order Representatives, and the Comptroller SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations General of the United States prior to Agency (EPA) is granting the State of and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 publication of the rule in the Federal Georgia (Georgia or State) final approval FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action Register. This action is not a ‘‘major of revisions to its underground storage does not contain any information rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). tank (UST) program pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery collections subject to OMB approval List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 under the Paperwork Reduction Act Act (RCRA). In addition, the EPA is (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does Environmental protection, codifying EPA’s approval of Georgia’s it require any special considerations Administrative practice and procedure, revised UST program and incorporating under Executive Order 12898, entitled Agricultural commodities, Pesticides by reference those provisions of the ‘‘Federal Actions to Address and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping State statutes and regulations that the Environmental Justice in Minority requirements. EPA has determined meet the Populations and Low-Income Dated: January 24, 2020. requirements for approval. EPA published a proposed rule on September Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Michael Goodis, 1994). 16, 2019 and provided for public Director, Registration Division, Office of comment. No comments were received Since tolerances and exemptions that Pesticide Programs. are established on the basis of a petition on the EPA’s proposed approval of Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is under FFDCA section 408(d), such as Georgia’s UST program revisions. No amended as follows: the tolerances in this final rule, do not further opportunity for comment will be provided. require the issuance of a proposed rule, PART 180—[AMENDED] the requirements of the Regulatory DATES: This final rule is effective Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 February 14, 2020. The incorporation by seq.), do not apply. continues to read as follows: reference of certain publications listed This action directly regulates growers, in the regulations is approved by the Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. food processors, food handlers, and food Director of the Federal Register, as of retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does ■ 2. In § 180.513, amend the table in February 14, 2020. this action alter the relationships or paragraph (a)(1) as follows: ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a distribution of power and ■ a. Add alphabetically the entries for docket for this action under Docket ID responsibilities established by Congress ‘‘Basil, fresh leaves’’; ‘‘Chive, fresh No. EPA–R04–UST–2019–0310. All in the preemption provisions of FFDCA leaves’’; and ‘‘Cucumber’’; and documents in the docket are listed on section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency ■ b. Revise the entry for ‘‘Vegetable, the http://www.regulations.gov website. has determined that this action will not fruiting, group 8–10’’. Certain other material, such as have a substantial direct effect on States The additions and revision read as copyrighted material, is not placed on or Tribal Governments, on the follows: the internet and will be publicly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8473

available only in hard copy form. under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA, and enforcement actions, and to issue Publicly available docket materials are and any other applicable statutory orders in approved states. If the EPA available electronically through http:// provisions. The incorporation by determines it will take such actions in www.regulations.gov. reference of EPA-approved state Georgia, the EPA will rely on federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: programs in the CFR should sanctions, federal inspection authorities, Aaryn Jones, RCRA Programs and substantially enhance the public’s and other federal procedures rather than Cleanup Branch, Land, Chemicals and ability to discern the status of the the State analogs. Therefore, the EPA is Redevelopment Division, U.S. approved state UST program and state not incorporating by reference Georgia’s Environmental Protection Agency, requirements that can be federally procedural and enforcement authorities, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 enforced. This effort provides clear although they are listed in 40 CFR Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia notice to the public of the scope of the 282.60(d)(1)(ii). approved program in each state. 30303–8960; Phone number: (404) 562– E. What State provisions are not part of 8969; email address: jones.aaryn@ B. What is the history of codification of the codification? epa.gov. Georgia’s UST program? Some provisions of the State’s UST SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996, the EPA incorporated by program are not part of the federally approved State program because they I. Approval of Revisions to Georgia’s reference and codified Georgia’s are ‘‘broader in scope’’ than the federal UST Program approved UST program at 40 CFR 282.60 (61 FR 4224, February 5, 1996). UST program. 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii) A. What changes to Georgia’s UST Through this action, the EPA is states that, where an approved state program is EPA approving with this amending 40 CFR 282.60 to incorporate program has provisions that are broader action? by reference and codify Georgia’s in scope than the federal program, those On August 8, 2018, in accordance revised UST program. provisions are not a part of the federally with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Georgia approved program. As a result, State C. What codification decisions is the provisions which are ‘‘broader in scope’’ submitted a complete program revision EPA making in this rule? application (State Application) seeking than the federal program are not approval of changes to its UST program. In this rule, the EPA is finalizing incorporated by reference for purposes EPA now makes a final decision that regulatory text that incorporates by of enforcement in part 282. In addition, Georgia’s UST program revisions are no reference the federally approved Georgia provisions that are external to the State less stringent than the corresponding UST program, including the revisions UST program approval requirements, Federal program. Therefore, the EPA described in the State Application. In but included in the State Application, grants Georgia final approval to operate accordance with the requirements of 1 are also being excluded from its UST program with the changes CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by incorporation by reference in part 282. described in the State Application and reference Georgia’s statutes and For reference and clarity, 40 CFR as outlined in the proposed rule regulations as described in the 282.60(d)(1)(iii) lists the Georgia published in the September 16, 2019 amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set statutory and regulatory provisions which are ‘‘broader in scope’’ than the Federal Register at 84 FR 48573. forth below. These documents are federal program and external to state Although no comments were received available through https:// UST program approval requirements. on the EPA’s proposed approval of www.regulations.gov and at the EPA FOR FURTHER These provisions are, therefore, not part Georgia’s UST program revisions, the Region 4 office (see the INFORMATION CONTACT of the approved program that the EPA EPA noticed an error in the date of the section of this is codifying. Although these provisions Georgia statutory and regulatory preamble for more information). Specifically, in Section cannot be enforced by the EPA, the State materials listed in the proposed 282.60(d)(1)(i), the EPA is incorporating will continue to implement and enforce regulatory text at 40 CFR 282.60(d)(1)(i). by reference the Georgia-approved UST such provisions under State law. The date of these materials was program. Section 282.60(d)(1)(ii) improperly listed as August 2018. The III. Statutory and Executive Order identifies the State’s statutes and EPA has corrected the date in the final (E.O.) Reviews regulations that are part of the approved regulatory text to August 2019. The State program, although not This final action merely approves and State’s federally-approved and codified incorporated by reference for codifies Georgia’s revised UST program UST program as revised pursuant to this enforcement purposes. Section requirements pursuant to RCRA section action will remain subject to the EPA’s 282.60(d)(2) through (d)(5) reference the 9004 and does not impose additional inspection and enforcement authorities Attorney General’s Statement, requirements other than those imposed under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Demonstration of Adequate by State law. For further information on subtitle I and other applicable statutory Enforcement Procedures, the Program how this action complies with and regulatory provisions. Description, and the Memorandum of applicable executive orders and II. Codification Agreement, which are part of the State statutory provisions, please see the Application and approved as part of the proposed rule published in the A. What is codification? UST program under subtitle I of RCRA. September 16, 2019 Federal Register at Codification is the process of placing 84 FR 48573. The Congressional Review citations and references to a state’s D. What is the effect of the EPA’s Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by statutes and regulations that comprise a codification of the federally approved the Small Business Regulatory state’s approved UST program into the Georgia UST program on enforcement? Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The The EPA retains the authority under generally provides that before a rule EPA codifies its approval of state sections 9003(h), 9005, and 9006 of may take effect, the agency programs in 40 CFR part 282 and subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), promulgating the rule must submit a incorporates by reference state statutes 6991d, and 6991e, and other applicable rule report, which includes a copy of and regulations that the EPA can statutory and regulatory provisions, to the rule, to each House of the Congress enforce, after the approval is final, undertake corrective action, inspections, and to the Comptroller General of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8474 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

United States. EPA will submit a report it was effective on July 9, 1991. A Phone number: (404) 562–9900; or the containing this document and other subsequent program revision was National Archives and Records required information to the U.S. Senate, approved by EPA and became effective Administration (NARA). For the U.S. House of Representatives, and on February 14, 2020. information on the availability of the the Comptroller General of the United (b) Enforcement authority. Georgia material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ States prior to publication in the has primary responsibility for nara.gov or go to www.archives.gov/ Federal Register. A major rule cannot administering and enforcing its federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. take effect until 60 days after it is federally approved underground storage (A) ‘‘Georgia Statutory Requirements published in the Federal Register. This tank program. However, EPA retains the Applicable to the UST Program’’, dated action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined authority to exercise its corrective August 2019. by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final action will action, inspection, and enforcement (B) ‘‘Georgia Regulatory Requirements be effective February 14, 2020. authorities under sections 9003(h), Applicable to the UST Program’’, dated 9005, and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 August 2019. List of Subjects U.S.C. 6991b(h), 6991d, and 6991e, as (ii) Legal basis. The EPA evaluated the 40 CFR Part 281 well as under any other applicable following statutes and regulations which provide the legal basis for the Environmental protection, statutory and regulatory provisions. (c) Retention of program approval. To State’s implementation of the Administrative practice and procedure, retain program approval, Georgia must underground storage tank program, but Petroleum, Hazardous substances, State revise its approved program to adopt they are not being incorporated by program approval, Underground storage new changes to the federal subtitle I reference and do not replace federal tanks, and Reporting and recordkeeping program which make it more stringent, authorities: requirements. in accordance with section 9004 of (A) Official Code of Georgia 40 CFR Part 282 RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part Annotated (2017), Title 12. Environmental protection, 281, subpart E. If Georgia obtains ‘‘Conservation and Natural Resources,’’ Administrative practice and procedure, approval for revised requirements Chapter 13, ‘‘Georgia Underground Petroleum, Hazardous substances, pursuant to section 9004 of RCRA, 42 Storage Tank Act’’: Sections 12–13–5; Incorporation by reference, State U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved 12–13–6; 12–13–8; 12–13–11(a) and (f); program approval, Underground storage statutory and regulatory provisions will 12–13–14 through 12–13–17; and 12– tanks, and Reporting and recordkeeping be added to this subpart and notice of 13–19 through 12–3–22. requirements. any change will be published in the (B) Rules and Regulations of the State Federal Register. of Georgia (November 6, 2017), Authority: This action is issued under the (d) Final approval. Georgia has final Department 391. ‘‘Rules of the Georgia authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), 9004, approval for the following elements of Department of Natural Resources,’’ 9005 and 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), its underground storage tank program Chapter 3, ‘‘Environmental Protection,’’ 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e. originally submitted to EPA and Subject 15, ‘‘Underground Storage Tank approved effective July 9, 1991, and the Management’’: Sections 391–3–15– Mary S. Walker, program revisions approved by EPA .01(2) and 391–3–15–.14. Regional Administrator, Region 4. effective on February 14, 2020. (iii) Other Provisions not incorporated For the reasons set forth in the (1) State statutes and regulations—(i) by reference. The following specifically preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part Incorporation by reference. The Georgia identified sections and rules applicable 282 as follows: materials cited in this paragraph, and to the Georgia underground storage tank listed in appendix A to part 282, are program that are broader in scope than PART 282—APPROVED incorporated by reference as part of the the federal program or external to the UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK underground storage tank program state UST program approval PROGRAMS under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 requirements are not part of the et seq. The Director of the Federal approved program, and are not ■ 1. The authority citation for part 282 Register approves this incorporation by incorporated by reference herein: continues to read as follows: reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. (A) Official Code of Georgia Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may Annotated (2017), Title 12: and 6991e. obtain copies of the Georgia statutes that ‘‘Conservation and Natural Resources,’’ ■ 2. Revise § 282.60 to read as follows: are incorporated by reference in this Chapter 13, ‘‘Georgia Underground paragraph from LexisNexis, Attn: Storage Tank Act’’: Sections 12–13–3(8) § 282.60 Georgia State-Administered Official Code of Georgia Annotated, 701 and (16); 12–13–7; 12–13–9(d) through Program. East Water Street, Charlottesville, VA (i); 12–13–10; 12–13–11(b) through (e); (a) History of the approval of 22902–5389; Phone number: 1–800– 12–13–12; 12–13–13(e), and 12–13–18. Georgia’s Program. The State of Georgia 833–9844; website: http://sos.ga.gov/ (B) Rules and Regulations of the State is approved to administer and enforce index.php/elections/georgia_code_-_ of Georgia (November 6, 2017), an underground storage tank program in lexisnexis. You may obtain copies of the Department 391: ‘‘Rules of the Georgia lieu of the federal program under Georgia regulations that are Department of Natural Resources,’’ subtitle I of the Resource Conservation incorporated by reference in this Chapter 3, ‘‘Environmental Protection,’’ and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as paragraph from the Administrative Subject 15, ‘‘Underground Storage Tank amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. The Procedures Division, Office of the Management’’: Sections 391–3–15– State’s program, as administered by the Georgia Secretary of State, 5800 .01(1); 391–3–15–.03(1)(a), (g), (i), and Georgia Department of Natural Jonesboro Road, Morrow, Georgia (p) through (r); 391–3–15–.04; 391–3– Resources, Environmental Protection 30260; Phone number: (678) 364–3785; 15–.05(4); 391–3–15–.09(5) and (7); Division, was approved by EPA website: http://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/391- 391–15–3–.12(3); 391–3–15–.13; and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and part 3-15. You may inspect all approved 391–3–15–.15. 281 of this Chapter. EPA approved the material at the EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth (2) Statement of legal authority. The Georgia program on May 10, 1991 and Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; Attorney General’s Statement, signed by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8475

the Attorney General on June 12, 2018, Section 391–3–15–.03 Definitions, except DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND though not incorporated by reference, is (1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(i), and (1)(p) through (r). HUMAN SERVICES referenced as part of the approved Section 391–3–15–.05 UST Systems: underground storage tank program Design, Construction, Installation, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 Notification, except (4). Services et seq. Section 391–3–15–.06 General Operating (3) Demonstration of procedures for Requirements. 42 CFR Part 410 Section 391–3–15–.07 Release Detection. adequate enforcement. The [CMS–1717–F3] ‘‘Demonstration of Procedures for Section 391–3–15–.08 Release Reporting, Adequate Enforcement’’ submitted as Investigation, and Confirmation. RIN–0938–AT74 part of Georgia’s application on August Section 391–3–15–.09 Release Response Medicare Program: Changes to 8, 2018, though not incorporated by and Corrective Action for UST Systems Hospital Outpatient Prospective reference, is referenced as part of the Containing Petroleum, except (5) and (7). Payment and Ambulatory Surgical approved underground storage tank Section 391–3–15–.10 Release Response Center Payment Systems and Quality program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 and Corrective Action for UST Systems Reporting Programs; Revisions of U.S.C. 6991 et seq. Containing Hazardous Substances. Organ Procurement Organizations (4) Program description. The Program Section 391–3–15–.11 Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure. Conditions of Coverage; Prior Description submitted as part of Section 391–3–15–.12 Underground Authorization Process and Georgia’s application on August 8, 2018, Storage Tanks Containing Petroleum; Requirements for Certain Covered though not incorporated by reference, is Financial Responsibility Requirements, Outpatient Department Services; referenced as part of the approved except (3). Potential Changes to the Laboratory underground storage tank program Section 391–3–15–.16 Operator Training. Date of Service Policy; Changes to under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 Section 391–3–15–.17 Airport Hydrant Grandfathered Children’s Hospitals- et seq. Systems and Field Constructed Tanks. Within-Hospitals; Notice of Closure of (5) Memorandum of Agreement. The (c) Copies of the Georgia statutes that are Two Teaching Hospitals and Memorandum of Agreement between incorporated by reference are available from Opportunity To Apply for Available EPA Region 4 and the Georgia LexisNexis, Attn: Official Code of Georgia Slots; Correcting Amendment Environmental Protection Division, Annotated, 701 East Water Street, signed by EPA Regional Administrator Charlottesville, VA 22902–5389; Phone AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & on October 12, 2018, though not number: 1–800–833–9844; website: http:// Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. incorporated by reference, is referenced sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/georgia_ ACTION: Correcting amendment. as part of the approved underground code_-_lexisnexis. Copies of the Georgia storage tank program under subtitle I of regulations that are incorporated by reference SUMMARY: In the November 12, 2019 RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. are available from the Administrative issue of the Federal Register, we ■ 3. Appendix A to part 282 is amended Procedures Division, Office of the Georgia published a final rule with comment by revising the entry for Georgia to read Secretary of State, 5800 Jonesboro Road, period that made changes to the as follows: Morrow, Georgia 30260; Phone number: (678) conditions for therapeutic outpatient 364–3785; website: http://rules.sos.ga.gov/ hospital or CAH services and supplies Appendix A to Part 282—State gac/391-3-15. incident to a physician’s or Requirements Incorporated by nonphysician practitioner’s service. Reference in Part 282 of the Code of * * * * * [FR Doc. 2020–02254 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] This correcting amendment corrects a Federal Regulations technical error in the regulations BILLING CODE 6560–50–P * * * * * resulting from an error in that final rule with comment period. Georgia DATES: This correcting amendment is (a) The statutory provisions include: effective February 14, 2020 and is Official Code of Georgia Annotated (2017), applicable beginning January 1, 2020. Title 12: ‘‘Conservation and Natural Resources,’’ Chapter 13, ‘‘Georgia FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Underground Storage Tank Act’’: Supervision of Outpatient Therapeutic Section 12–13–1 Short title. Services in Hospitals and CAHs, contact Section 12–13–2 Public policy. Josh McFeeters via email at Section 12–13–3 Definitions, except (8) [email protected] or at and (16). (410) 786–9732. Section 12–13–4 Exceptions to chapter. Section 12–13–9 Establishing financial SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: responsibility; claims against the guarantor; I. Background Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, except (d) through (i). In FR Doc. 2019–24138 of November Section 12–13–13 Notification by owner 12, 2019 (84 FR 61142), ‘‘Medicare of underground storage tank, except (e). Program: Changes to Hospital (b) The regulatory provisions include: Outpatient Prospective Payment and Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment (November 6, 2017), Department 391: ‘‘Rules Systems and Quality Reporting of the Georgia Department of Natural Programs; Revisions of Organ Resources,’’ Chapter 3, ‘‘Environmental Protection,’’ Subject 15, ‘‘Underground Procurement Organizations Conditions Storage Tank Management’’: of Coverage; Prior Authorization Process Section 391–3–15–.01(3) General and Requirements for Certain Covered Provisions Outpatient Department Services; Section 391–3–15–.02 UST Exclusions. Potential Changes to the Laboratory Date

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8476 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

of Service Policy; Changes to comment and delay in effective date List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 410 Grandfathered Children’s Hospitals- APA requirements; in cases in which Diseases, Health facilities, Health Within-Hospitals; Notice of Closure of these exceptions apply, sections professions, Laboratories, Medicare, Two Teaching Hospitals and 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Reporting and recordkeeping Opportunity to Apply for Available Act provide exceptions from the notice requirements, Rural areas, X-rays. Slots’’ (hereinafter referred to as the CY and 60-day comment period and delay 2020 OPPS/ASC final rule with in effective date requirements of the Act Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is comment period), there was a technical as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA corrected by making the following error in the regulations text that is and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act correcting amendment: identified and corrected in this authorize an agency to dispense with PART 410—SUPPLEMENTARY correcting amendment. The provisions normal rulemaking requirements for MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI) of this correcting amendment are treated good cause if the agency makes a BENEFITS as if the technical error in the finding that the notice and comment regulations text at § 410.27 that resulted process are impracticable, unnecessary, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 410 from the error in the document or contrary to the public interest. In continues to read as follows: published November 12, 2019 had not addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the occurred. Accordingly, the corrections APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395m, are applicable beginning January 1, Act allow the agency to avoid the 30- 1395hh, 1395rr, and 1395ddd. 2020. day delay in effective date where such ■ 2. Section 410.27 is amended by delay is contrary to the public interest adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(C), (D), and II. Summary of Error in the Regulations and an agency includes a statement of (E) to read as follows: Text support. On page 61490 of the CY 2020 OPPS/ We believe that this correcting § 410.27 Therapeutic outpatient hospital or ASC final rule with comment period, we amendment does not constitute a CAH services and supplies incident to a made a technical error in an amendatory physician’s or nonphysician practitioner’s rulemaking that would be subject to service: Conditions. instruction which resulted in the these requirements. This correcting unintended removal of paragraphs amendment corrects a technical error in * * * * * (a)(1)(iv)(C), (D), and (E) from § 410.27 the regulations text included in the CY (a) * * * of the CFR. Accordingly, we are 2020 OPPS/ASC final rule with (1) * * * amending § 410.27 to accurately reflect comment period but does not make (iv) * * * the intent as described in the preamble substantive changes to the policies that (C) Nonphysician practitioners may language included in the CY 2020 were adopted in the final rule with provide the required supervision of OPPS/ASC final rule with comment comment period. As a result, the services that they may personally period (84 FR 61359 through 61363), but corrections made through this correcting furnish in accordance with State law which was not properly reflected in the amendment are intended to ensure that and all additional requirements, regulatory text portion of the rule. In the the information in the CY 2020 OPPS/ including those specified in §§ 410.71, amendatory instruction, we stated that ASC final rule with comment period 410.73, 410.74, 410.75, 410.76, and ‘‘§ 410.27 is amended by revising accurately reflects the policies adopted. 410.77; paragraph (a)(1)(iv).’’ The amendatory In addition, even if this were a (D) For pulmonary rehabilitation, instruction should have read ‘‘§ 410.27 rulemaking to which the notice and cardiac rehabilitation, and intensive is amended by revising paragraphs comment procedures and delayed cardiac rehabilitation services, direct (a)(1)(iv) introductory text, (a)(1)(iv)(A), effective date requirements applied, we supervision must be furnished by a and (B). This error in the amendatory find that there is good cause to waive doctor of medicine or a doctor of instruction resulted in such requirements. Undertaking further osteopathy, as specified in §§ 410.47 § 410.27(a)(1)(iv)(C) through (E) being notice and comment procedures to and 410.49, respectively; and erroneously removed. Therefore, this incorporate the corrections in this (E) For nonsurgical extended duration correcting amendment corrects this document into the final rule with therapeutic services (extended duration error by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(C), comment period or delaying the services), which are hospital or CAH (D), and (E). effective date would be contrary to the outpatient therapeutic services that can public interest because it is in the last a significant period of time, have a III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking public’s interest to ensure that the CY substantial monitoring component that and Delay in Effective Date 2020 OPPS/ASC final rule with is typically performed by auxiliary Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the comment period accurately reflects our personnel, have a low risk of requiring Administrative Procedure Act (APA), policies as of the date they take effect the physician’s or appropriate the agency is required to publish a and are applicable. nonphysician practitioner’s immediate notice of the proposed rule in the Furthermore, such procedures would availability after the initiation of the Federal Register before the provisions be unnecessary, as we are not altering service, and are not primarily surgical in of a rule take effect. Similarly, section our policies, but rather, we are simply nature, Medicare requires a minimum of 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the correctly implementing the policies that direct supervision during the initiation Secretary to provide for notice of the we previously proposed, received of the service which may be followed by proposed rule in the Federal Register comment on, and subsequently general supervision at the discretion of and provide a period of not less than 60 finalized. This correcting amendment is the supervising physician or the days for public comment. In addition, intended solely to ensure that the CY appropriate nonphysician practitioner. section 553(d) of the APA, and section 2020 OPPS/ASC final rule with Initiation means the beginning portion 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) mandate a 30-day delay comment period accurately reflects of the nonsurgical extended duration in effective date after issuance or these policies. For these reasons, we therapeutic service which ends when publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) believe we have good cause to waive the the patient is stable and the supervising and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for notice and comment and effective date physician or the appropriate exceptions from the notice and requirements. nonphysician practitioner determines

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8477

that the remainder of the service can be (84 FR 56998) with public comments precludes the QS holder from fishing delivered safely under general invited through November 25, 2019. (72 FR 44795, August 9, 2007). This supervision; and The North Pacific Fishery provision allows QS holders with a * * * * * Management Council (Council) temporary medical condition, or caring recommended this final rule, which for an immediate family member with a Dated: February 6, 2020. clarifies the administration of the IFQ medical condition, that would preclude Ann C. Agnew, Program medical transfer and the QS holder from fishing during a Executive Secretary to the Department, beneficiary transfer provisions. These season, to transfer their annual IFQ to Department of Health and Human Services. changes benefit IFQ Program another qualified individual. In [FR Doc. 2020–02847 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] participants, their beneficiaries, and recommending this medical transfer BILLING CODE 4120–01–P NMFS by providing clear standards, provision, the Council and NMFS reducing potential inconsistencies with balanced the objective to limit long-term other definitions used for other state or leasing of QS to promote an owner- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Federal programs, and reducing onboard fishery with its recognition that administrative costs and burdens a medical transfer provision would National Oceanic and Atmospheric associated with existing regulatory provide a mechanism for QS holders to Administration provisions. retain their QS during bona fide medical The following background sections hardships. 50 CFR Part 679 describe (1) the IFQ Program, (2) the IFQ Prior to implementation of this medical transfer provision, (3) the IFQ [Docket No.: 200206–0048] provision in 2007, a QS holder with a beneficiary transfer provision, and (4) medical condition was required to RIN 0648–BJ07 the appeals process. Additional detail is divest his or her QS or allow the IFQ to provided in the preamble to the go unfished during years he or she Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic proposed rule (84 FR 56998, October 24, could not be on board the vessel. Zone Off Alaska; IFQ Program; Modify 2019). Medical transfers were not intended to Medical and Beneficiary Transfer Background be a mechanism for persons unable or Provisions unwilling to participate in the fishery as The IFQ Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries an owner onboard to continue to receive Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and The commercial halibut and sablefish economic benefits from their QS Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), fisheries in the GOA and the BSAI holdings, but were intended to address Commerce. management areas are managed under legitimate medical conditions that precluded participation (72 FR 44795, ACTION: Final rule. the IFQ Program that was implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, August 9, 2007). SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 1993). The Council and NMFS To limit potential for repeated, long- modify the medical and beneficiary developed the IFQ Program to resolve term, or illegitimate use of the medical transfer provisions of the Individual the conservation and management transfer provision, the current Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the problems commonly associated with provisions: (1) Apply only to fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut open access fisheries. The preamble to individuals who are not otherwise and sablefish fisheries. This final rule is the proposed rule published on eligible to use hired masters; (2) apply intended to simplify administration of December 3, 1992 (57 FR 57130), only to IFQ derived from catcher vessel the medical and beneficiary transfer describes the background issues leading QS held by the applicant; (3) require provisions while promoting the long- to the Council’s initial action certification by specific types of medical standing objective of maintaining an recommending the adoption of the IFQ providers who must describe the owner-operated IFQ fishery. This final Program. Section 2.2 of the Analysis and condition (and the care required if rule makes minor technical corrections the preamble of the proposed rule (see caring for an immediate family to regulations for improved accuracy ADDRESSES) provide additional member); (4) require verification of the and clarity. This final rule is intended information on the sablefish and halibut inability of the QS holder to participate to promote the goals and objectives of IFQ Program. in IFQ fisheries; and (5) contain a use the IFQ Program, the Magnuson-Stevens The Council and NMFS created the cap of two years in a five-year period. Fishery Conservation and Management provisions of the IFQ Program to Beneficiary Transfer Provision Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of support the conservation and 1982, and other applicable laws. management objectives of the In 1996, NMFS amended the IFQ DATES: This final rule is effective on Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Program regulations to allow for a March 16, 2020. Act while retaining the ‘‘owner- temporary transfer of QS to surviving operator’’ character of the fishing fleets spouses of deceased QS holders (61 FR ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the as much as possible. 41523, August 9, 1996). In 2000, a final Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as rule (65 FR 78126, December 14, 2000) the ‘‘Analysis’’) and the Categorical Medical Transfer Provision expanded the existing survivorship Exclusion prepared for this final rule The IFQ Program includes a medical transfer provisions in 50 CFR 679.41(k) may be obtained from https:// transfer provision that allows quota to include an immediate family member www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS share (QS) holders of catcher vessel QS designated as a beneficiary to whom the Alaska Region website at https:// (referred to as class B, C, and D QS survivorship transfer privileges would www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. shares) who are not otherwise eligible to extend in the absence of a surviving FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: use a hired master to temporarily spouse. This transfer is intended to Stephanie Warpinski, 907–586–7228. transfer (lease) their annual IFQ to benefit the surviving spouse, or an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS another individual if the QS holder or immediate family member designated published the proposed rule in the an immediate family member has a by the QS holder, for a limited period Federal Register on October 24, 2019 temporary medical condition that of time.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8478 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

To transfer QS under this beneficiary would have the burden of proving that final rule also allows health care provision, the surviving spouse, or the the submitted claim is correct. NMFS providers outside the United States to designated beneficiary named on the would not accept claims that are sign the medical transfer form. NMFS QS/IFQ Beneficiary Designation Form inconsistent with the official record, expects that any expansion of the by the QS holder, submits an unless they are supported by clear, definition over the status quo would be Application for Transfer of QS/IFQ. written documentation. beneficial to QS holders, or their These forms are processed by NMFS Prior to 2014, the procedure for immediate family member, who need Restricted Access Management (RAM) appealing an initial administrative medical care and would lead to less Program. determination (IAD) was to submit the rejections of applications based solely NMFS may approve an application to appeal directly to the NMFS’s Alaska on the specialty of the health care transfer QS to the surviving spouse or Office of Administrative Appeals. That provider. designated beneficiary, unless a process was described at § 679.43. The second change to § 679.42(d)(2) contrary intent is expressed by the However in 2014, NMFS centralized the applies to the medical transfer limits. decedent in a will and if sufficient appeals process to be located in the This final rule extends the number of evidence has been provided to verify the NAO, which operates out of NMFS’s years a medical transfer could be used death of the individual. Legally, for headquarters in Silver Spring, from two of the five most recent years purposes of transferring QS, a Maryland. That process is described at to three of the seven most recent years, beneficiary identified in a will overrides 15 CFR part 906 (79 FR 7056, February which increases flexibility for those any beneficiary designated on the form 6, 2014). The appeals process described who need it. A year is defined as a submitted to NMFS. NMFS allows the at § 679.43 is no longer applicable given calendar year, which is how IFQ transfer of IFQ resulting from the QS the regulatory changes made in 2014. permits are currently issued. NMFS will transferred to the beneficiary by right of begin to measure a seven-year period Final Rule survivorship for a period of three years during the first calendar year that a following the death of the QS holder. This section describes this rule, its medical transfer of IFQ is approved. After the three-year period expires, the effects on fishery participants and the After the third year a medical transfer is spouse or designated beneficiary must environment, and the changes to current approved under the medical transfer qualify to either hold the QS through regulations at 50 CFR part 679. The provision, QS holders will not be able eligibility criteria found at 50 CFR Council recommended and NMFS to transfer their IFQ for any medical 679.41(d) or transfer the QS. Currently, approves the following changes to the condition for the remainder of the the program allows the QS holder to medical and beneficiary transfer seven-year period that began the first designate a beneficiary that can either provisions of the IFQ Program. calendar year the medical transfer of be the surviving spouse, or in the Medical Transfer Provision IFQ was approved. Section 2.4.4 of the absence of a surviving spouse, an Analysis and the preamble of the immediate family member. This final rule makes several changes proposed rule provide additional detail Section 2.5.1 of the Analysis states to the medical transfer provision that on the range of years during which a that NMFS has received beneficiary include changes to: (1) Remove the medical transfer could apply and transfer applications from persons who definitions at § 679.2 for ‘‘Advanced additional rationale for the provisions do not meet a commonly used definition nurse practitioner,’’ ‘‘Licensed medical selected in this final rule. of an immediate family member, which doctor,’’ and ‘‘Primary community This final rule also makes several currently includes a person’s parents, health aide;’’ and add a definition at minor revisions to § 679.42(d)(2) to spouse, siblings, and children. This § 679.2 for ‘‘Health care provider,’’ and implement these changes to the medical traditional definition for making (2) modify § 679.42(d)(2) to allow transfer provisions. This final rule determinations regarding transfer medical transfers for any medical removes the current regulatory eligibility under the designated condition and to allow the transfers to requirements at § 679.42(d)(2)(iii)(F) beneficiary transfer provision is be used for three of the seven most that require that the application narrower than many State and Federal recent years. describe the medical condition affecting beneficiary definitions currently applied The first change removes definitions the applicant or applicant’s immediate in a variety of government programs. of specific types of medical family member. This change reduces the Since the current surviving regulations professionals and includes a definition requirement that medical information were implemented, the definition of of a ‘‘Health care provider’’ at § 679.2. would need to be reviewed by NMFS immediate family has changed in many This change broadens the definition of staff. This final rule removes State and Federal jurisdictions and now who may attest to a medical condition requirements at § 679.42(d)(2)(iii) that includes other persons connected to a of the QS holder, or his or her an applicant provide his or her social QS holder by birth, adoption, marriage, immediate family member, that security number because such civil partnership, or cohabitation. NMFS precludes a QS holder from information is no longer required to and IFQ Program participants would participating in the IFQ fisheries. This process transfer applications. This final benefit from clarifying this provision’s increases flexibility for a QS holder rule replaces references to ‘‘advanced applicability to those family members. when selecting a health care provider nurse practitioner,’’ ‘‘licensed medical for treatment and verifying the Appeals Process doctor,’’ and ‘‘primary community condition on the medical transfer health aide’’ with ‘‘health care If NMFS denies a transfer under the application. Defining a certified medical provider’’ at § 679.42. existing medical and beneficiary professional is important because it sets These revisions apply only to medical transfer provisions, a QS holder may the boundaries for who is allowed to transfers that are approved after the appeal this denial through the National attest that a QS holder is not physically effective date of these regulations. Appeals Office (NAO). If a claim is able to fish his or her IFQ. This final submitted that is inconsistent with the rule broadens the current definition Beneficiary Transfer Provision information required in regulations or if while limiting the persons to those who This final rule makes two changes to the transfer requested is beyond the are licensed or certified by the state or the beneficiary transfer provision to: (1) number of years allowed, the QS holder country in which they practice. This Define ‘‘immediate family member’’ at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8479

§ 679.2; and (2) modify § 679.41 to add provides clear and consistent eligibility leasing of QS to promote an owner- estate representative to the list of people criteria for NMFS to determine if a onboard fishery with its recognition that who can receive IFQ held by the person is eligible to transfer QS held by a medical transfer provision would decedent for up to three years. These the estate of the deceased QS holder as provide a mechanism for QS holders to changes improve and simplify the well as use or lease the IFQ derived retain their QS during medical process of approving beneficiary from those QS holdings. For more hardships. transfers without causing undue information on the beneficiary transfer Changes From Proposed to Final Rule negative impacts on a QS holder’s estate provisions, please see the preamble of planning. the proposed rule. There were no changes from the This final rule defines ‘‘immediate proposed to final rule. Appeals Process and Other Additional family member’’ in § 679.2 using a Classification current definition established by the Regulatory Changes U.S. Office of Personnel Management In addition to modifications to the The NMFS Alaska Region (OPM) that is broader, providing greater medical and beneficiary transfer Administrator determined that this final flexibility to QS holders and their provisions and the revisions to the rule is necessary for the conservation beneficiaries. The OPM definition is appeals process regulations, this final and management of the IFQ sablefish commonly used in Federal programs rule makes two minor regulatory and halibut fishery off Alaska and that that provide benefits to immediate clarifications. First, this final rule it is consistent with the Magnuson- family members and includes persons modifies regulations at § 679.42 to Stevens Fishery Conservation and connected to the QS holder by birth, update the NOAA website URL and Management Act, the Halibut Act, and adoption, marriage, civil partnership, or make minor technical corrections to other applicable laws. cohabitation, such as grandparents, remove unnecessary information Regulations governing the U.S. great-grandparents, grandchildren, collected such as Social Security fisheries for Pacific halibut are great-grandchildren, aunts, uncles, numbers, number of IFQ units, and developed by the IPHC, the Pacific siblings-in-law, half-siblings, cousins, notary requirements. Second, this final Fishery Management Council, the adopted children, step-parents/step- rule modifies regulations at Council, and the Secretary. Section 5(c) children, and cohabiting partners. § 679.42(d)(2)(iii)(D) to add an of the Halibut Act allows the Regional Section 2.5.4 of the Analysis describes additional way to describe ‘‘other Council having authority for a particular the range of definitions considered by method of compensation’’ to provide geographical area to develop regulations the Council and NMFS and additional flexibility to industry who may use a governing the allocation and catch of information on the rationale for the percentage of the total revenue as halibut in U.S. Convention waters as specific definition described in this compensation instead of price per long as those regulations do not conflict rule. pound when they conduct transfers with IPHC regulations (16 U.S.C. This final rule modifies all references under this provision. 773c(c)). This final rule is consistent in § 679.41 to surviving spouse and with the Council’s authority to allocate immediate family member in regulation Comments and Responses halibut catches among fishery by adding the term ‘‘estate.’’ Without NMFS received one comment letter participants in the waters in and off this change, the QS holder’s estate and has summarized and responded to Alaska. The Halibut Act provides the would not be eligible to hold QS under the comment below. Secretary with the general responsibility the beneficiary transfer provision. Comment 1: I do not support to carry out the Convention with the This final rule clarifies that an estate fishermen receiving any medical authority to, in consultation with the could receive QS, and the court- benefits. They are depleting fish stocks Secretary of the department in which appointed estate representative for the and destroying the marine ecosystem. the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, adopt QS holder’s estate are authorized to use Response: This comment raises such regulations as may be necessary to (if they are eligible to hold QS) or management issues that are beyond the carry out the purposes and objectives of transfer the IFQ derived from the scope of this regulatory action. This the Convention and the Halibut Act (16 estate’s QS for the benefit of the estate final rule does not modify the annual U.S.C. 773c(a) and (b)). This final rule for a period of three years following the process for establishing annual catch is consistent with the Halibut Act and QS holder’s death. NMFS will allow the limits, or other regulations that limit other applicable laws. estate representative to manage the use harvest to prevent overfishing. This This final rule has been determined to of the decedent’s QS holdings by final rule does not modify regulations be not significant for the purposes of allowing the representative to transfer that limit the amount or type of gear, or Executive Order 12866. IFQ annually on behalf of the estate. If the location of fisheries in ways that This final rule is considered an after three years the estate is not settled, would adversely affect marine Executive Order 13771 deregulatory the estate representative could ecosystems. action. NMFS estimates that this determine whether the QS held by the The IFQ Program does not provide rulemaking may result in cost savings to estate should be sold and the proceeds medical benefits, such as health the industry and NMFS through an retained by the estate, or the estate insurance, to participants. This increase in flexibility and streamlined should continue to hold the QS. provision was intended to provide a reporting requirements for participants However, the estate would no longer be mechanism for QS holders with a who voluntarily chose to use these eligible to use the beneficiary transfer temporary medical condition, or caring provisions. However, these cost savings provisions to lease the annual IFQ. An for an immediate family member with a cannot be quantified because NMFS estate representative is required to medical condition, that would preclude does not know how many participants submit court-issued documents to the QS holder from fishing during a would benefit from the revised transfer demonstrate his or her eligibility to season to transfer their annual IFQ to provisions included in this rule and NMFS that they are legally representing another qualified individual. In cannot associate a dollar amount with the estate before they could use, recommending this medical transfer these benefits. This rule streamlines the permanently transfer, or temporarily provision, the Council and NMFS NMFS administrative process to review transfer (lease) the IFQ. This addition balanced the objective to limit long-term and approve IFQ transfer applications.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8480 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Any annual cost savings are expected to description of and an estimate of the from harvesting their IFQ. Instead, be small, however, because the time it number of small entities to which the NMFS would apply a hard limit to the will take to process each application is rule will apply or an explanation of why number of times the provision can be still expected to vary but will be overall no such estimate is available; (5) a used. less complicated. description of the projected reporting, Currently, NMFS provides QS holders recordkeeping, and other compliance an optional Beneficiary Designation Small Entity Compliance Guide requirements of the rule, including an form to designate a beneficiary to Section 212 of the Small Business estimate of the classes of small entities transfer IFQ under this provision. NMFS Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of that will be subject to the requirement may approve an application to transfer 1996 states that, for each rule or group and the type of professional skills QS to the surviving spouse or of related rules for which an agency is necessary for preparation of the report designated beneficiary, unless a required to prepare a final regulatory or record; and (6) a description of the contrary intent is expressed by the flexibility analysis, the agency shall steps the agency has taken to minimize decedent in a will and if sufficient publish one or more guides to assist the significant economic impact on evidence has been provided to verify the small entities in complying with the small entities consistent with the stated death of the individual. rule, and shall designate such objectives of applicable statutes publications as ‘‘small entity Description of Significant Alternatives including a statement of the factual, Considered to the Final Action That compliance guides.’’ The agency shall policy, and legal reasons for selecting explain the actions a small entity is Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small the alternative adopted in this final rule Entities required to take to comply with a rule and why each one of the other or group of rules. As part of this significant alternatives to the rule Both the medical transfer provision rulemaking process, NMFS included on considered by the agency which affect and the beneficiary transfer provision its website a summary of compliance the impact on small entities was are voluntary and are expected to be requirements that serves as the small rejected. used by QS holders only if they or their entity compliance guide. Additionally, A description of this final rule and the beneficiaries find them beneficial. The NMFS will engage in outreach with need for and objectives of this rule are Council and NMFS considered regulated entities regarding the contained in the preamble to this final requirements that would have imposed compliance requirements. Copies of this rule and the preamble to the proposed larger costs on directly regulated small final rule are available from NMFS at rule (84 FR 56998, October 24, 2019), entities through increased the following website: https:// and are not repeated here. administrative costs. Ultimately, the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. Council and NMFS rejected options that Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy would have led to an increase in costs Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Comments on the IRFA that exceeded the marginal potential (FRFA) An IRFA was prepared in the benefits that the option could have had. This final regulatory flexibility Classification section of the preamble to Several options that were rejected analysis (FRFA) incorporates the Initial the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel would have increased the cost to Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any program and monitor for minimal summary of any significant issues raised comments on the proposed rule. NMFS benefit to participants. Therefore, this by the public comments in response to received no comments relating to the final rule meets the objectives of the the IRFA, NMFS’s responses to those IRFA. final rule while minimizing adverse comments, and a summary of the impacts on IFQ Program participants. analyses completed to support the final Number and Description of Small rule. Entities Regulated by This Final Rule Collection-of-Information Requirements Section 604 of the Regulatory QS holders that fish catcher vessel QS This final rule contains collection-of- Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, (B, C, and D class QS) are assumed to information requirements subject to when an agency promulgates a final rule be directly regulated by this action. review and approval by the Office of under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Section 2.9 of the Analysis assumes that Management and Budget (OMB) under Code (5 U.S.C. 553), after being required all halibut and sablefish QS operations the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). by that section or any other law to are small for RFA purposes. In 2018, NMFS has submitted these requirements publish a general notice of proposed there were 2,418 QS holders that held to OMB for approval under Control rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a class B, C, or D QS in the halibut and Number 0648–0272. FRFA (5 U.S.C. 604). Section 604 sablefish IFQ fisheries who could be The public reporting burden per describes the required contents of a impacted by this action. All of those QS response is estimated to average 1.5 FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for holders are considered to be small hours for the Application for Medical and objectives of the rule; (2) a entities using the SBA small entity Transfer of IFQ and 30 minutes for the statement of the significant issues raised criteria for harvest on catcher vessels. QS/IFQ Beneficiary Designation Form. by the public comments in response to The response time includes the time for the IRFA, a statement of the assessment Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other reviewing instructions, searching of the agency of such issues, and a Compliance Requirements existing data sources, gathering and statement of any changes made to the This final rule modifies the maintaining the data needed, and proposed rule as a result of such recordkeeping, reporting, and other completing and reviewing the collection comments; (3) the response of the compliance requirements for QS holders of information. agency to any comments filed by the who use the medical transfer provision Notwithstanding any other provision Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small and beneficiary designation form. NMFS of the law, no person is required to Business Administration (SBA) in does not anticipate that these respond to, nor shall any person be response to the proposed rule, and a requirements would increase. subject to penalty for failure to comply detailed statement of any change made This final rule would not require with, a collection of information subject to the proposed rule in the final rule as NMFS to interpret the medical to the requirement of the PRA, unless a result of the comments; (4) a condition that prevents a QS holder that collection of information displays a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8481

currently valid OMB control number. (7) Any individual related by blood or permanent business mailing address, All currently approved NOAA affinity whose close association with the business telephone and fax numbers, collections of information may be QS holder is the equivalent of a family and email address (if any). A temporary viewed at: https://www.reginfo.gov/ relationship. mailing address may be provided, if public/do/PRASearch#. * * * * * appropriate; List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 ■ 3. In § 679.41, revise paragraphs (k)(1) (B) The recipient’s (transferee’s) Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and and (3) to read as follows: identity including his or her full name, recordkeeping requirements. NMFS person ID, date of birth, § 679.41 Transfer of quota shares and IFQ. permanent business mailing address, Dated: February 6, 2020. * * * * * business telephone and fax numbers, Samuel D. Rauch III, (k) * * * (1) On the death of an and email address (if any). A temporary Deputy Assistant Administrator for individual who holds QS or IFQ, the mailing address may be provided, if Regulatory Programs, National Marine surviving spouse or, in the absence of a appropriate; Fisheries Service. surviving spouse, a beneficiary (C) The identification characteristics For the reasons set out in the designated pursuant to paragraph (k)(2) of this section or the estate of the IFQ including whether the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended transfer is for halibut or sablefish IFQ, as follows: representative, receives all QS and IFQ held by the decedent by right of IFQ regulatory area, actual number of PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE survivorship, unless a contrary intent IFQ pounds, transferor (seller) IFQ EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF was expressed by the decedent in a will. permit number, and fishing year; ALASKA The Regional Administrator will (D) The price per pound (including approve an Application for Transfer to leases), or other method of ■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR the surviving spouse, designated compensation, and total amount paid part 679 continues to read as follows: beneficiary, or estate representative for the IFQ in the requested transaction, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et when sufficient evidence has been including all fees; seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447; Pub. L. provided to verify the death of the * * * * * 111–281. individual. (F) A written declaration from a ■ 2. Amend § 679.2 by: * * * * * health care provider as defined in ■ a. Removing the definition for (3) The Regional Administrator will § 679.2. The declaration must include: ‘‘Advanced nurse practitioner;’’ approve an Application for Transfer of ■ b. Adding definitions in alphabetical IFQ for a period of 3 calendar years (1) The identity of the health care order for ‘‘Health care provider’’ and following the date of death of an provider including his or her full name, ‘‘Immediate family member;’’ and individual to a designated beneficiary. business telephone, and permanent ■ c. Removing the definitions for NMFS will allow the transfer of IFQ business mailing address (number and ‘‘Licensed medical doctor’’ and only resulting from the QS transferred to street, city and state, zip code); ‘‘Primary community health aide.’’ the surviving spouse or, in the absence The additions read as follows: (2) A statement of the condition of a surviving spouse, from a beneficiary affecting the applicant or the applicant’s § 679.2 Definitions. from the QS holder’s immediate family immediate family member, that the * * * * * designated pursuant to paragraph (k)(2) applicant is unable to participate; and of this section or from an estate Health care provider means an (3) The dated signature of the health representative to a person eligible to individual licensed to provide health care provider who conducted the receive IFQ under the provisions of this care services by the state where he or medical examination; and she practices and performs within the section, notwithstanding the limitations (G) The signatures and printed names scope of his or her specialty to diagnose on transfers of IFQ in paragraph (h)(2) of the transferor and transferee, and and treat medical conditions as defined of this section. date. by applicable Federal, state, or local * * * * * laws and regulations. A health care ■ 4. Amend § 679.42 by: (iv) * * * provider located outside of the United ■ a. Removing in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) (C) NMFS will not approve a medical States and its territories who is licensed introductory text, the website http:// transfer if the applicant has received a to practice medicine by the applicable alaskafisheries.noaa.gov and adding in medical transfer in any 3 of the previous medical authorities is included in this its place https:// 7 calendar years for any medical definition. alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska; condition. ■ * * * * * b. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)(A) * * * * * Immediate family member includes through (D), (F), and (G); an individual with any of the following ■ c. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(H); ■ 4. In § 679.43, revise paragraph (c) to relationships to the QS holder: ■ d. Adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of read as follows: (1) Spouse, and parents thereof; paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B); and (2) Sons and daughters, and spouses ■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C). § 679.43 Determinations and appeals. thereof; The revisions read as follows: * * * * * (3) Parents, and spouses thereof; (c) Submission of appeals. An appeal (4) Brothers and sisters, and spouses § 679.42 Limitations on Use of QS and IFQ. to an initial administrative thereof; * * * * * (5) Grandparents and grandchildren, (d) * * * determination must be submitted under and spouses thereof; (2) * * * the appeals procedure set out at 15 CFR (6) Domestic partner and parents (iii) * * * part 906. thereof, including domestic partners of (A) The applicant’s (transferor’s) * * * * * any individual in paragraphs (1) identity including his or her full name, [FR Doc. 2020–02878 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] through (5) of this definition; and NMFS person ID, date of birth, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:46 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14FER1.SGM 14FER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 8482

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 31

Friday, February 14, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER FERSA regulations permit in-service disaster as declared by the FEMA in contains notices to the public of the proposed withdrawals from TSP accounts based order to allow TSP participants to make issuance of rules and regulations. The upon four different types, or conditions, financial hardship withdrawals for such purpose of these notices is to give interested of financial hardship experienced by natural disaster expenses. The FRTIB persons an opportunity to participate in the participants: (1) Negative monthly cash intends for this proposed regulation to rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. flow; (2) certain medical expenses of mirror Treasury Regulation § 1.401(k)– participant and his or her spouse or 1(d)(3)(ii)(B)(7) to the extent it is dependents; (3) payments for repairs or applicable. replacement of property resulting from FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT Regulatory Flexibility Act INVESTMENT BOARD personal casualty losses; and (4) attorney’s fees and court costs I certify that this regulation will not 5 CFR Part 1650 associated with a participant’s have a significant economic impact on separation or divorce. a substantial number of small entities. Hardship Withdrawals for Expenses In the past, expenses and lost income This regulation will affect Federal Related to Natural Disasters resulting from natural disasters were not employees, members of the uniformed services who participate in the Thrift AGENCY: Federal Retirement Thrift one of the four authorized hardship Investment Board. expenses. Instead, in order to allow Savings Plan, and their beneficiaries. participants to take hardship The TSP is a Federal defined ACTION: Proposed rule. withdrawals based on natural disaster contribution retirement savings plan SUMMARY: The Federal Retirement Thrift expenses and losses, the TSP relied on created FERSA and is administered by Investment Board (‘‘FRTIB’’) proposes to relief and guidance issued by the the Agency. allow participants to take hardship Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which Paperwork Reduction Act withdrawals for expenses related to made disaster relief announcements to natural disasters. allow participants in private sector I certify that these regulations do not 401(k) plans to take hardship require additional reporting under the DATES: Comments must be received on Paperwork Reduction Act. or before March 16, 2020. withdrawals for natural disaster expenses and losses. However, the IRS ADDRESSES: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of You may submit comments recently announced that it will using one of the following methods: 1995 • discontinue its practice of issuing Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// disaster relief announcements. Rather Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates www.regulations.gov. Follow the than issuing such an announcement Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, instructions for submitting comments. after a natural disaster to permit plans 653, 1501–1571, the effects of this • Mail: Office of General Counsel, to authorize such hardship withdrawals, regulation on state, local, and tribal Attn: Megan G. Grumbine, Federal it amended its regulation to add to its governments and the private sector have Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 safe harbor list of financial hardship been assessed. This regulation will not K Street NE, Suite 1000, Washington, expenses a new type of expense compel the expenditure in any one year DC 20002. incurred as a result of certain disasters. of $100 million or more by state, local, • Hand Delivery/Courier: The address Specifically, on September 23, 2019, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, for sending comments by hand delivery the IRS amended Treasury Regulation or by the private sector. Therefore, a or courier is the same as that for § 1.401(k)–1(d)(3), adding to the safe statement under 1532 is not required. submitting comments by mail. harbor financial hardship expenses, • Facsimile: Comments may be List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1650 losses (including loss of income) and submitted by facsimile at (202) 942– expenses incurred by a participant on Taxes, Claims, Government 1676. account of a disaster declared by the employees, Pensions, Retirement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Emergency Management Agency Ravindra Deo, Jessica Bradford, (202) 864–8699. (FEMA) if the participant’s principal Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The residence or principal place of Investment Board. FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings employment at the time of the disaster Plan (TSP), which was established by was located in an area designated by the For the reasons stated in the the Federal Employees’ Retirement FEMA for individual assistance with preamble, the FRTIB proposes to amend System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public respect to the disaster. 5 CFR chapter VI as follows: Law 99–335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP Because the TSP has relied on the PART 1650—METHODS OF provisions of FERSA are codified, as IRS’ disaster relief announcements to WITHDRAWING FUNDS FROM THE amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and authorize hardship withdrawals for THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN 8401–79. The TSP is a tax-deferred expenses and lost income relating to retirement savings plan for federal natural disasters, and because those ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1650 civilian employees and members of the announcements will no longer be made continues to read as follows: uniformed services. The TSP is similar by the IRS in light of its amended to cash or deferred arrangements regulation, the FRTIB proposes to add to Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432d, 8433, established for private-sector employees its list of authorized hardship expenses, 8434, 8435, 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1). under section 401(k) of the Internal the expenses and losses (including loss ■ 2. Amend § 1650.32 by revising Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). of income) resulting from a natural paragraph (b) introductory text and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8483

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as comments, and other supporting 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. follows: documents/materials, is available for 84 FR 3910. Among other changes, DOE review at https://www.regulations.gov. proposed a process to determine § 1650.32 Financial hardship withdrawals. All documents in the docket are listed whether a trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’) * * * * * in the https://www.regulations.gov would be economically justified when (b) To be eligible for a financial index. However, not all documents compared to the set of other feasible hardship withdrawal, a participant must listed in the index may be publicly TSLs. Further, in the NOPR DOE have a financial need that results from available, such as information that is explained that in making that at least one of the following five exempt from public disclosure. determination it would consider conditions: The docket web page can be found at: whether an economically rational * * * * * https://www.regulations.gov/ consumer would choose a product (5) The participant has incurred docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0062. meeting the TSL over products meeting expenses and losses (including loss of The docket web page contains the other feasible TSLs after considering income) on account of a disaster instructions on how to access all relevant statutory factors, including but declared by the Federal Emergency documents, including public comments, not limited to, energy savings, efficacy, Management Agency (FEMA) under the in the docket. product features, and life-cycle costs. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. DOE received numerous comments Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of asking for clarification on how this 100–707, provided that the participant’s Energy, Office of the General Counsel, concept would be implemented and principal residence or principal place of GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, what effect it would have on DOE’s employment at the time of the disaster Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: ‘‘walk-down’’ process for selecting was located in an area designated by the (202) 586–7432. Email: Francine.Pinto@ standard levels. In response, DOE did FEMA for individual assistance with hq.doe.gov. not finalize that proposal when it issued respect to the disaster. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a final rule in the proceeding to update * * * * * I. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of the Process Rule. Rather, in this [FR Doc. 2020–03041 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Proposed Rulemaking document, DOE proposes to revise BILLING CODE 6760–01–P II. Authority and Background Section 7 of the Process Rule, Policies A. Authority on Selection of Standards, to clarify its B. Background earlier proposal and explain how this III. Discussion of Revisions to DOE’s Policies DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY on Selecting Standard Levels approach would be incorporated into A. Consumer Impacts on Economic DOE’s decisionmaking process for 10 CFR Part 430 Justification selecting energy conservation standards. [EERE–2017–BT–STD–0062] B. The ‘‘Walk-Down’’ Process More specifically, DOE clarifies that its C. Proposed Changes revisions to Section 7 would require the RIN 1904–AE84 IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review agency to conduct a comparative A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 analysis of the relative costs and Energy Conservation Program for and 13563 benefits of all of the proposed TSLs in B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 Appliance Standards: Procedures for order to make a reliable determination Evaluating Statutory Factors for Use in and 13777 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility that the chosen TSL is economically New or Revised Energy Conservation justified. This comparative analysis Standards Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction includes assessing the incremental AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Act of 1995 changes in costs and benefits for each Renewable Energy (EERE), Department E. Review Under the National TSL’s benefits and burdens relative to of Energy. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 other TSLs and as part of an holistic F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 ACTION: Supplemental notice of analysis across all TSLs. 42 U.S.C. G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 6295(o)(2)(B). proposed rulemaking. H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 II. Authority and Background SUMMARY: The Department of Energy I. Review Under the Treasury and General (DOE) is proposing amendments to its Government Appropriations Act, 1999 A. Authority decision-making process for selecting J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 Title III, Parts B 1 and C 2 of the Energy energy conservation standards. More K. Review Under the Treasury and General Policy and Conservation Act, as specifically, DOE is proposing changes Government Appropriations Act, 2001 amended, (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), Public that would require DOE to conduct a L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317, as comparative analysis of the relative M. Review Consistent With OMB’s codified), established the Energy costs and benefits of all of the proposed Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Conservation Program for consumer alternative levels for potentially Review V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary products and certain industrial establishing or amending an energy equipment.3 Under EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation standard in order to make I. Summary of the Supplemental Notice conservation program for covered a reliable determination that the chosen of Proposed Rulemaking products consists essentially of four alternative is economically justified. On February 13, 2019, the United parts: (1) Testing; (2) certification and DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, States Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or and information regarding this notice of ‘‘the Department’’) published a Notice of 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the proposed rulemaking on or before Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. March 16, 2020. update and modernize its ‘‘Procedures, 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the ADDRESSES: The docket for this Interpretations, and Policies for U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 3 All references to EPCA in this document refer rulemaking, which includes Federal Consideration of New or Revised Energy to the statute as amended through America’s Water Register notices, public meeting Conservation Standards for Consumer Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270 attendee lists and transcripts, Products’’ (i.e., ‘‘Process Rule’’) found in (Oct. 23, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8484 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

enforcement procedures; (3) comply with any other applicable III. Discussion of Revisions to DOE’s establishment of Federal energy statutory provisions, such as that DOE Policies on Selecting Standard Levels conservation standards; and (4) labeling. may not prescribe an amended or new DOE received a substantial amount of Subject to certain criteria and standard if that standard is likely to comment on its proposal that conditions, DOE is required to develop result in the unavailability in the United determinations of economic justification test procedures to measure the energy States in any covered product type (or be based on choices made by an efficiency, energy use, or estimated class) of performance characteristics economically rational consumer. A annual operating cost of each covered (including reliability), features, sizes, significant number of commenters product and covered equipment during capacities, and volumes that are stated that DOE’s proposal, specifically a representative average use cycle or substantially the same as those generally the use of a rational consumer to period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 available in the United States at the time determine economic justification, U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered of the Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. lacked sufficient detail to provide for a products and covered equipment must 6295(o)(4)) Finally, the Federal Trade meaningful opportunity to comment. use the prescribed DOE test procedure Commission (‘‘FTC’’), in consultation For instance, the Natural Resources when certifying to DOE that their with DOE, is generally responsible for Defense Council (‘‘NRDC’’) argued that products and equipment comply with issuing labeling rules. (42 U.S.C. without a definition of an economically the applicable energy conservation 6294(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5) and 42 rational consumer, it was impossible to standards adopted under EPCA and U.S.C. 6294(f)) provide feedback on the methodology when making any other representations B. Background by which standard levels would be evaluated. (NRDC, EERE–2017–BT– to the public regarding the energy use or DOE conducted a formal effort STD–0062, No. 131, at pp. 16–17) 4 efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. between 1995 and 1996 to improve the Furthermore, even if the term 6293(c), 42 U.S.C. 6295(s), 42 U.S.C. process it follows to develop energy ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ were 6314(a), and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) conservation standards for covered to be defined, some of the commenters Similarly, DOE must use these test appliance products. This effort involved expressed doubt about the utility of procedures to determine whether the many different stakeholders, including such a construct. For example, the products comply with standards manufacturers, energy-efficiency Connecticut Department of Energy & adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. advocates, trade associations, state Environmental Protection (‘‘CT–DEEP’’) 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In agencies, utilities, and other interested opposed DOE’s proposal based on what addition, pursuant to EPCA, any new or parties. The result was the publication it characterized as a hypothetical and amended energy conservation standard of a final rule on July 15, 1996, titled, arbitrary economically rational for covered products (and at least ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations and consumer, arguing that modern certain types of equipment) must be Policies for Consideration of New or economic theory suggests that such a designed to achieve the maximum Revised Energy Conservation Standards consumer does not truly exist. (CT– improvement in energy efficiency that is for Consumer Products.’’ 61 FR 36974. DEEP, EERE–2017–BT–STD–0062, No. technologically feasible and This document was codified at 10 CFR 93 at p. 4) Several commenters also economically justified. (42 U.S.C. part 430, subpart C, appendix A, and questioned whether the proposal is 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In became known colloquially as the permissible under EPCA. For example, determining whether a standard is ‘‘Process Rule.’’ economically justified, EPCA requires the Attorneys General (‘‘AG’’) Joint On December 18, 2017, DOE issued an 5 DOE, to the greatest extent practicable, RFI to address potential improvements Commenters argued that DOE’s focus to consider the following seven factors: to the Process Rule so as to achieve on what TSL an economically rational (1) The economic impact of the standard meaningful burden reduction while consumer would choose ‘‘ignores the on the manufacturers and consumers; continuing to discharge the EPCA-defined factors that DOE must (2) the savings in operating costs, Department’s statutory obligations in consider and thus violates the statute.’’ throughout the estimated average life of the development of energy conservation (AG Joint Commenters, EERE–2017–BT– the products (i.e., life cycle costs), standards and test procedures. 82 FR STD–0062, No. 111, at p. 16) The compared with any increase in the price 59992. On February 13, 2019, DOE Alliance to Save Energy (‘‘ASE’’) of, or in the initial charges for, or issued a NOPR (‘‘February 2019 NOPR’’) expressed concern that the proposal operating and maintaining expenses of, to update and improve the Process Rule. would result in DOE choosing the most the products which are likely to result 84 FR 3910. Among other revisions, economically justified TSL as opposed from the imposition of the standard; (3) DOE proposed to refine its current walk- to the TSL that results in the maximum the total projected amount of energy down approach for selecting standard improvement in energy efficiency that is savings likely to result directly from the levels. Under the proposed approach, technologically feasible and imposition of the standard; (4) any DOE would require determinations of economically justified. (ASE, EERE– lessening of the utility or the economic justification to consider 2017–BT–STD–0062, No. 108, at pp. 6– performance of the products likely to comparisons of economically relevant 7) result from the imposition of the factors across trial standard levels, A number of other commenters standard; (5) the impact of any lessening consistent with the relative economics expressed varying degrees of theoretical of competition, after consultation with of the choices and rational purchasing support for potential modifications to the Department of Justice; (6) the need behavior of the average consumer. 84 FR DOE’s walk-down but requested more for national energy and water 3938. As noted previously, elsewhere in 4 This type of notation identifies the commenter, conservation; and (7) other factors DOE this issue of the Federal Register, DOE the docket document number of the comment, and finds relevant. (42 U.S.C. has published a final rule to amend the the relevant pages of that document, pp. 16–17. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) Furthermore, the new Process Rule. In that final rule, DOE 5 Comments of Attorneys General of California, or amended standard must result in a stated that it is initiating another Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, rulemaking to further consider potential Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, significant conservation of energy (42 Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. amendments to the walk-down of Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and the 6313(a)(6), and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) and approach. city of New York.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8485

detail or explanation concerning the incremental changes in costs and determine economic justification. The DOE proposal. Among this group, the benefits for each TSL’s benefits and factors DOE stated that the economically Association of Home Appliance burdens relative to other TSLs and as rational consumer would consider in Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) stated that part of an holistic analysis across all the previous proposed rule, (energy because DOE’s walk-down proposal was TSLs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). DOE has savings, efficacy, product features, and not sufficiently clear and fully determined that the ‘‘walk-down’’ life-cycle costs), arise out of EPCA’s articulated, it was not in a position to approach may not allow for a full seven factors for determining economic comment, but it added that the concept consideration of the economic justification. (See 42 U.S.C. should not be discarded. (AHAM, April justification required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII).) 6 Because the 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) for any new or amended seven factors are familiar to DOE EERE–2017–BT–STD–0062, No. 92, at p. standard. In only comparing the costs stakeholders and can effectively provide 169) Similarly, the National Electrical and benefits of the TSL under a means to account for the decisions of Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’) consideration against the baseline case an economically rational consumer stated that while it is not opposed to (no new or amended standards) and discussed in the prior proposal, DOE considering the behavior of consumers generally ceasing consideration at the believes it is unnecessary to refer to a as part of the walk-down to determine highest TSL for which benefits exceed theoretical concept of an ‘‘economically the economic justification of potential burdens, DOE may select a TSL that has rational consumer’’ to determine standards, it would need to know more significant, adverse economic impacts economic justification. Instead, DOE about how such approach would work when compared to another TSL. DOE is clarifies that because the current walk- in regulatory practice. NEMA expressed concerned that this approach may make down approach generally ceases concern that different perspectives it more likely that DOE would analysis at the highest TSL for which about the ‘‘rational consumer’’ are inadvertently select a TSL that has benefits exceeded burdens, precluding a capable of being variably applied, and significant, adverse economic impacts fuller consideration of the economic consequently, it recommended that DOE that exceed the benefits of the standard. justification required by 42 U.S.C. approach this issue on a case-by-case DOE also believes that its consideration 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) for any new or amended basis in rulemakings where there is an of whether the benefits of any particular standard, DOE proposes to amend the opportunity for notice and comment. standard exceed its burdens should be prior process to require the agency to Thus, NEMA suggested that these informed by a holistic understanding of determine economic justification based principles would need to evolve before the relative costs and benefits of other on comparisons across the full range of being incorporated into the Process standards. Relatedly, DOE believes that TSLs and is consistent with EPCA. This Rule. (NEMA, EERE–2017–BT–STD– its weighing of benefits and burdens of comparative analysis includes assessing 0062, No. 107 at pp. 7–8). Many particular standards should be informed the incremental changes in costs and commenters favored further by consideration of alternate scenarios, benefits for each TSL’s benefits and examination of the subject matter of the i.e., other TSLs, against which benefits burdens relative to other TSLs and as proposal (perhaps as part of a peer and burdens are to be assessed, and not part of an holistic analysis across all review) but stated that the lack of clarity simply by consideration of a scenario in TSLs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). and sufficient detail rendered them which no new or amended standard is This proposed approach is consistent unable to express an opinion or issued. with EPCA, which provides a list of comment further. factors that DOE may consider, and to A. Consumer Impacts on Economic weigh in DOE’s discretion, in As noted earlier, EPCA requires that Justification considering whether the benefits of a in prescribing new or amended In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE particular standard outweigh its standards, DOE shall design a standard proposed that a determination of burdens. EPCA authorizes DOE to such that it achieves the maximum economic justification for a particular consider seven factors including factors improvement in energy efficiency, or in trial standard level (TSL) should that the Secretary considers relevant. the case of showerheads, faucets, water consider whether an economically The authorization of these broad factors closets, or urinals, water efficiency, rational consumer would choose a gives DOE wide discretion. Collectively, which the Secretary determines is product meeting the TSL over products technologically feasible and meeting other feasible TSLs after 6 The seven factors specified in 42 U.S.C. economically justified. 42 U.S.C. considering all relevant factors, 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) are as follows: 6295(o)(2)(A). In determining whether a including but not limited to, energy (I) The economic impact of the standard on the standard is economically justified, manufacturers and on the consumers of the product savings, efficacy, product features, and subject to the standard; EPCA further requires that DOE life-cycle costs. 84 FR 3938. DOE went (II) the savings in operating costs throughout the determine whether the benefits of the on to state that if an economically estimated average lifetime of the covered product in standard exceed its burdens based on rational consumer would not choose the the type (or class) compared to any increase in the the previously noted seven statutory candidate trial standard level after price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely factors. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) More considering these factors, the TSL to result from imposition of the standard; specifically, in response to the concerns would be rejected as economically (III) the total projected amount of energy, or as and requests for further explanation, unjustified. Id. As discussed previously, applicable, water, savings likely to result directly DOE is: (1) Clarifying its proposal on commenters either did not understand from imposition of the standard; how impacts are considered in this construct or expressed concerns (IV) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result determining economic justification regarding the use of an economically from the imposition of the standard; through the seven factors specified in rational consumer construct to (V) the impact of any lessening of competition, EPCA; and (2) explaining that the determine whether a standard level is as determined in writing by the Attorney General, requirement to determine economic economically justified. that is likely to result from the imposition of the justification is based on comparisons After further consideration, DOE is of standard; (VI) the need for national energy and water across the full range of TSLs and is the view that it is not necessary to conservation; and consistent with EPCA. This comparative utilize the construct of an (VII) other factors the Secretary considers analysis includes assessing the ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ to relevant.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8486 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

this list of factors allows DOE to impacts on health or safety; or (5) it has TSL with the slightly higher energy consider the relative costs and benefits proprietary protection and represents a savings under this approach. However, of alternative standards and to take into unique pathway to achieving a given if, for example, the TSL with the slightly account disparities in cost-benefit efficiency level.8 See section 7(b) of 10 higher energy savings also has a profiles between standards that would CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. significant, adverse impact on small result in significant costs to consumers Following the technological feasibility business manufacturers as compared to or other stakeholders if a particular assessment, DOE then uses the the other TSL, it could be difficult to standard is chosen to the exclusion of remaining technologies to create a range argue that it is economically justified. another standard when considered after of TSLs. These TSLs will typically To generalize further, in considering a determination of technological include: (1) The most-stringent TSL that whether the benefits exceed the burdens feasibility. Relatedly, DOE believes that is technologically feasible, i.e., the for a particular standard, the relative its weighing of benefits and burdens of ‘‘max-tech’’ standard; (2) the TSL with impacts on lessening market particular standards should be informed the highest life-cycle cost; (3) a TSL competition in moving from one TSL to by consideration of alternate scenarios, with a payback period of not more than another may prove material to the i.e., other TSLs, against which benefits three years; and (4) any TSLs that choice of TSL, all other factors and burdens are to be assessed, and not incorporate noteworthy feasible considered. As a result, in order to make simply by consideration of a scenario in technologies or fill in large gaps a determination of economic which no new or amended standard is between efficiency levels of other TSLs. justification, it is necessary to compare issued. The text of EPCA, which does After determining technological the TSLs to each other to determine the not foreclose such consideration or use feasibility and developing the TSLs, relative benefits in light of the costs to of alternate scenarios, provides DOE DOE then conducts a cost-benefit achieve those benefits. As such, DOE with ample discretion in identifying and assessment of the TSLs starting with the must conduct a comparative analysis of applying methods for determining max-tech standard. Under the current the relative costs and benefits of all of whether the benefits of a standard walk-down approach, if the cost-benefit the proposed TSLs to make a reliable outweigh the burdens. assessment demonstrates that the determination that a specific TSL is benefits of max-tech TSL exceed its economically justified. This B. The ‘‘Walk-Down’’ Process costs, the analysis ends, and DOE comparative analysis includes assessing To ensure that any new or amended adopts the max-tech TSL as the new or the incremental changes in costs and standard meets these statutory criteria, amended standard. However, if DOE benefits for each TSL’s benefits and DOE historically has implemented an determines that the benefits of the max- burdens relative to other TSLs and as approach referred to as the ‘‘walk- tech TSL do not exceed its costs, DOE part of an holistic analysis across all down’’ in selecting standard levels. ‘‘walks down’’ to consider the next TSLs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). As a first step in undertaking that most-stringent TSL, again by application To implement this comparative approach, DOE puts possible of a simple cost-benefit comparison. analysis, DOE is proposing to modify technologies for improving energy This ‘‘walk-down’’ process continues the ‘‘Policies on Selection of Standards’’ efficiency through a design options until DOE determines that the benefits section of the Process Rule to clarify screening process. In this process, as of a TSL exceed its costs, and, thus, is that a determination of economic part of assessing technological economically justified, or that none of justification for a specific TSL must be feasibility, DOE reviews a number of the TSLs are economically justified. based on a comparison of the benefits design factors that overlap significantly C. Proposed Changes and burdens of that standard, with technical considerations, as well as determined by considering the seven some market considerations. DOE will While the current ‘‘walk-down’’ factors listed in EPCA, against the not consider a technology for inclusion approach ensures that DOE considers benefits and burdens of the baseline in a TSL if: (1) It is not incorporated in adopting TSLs that represent the case (no new standards case) and all a commercial product or in a maximum improvement in energy other TSLs as an incremental commercially-viable, existing efficiency that is technologically comparison. In addition, this approach prototype; 7 (2) it is determined that feasible, it may not allow for a full is intended to incorporate the potential mass production of a technology in consideration of the economic consumer welfare impacts that would commercial products and reliable justification required by 42 U.S.C. arise out of the factors contemplated in installation and servicing of the 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) for any new or amended EPCA, and specifically 42 U.S.C. technology could not be achieved on the standard. In only comparing the costs 6295(o)(2)(B). As a result, while DOE scale necessary to serve the relevant and benefits of the TSL under will continue to start the TSL evaluation market at the time of the compliance consideration against a baseline case process with the max-tech TSL and date of the standard; (3) it is determined and generally ceasing consideration at ‘‘walk down’’ to less-stringent TSLs, to have a significant adverse impact on the highest TSL for which benefits economic justification would be the utility of the product/equipment to exceed burdens, DOE may select a TSL expanded to be determined through a subgroups of consumers, or result in the that has significant, adverse economic comparative analysis of the benefits and unavailability of any covered product impacts when compared to another TSL. burdens of all of the proposed TSLs, type with performance characteristics For example, if two TSLs have similar including relative comparisons of each (including reliability), features, sizes, energy savings (one is slightly higher TSL’s benefits and burdens as part of an capacities, and volumes that are than the other) and would both have holistic analysis among all TSLs as substantially the same as products monetized benefits that exceed outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). To generally available in the U.S.; (4) it is monetized burdens when compared to be clear, this new comparative analysis determined to have significant adverse the case, typically DOE has selected the will inform the policy choice, based on the statutory factors, and DOE will no 7 8 For example, for purposes of technological That is, for purposes of technological feasibility, longer simply adopt the max-tech TSL feasibility, DOE would not consider as a dishwasher DOE would not consider setting a standard that a box within which water is sprayed on dishware could only be met by using a particular patented without clear consideration of the without actually cleaning that dishware. technology. results of the comparative analysis.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8487

DOE has done such comparisons in peer review on analytical methods. For 2017). More specifically, the Order the past. For example, in the most example, to the extent that a revised provides that it is essential to manage recent energy conservation standards standard could extend cycle times or the costs associated with the rulemaking for dehumidifiers, DOE other convenience factors that governmental imposition of stated that one TSL would minimize consumers’ value, DOE would seek to requirements necessitating private disproportionate impacts to small, quantify this impact and assess that expenditures of funds required to domestic dehumidifier manufacturers value in its comparison of potential comply with Federal regulations. In relative to two other TSLs under standard levels. addition, on February 24, 2017, the consideration. 81 FR 38338, 38388 (June When considered as part of the President issued Executive Order 13777, 13, 2016). DOE’s current proposal amendments to DOE’s Procedures for ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform would ensure that such comparisons are Use in New or Revised Energy Agenda.’’ 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). consistently conducted across Conservation Standards and Test The Order requires the head of each rulemakings with respect to the factors Procedures for Consumer Products and agency to designate an agency official as and considerations for determining Commercial/Industrial Equipment its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). economic justification listed in 42 finalized elsewhere in this issue of the Each RRO is tasked with overseeing the U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and section Federal Register, this proposal will implementation of regulatory reform 7(e)(2) of the proposed Process Rule, enable DOE to more readily and initiatives and policies to ensure that respectively. consistently satisfy its continuing individual agencies effectively carry out Furthermore, concerns that this obligation to review its standards, as regulatory reforms, consistent with proposal will result in DOE selecting well as its separate ongoing obligations applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 standards that are the most to review all of its test procedures, on requires the establishment of a economically justified, instead of a cyclical basis, by helping DOE to regulatory task force at each agency. The standards that result in the maximum quickly identify those areas that will regulatory task force is required to make improvement in energy efficiency that is yield the most beneficial information recommendations to the agency head technologically feasible and from DOE’s efforts to amend or establish regarding the repeal, replacement, or economically justified, are misplaced. If standards producing significant energy modification of existing regulations, DOE determines more than one trial conservation for a given regulated consistent with applicable law. standard level is economically justified, product or equipment. By helping DOE To implement these Executive Orders, DOE will select the standard that results to prioritize its efforts, the revised the Department, among other actions, in the maximum improvement in energy procedures will allow DOE to better issued a request for information (RFI) efficiency with the greatest beneficial focus on standards that effectively seeking public comment on how best to impact given burdens. 42 U.S.C. provide for improved energy efficiency achieve meaningful burden reduction 6295(o)(2)(B). That could be the of major appliances and certain other while continuing to achieve the standard level that maximizes net consumer products. See 42 U.S.C. Department’s regulatory objectives. 82 benefits. It may, in some cases, be the 6201(5).) The proposed changes in this FR 24582 (May, 30, 2017). In response TSL that optimizes consumer life cycle document (and the final rule published to this RFI, the Department received cost savings (i.e., the comparison of elsewhere in this issue of the Federal numerous and extensive comments upfront increases in installed cost Register) as a whole are anticipated to pertaining to DOE’s Process Rule. against long-term energy savings and help enable manufacturers to focus C. Review Under the Regulatory operating and maintenance costs), more on innovation and to make more Flexibility Act which would indicate the standard level investment in research and that is best tailored to a specific The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 development for their products. DOE U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the product. It could also be the standard seeks comment on the clarifications that minimizes negative impacts to Small Business Regulatory Enforcement provided in this document and its either consumers or manufacturers even Fairness Act of 1996) requires proposed approach for determining if a different TSL would maximize preparation of an initial regulatory economic justification. energy savings or net benefits. For flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule example, in the 2015 final rule IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory that by law must be proposed for public amending the standards for general Review comment and a final regulatory service fluorescent lamps, TSL 5 would flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such A. Review Under Executive Orders have resulted in maximum energy rule that an agency adopts as a final 12866 and 13563 savings and positive net benefits; rule, unless the agency certifies that the however, DOE did not select TSL 5 This regulatory action is a significant rule, if promulgated, will not have a because the Secretary determined that regulatory action under section 3(f) of significant economic impact on a doing so would decrease industry net Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory substantial number of small entities. A present value by 24 percent and pose Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 regulatory flexibility analysis examines net costs for 22 percent of consumers.9 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this the impact of the rule on small entities In the dehumidifier example discussed proposed regulatory action was subject and considers alternative ways of above, TSL 2 was selected, at least in to review under the Executive Order by reducing negative effects. Also, as part, because it minimized the impact to the Office of Information and Regulatory required by Executive Order 13272, small business manufacturers compared Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities to other TSLs. Additionally, DOE may Management and Budget (OMB). in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 consider a range of potential consumer (August 16, 2002), DOE published B. Review Under Executive Orders effects in this calculation, potentially procedures and policies on February 19, 13771 and 13777 including effects on product 2003, to ensure that the potential functionality or consumer utility, On January 30, 2017, the President impacts of its rules on small entities are following the conclusion of its ongoing issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, properly considered during the DOE ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 9 80 FR 4142. Regulatory Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339 (Jan. 30, has made its procedures and policies

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8488 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

available on the Office of the General consumer products and commercial/ imposes on Federal agencies the general Counsel’s website at: http://energy.gov/ industrial equipment. DOE has duty to adhere to the following gc/office-general-counsel. determined that this rule falls into a requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting Because this proposed rule does not class of actions that are categorically errors and ambiguity; (2) write directly regulate small entities but excluded from review under the regulations to minimize litigation; (3) instead only imposes procedural National Environmental Policy Act of provide a clear legal standard for requirements on DOE itself, DOE 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s affected conduct rather than a general certifies that this proposed rule will not implementing regulations at 10 CFR part standard; and (4) promote simplification have a significant economic impact on 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule is and burden reduction. Regarding the a substantial number of small entities, strictly procedural and is covered by the review required by section 3(a), section and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 analysis is required. Mid-Tex Elec. Co- 1021, subpart D, paragraph A6. specifically requires that each Executive Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 773 F.2d 327 (1985). Accordingly, neither an environmental agency make every reasonable effort to D. Review Under the Paperwork assessment nor an environmental ensure that when it issues a regulation, Reduction Act of 1995 impact statement is required. the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Manufacturers of covered products/ specifies any effect on existing Federal equipment must certify to DOE that Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ law or regulation; (3) provides a clear their products comply with any 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes legal standard for affected conduct applicable energy conservation certain requirements on Federal while promoting simplification and standards. In certifying compliance, agencies formulating and implementing burden reduction; (4) specifies the manufacturers must test their products policies or regulations that preempt retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately according to the DOE test procedures for State law or that have Federalism defines key terms; and (6) addresses such products/equipment, including implications. The Executive Order other important issues affecting clarity any amendments adopted for those test requires agencies to examine the and general draftsmanship under any procedures, on the date that compliance constitutional and statutory authority guidelines issued by the Attorney is required. DOE has established supporting any action that would limit General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order regulations for the certification and the policymaking discretion of the 12988 requires Executive agencies to recordkeeping requirements for all States and to carefully assess the review regulations in light of applicable covered consumer products and necessity for such actions. The standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 Executive Order also requires agencies determine whether they are met or it is (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, to have an accountable process to unreasonable to meet one or more of 2015). The collection-of-information ensure meaningful and timely input by them. DOE has completed the required requirement for certification and State and local officials in the review and has determined that, to the recordkeeping is subject to review and development of regulatory policies that extent permitted by law, the proposed approval by OMB under the Paperwork have Federalism implications. On rule meets the relevant standards of Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement March 14, 2000, DOE published a Executive Order 12988. has been approved by OMB under OMB statement of policy describing the control number 1910–1400. Public intergovernmental consultation process H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 reporting burden for the certification is it will follow in the development of estimated to average 30 hours per such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has Title II of the Unfunded Mandates response, including the time for examined this proposed rule and has Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires reviewing instructions, searching determined that it will not have a each Federal agency to assess the effects existing data sources, gathering and substantial direct effect on the States, on of Federal regulatory actions on State, maintaining the data needed, and the relationship between the national local, and Tribal governments and the completing and reviewing the collection government and the States, or on the private sector. (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 of information. distribution of power and (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531)) For a Notwithstanding any other provision responsibilities among the various proposed regulatory action likely to of the law, no person is required to levels of government. It will primarily result in a rule that may cause the respond to, nor shall any person be affect the procedure by which DOE expenditure by State, local, and Tribal subject to a penalty for failure to comply develops proposed rules to revise governments, in the aggregate, or by the with, a collection of information subject energy conservation standards and test private sector of $100 million or more to the requirements of the PRA, unless procedures. EPCA governs and in any one year (adjusted annually for that collection of information displays a prescribes Federal preemption of State inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires currently valid OMB Control Number. regulations that are the subject of DOE’s a Federal agency to publish a written Specifically, this proposed rule, regulations adopted pursuant to the statement that estimates the resulting addressing clarifications to the Process statute. In such cases, States can costs, benefits, and other effects on the Rule itself, does not contain any petition DOE for exemption from such national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) collection of information requirement preemption to the extent, and based on The UMRA also requires a Federal that would trigger the PRA. criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. agency to develop an effective process 6297(d)) Therefore, Executive Order to permit timely input by elected E. Review Under the National 13132 requires no further action. officers of State, local, and Tribal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 governments on a proposed ‘‘significant In this document, DOE proposes to G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 intergovernmental mandate,’’ and revise its Process Rule, which outlines Regarding the review of existing requires an agency plan for giving notice the procedures DOE will follow in regulations and the promulgation of and opportunity for timely input to conducting rulemakings for new or new regulations, section 3(a) of potentially affected small governments amended energy conservation standards Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice before establishing any requirements and test procedures for covered Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), that might significantly or uniquely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8489

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 determine will have or does have a clear published a statement of policy on its Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions and substantial impact on important process for intergovernmental Concerning Regulations That public policies or private sector consultation under UMRA. (62 FR Significantly Affect Energy Supply, decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 12820) (This policy is also available at Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE http://www.energy.gov/gc/office- 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to conducted formal in-progress peer general-counsel under ‘‘Guidance & prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a reviews of the energy conservation Opinions’’ (Rulemaking)) DOE Statement of Energy Effects for any standards development process and examined the proposed rule according proposed significant energy action. A analyses and has prepared a Peer to UMRA and its statement of policy ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as Review Report pertaining to the energy and has determined that the rule any action by an agency that conservation standards rulemaking contains neither an intergovernmental promulgates or is expected to lead to analyses. Generation of this report mandate, nor a mandate that may result promulgation of a final rule, and that: involved a rigorous, formal, and in the expenditure by State, local, and (1) Is a significant regulatory action documented evaluation using objective Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or under Executive Order 12866, or any criteria and qualified and independent by the private sector, of $100 million or successor order; and (2) is likely to have reviewers to make a judgment as to the more in any year. Accordingly, no a significant adverse effect on the technical/scientific/business merit, the further assessment or analysis is supply, distribution, or use of energy; or actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management required under UMRA. (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For effectiveness of programs and/or I. Review Under the Treasury and any proposed significant energy action, projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation General Government Appropriations the agency must give a detailed Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Act, 1999 statement of any adverse effects on Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been energy supply, distribution, or use disseminated and is available at the Section 654 of the Treasury and should the proposal be implemented, following website: http:// General Government Appropriations and of reasonable alternatives to the www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ _ _ Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires action and their expected benefits on appliance standards/peer review.html. Federal agencies to issue a Family energy supply, distribution, and use. Because available data, models, and Policymaking Assessment for any rule DOE has tentatively concluded that technological understanding have that may affect family well-being. This the regulatory action in this document, changed since 2007, DOE has engaged proposed rule will not have any impact which makes clarifications to the in a new peer review of its analytical on the autonomy or integrity of the Process Rule that guides the Department methodologies. family as an institution. Accordingly, in proposing energy conservation V. Approval of the Office of the DOE has concluded that it is not standards is not a significant energy Secretary necessary to prepare a Family action because it would not have a Policymaking Assessment. significant adverse effect on the supply, The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, action by the Administrator of OIRA. ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference Therefore, it is not a significant energy Administrative practice and with Constitutionally Protected Property action, and, accordingly, DOE has not procedure, Confidential business Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), prepared a Statement of Energy Effects information, Energy conservation, DOE has determined that this proposed for this proposed rule. Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, rule will not result in any takings that M. Review Consistent With OMB’s might require compensation under the Intergovernmental relations, Small Information Quality Bulletin for Peer businesses, Test procedures. Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Review Constitution. Signed in Washington, DC, on December On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 31, 2019. K. Review Under the Treasury and consultation with the Office of Science Daniel R Simmons, General Government Appropriations and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Act, 2001 its Final Information Quality Bulletin Renewable Energy. for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR Section 515 of the Treasury and 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin For the reasons stated in the General Government Appropriations establishes that certain scientific preamble, DOE proposes to amend part Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides information shall be peer reviewed by 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal for Federal agencies to review most qualified specialists before it is Regulations as set forth below: disseminations of information to the disseminated by the Federal PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION public under information quality Government, including influential guidelines established by each agency PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER scientific information related to agency PRODUCTS pursuant to general guidelines issued by regulatory actions. The purpose of the OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published bulletin is to enhance the quality and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and credibility of the Government’s continues to read as follows: DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 scientific information. Under the FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has Bulletin, the energy conservation Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. reviewed this proposed rule under the standards rulemaking analyses are OMB and DOE guidelines and has ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ ■ 2. In appendix A to subpart C of part concluded that it is consistent with the which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 430, revise section 7(e) to read as applicable policies in those guidelines. information the agency reasonably can follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8490 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430— ACTION: Regulatory review; request for Funeral Rule’s goal is to lower barriers Procedures, Interpretations and comment. to price competition in the funeral Policies for Consideration of New or goods and services market and to Revised Energy Conservation Standards SUMMARY: The Federal Trade facilitate informed consumer choice.2 for Consumer Products Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) The Rule helps to achieve these goals by is requesting public comment on its ensuring that: (1) Consumers have * * * * * Trade Regulation Rule entitled ‘‘Funeral 7. Policies on Selection of Standards access to sufficient information to Industry Practices Rule’’ (‘‘Funeral permit them to make informed * * * * * Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). The Rule defines (e)(1) Selection of proposed standard. decisions; (2) consumers are not unfair and deceptive practices in the required to purchase goods and services Based on the results of the analysis of sale of funeral goods and services and impacts, DOE will select a standard level to that they do not want and are not be proposed for public comment in the prescribes preventive requirements to required by law to purchase; and (3) NOPR. As required under 42 U.S.C. protect against these practices. The misrepresentations are not used to 6295(o)(2)(A), any new or revised standard Commission is soliciting comments influence consumers’ decisions.3 must be designed to achieve the maximum about the efficiency, costs, benefits, and When it promulgated the Funeral improvement in energy efficiency that is regulatory impact of the Rule as part of Rule, the Commission recognized that determined to be both technologically its systematic review of all current the arrangement of a funeral is an feasible and economically justified. Commission regulations and guides. All (2) Statutory policies. The fundamental important financial transaction for interested persons are hereby given consumers, with unique characteristics policies concerning the selection of standards notice of the opportunity to submit include: that reduce the ability of consumers to (i) A candidate/trial standard level will not written data, views, and arguments make careful, informed purchase be proposed or promulgated if the concerning the Rule. decisions. The Commission noted that Department determines that it is not both DATES: Written comments must be funeral arrangement decisions must technologically feasible and economically received on or before April 14, 2020. often be made while under the justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a emotional strain of bereavement, and U.S.C. (o)(3)(B)) For a standard level to be comment online or on paper by that consumers often lack familiarity economically justified, the Secretary must determine that the benefits of the standard following the instructions in the with the funeral transaction. Further, exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent Instructions for Submitting Comments ‘‘consumers are called upon to make practicable, considering the factors listed in part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION several important and potentially costly 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). In making such a section below. Write ‘‘Funeral Rule decisions under tight time determination, the Secretary shall compare Regulatory Review, 16 CFR part 453, constraints.’’ 4 the benefits and burdens of the standard Project No. P034410,’’ on your The Commission issued the Funeral against the benefits and burdens of the comment, and file your comment online Rule on September 24, 1982, and it baseline case (no new standards case) and all through https://www.regulations.gov. If became fully effective on April 30, other candidate/trial standard levels. This you prefer to file your comment on 1984.5 The original Rule included a comparative analysis includes assessing the incremental changes in costs and benefits for paper, mail your comment to the provision requiring a regulatory review each TSL’s benefits and burdens relative to following address: Federal Trade of the Rule no later than four years after other TSLs and as part of an holistic analysis Commission, Office of the Secretary, its effective date to determine whether across all TSLs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). A 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite it should be amended or terminated.6 standard level is subject to a rebuttable CC–5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC The Rule was amended effective July 19, presumption that it is economically justified 20580, or deliver your comment to the 1994,7 and the United States Court of if the payback period is three years or less. following address: Federal Trade Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) Commission, Office of the Secretary, amended Rule following a challenge by (ii) If the Department determines that a Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, funeral industry groups.8 standard level is likely to result in the unavailability of any covered product/ 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), The Rule specifies that it is an unfair equipment type with performance Washington, DC 20024. or deceptive act or practice for a funeral characteristics (including reliability), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patti provider to: (1) Fail to furnish accurate features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that Poss (202–326–2413), Division of price information disclosing the cost to are substantially the same as products Marketing Practices, Bureau of the purchaser for each of the specific generally available in the U.S. at the time, Consumer Protection, Federal Trade funeral goods or services used in that standard level will not be proposed. (42 Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue connection with the disposition of U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) deceased human remains; (2) require (iii) If the Department determines that a NW, Washington, DC 20580, pposs@ standard level would not result in significant ftc.gov. affecting commerce within the meaning of Section conservation of energy, that standard level SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5. will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C. 2 Original Funeral Rule Statement of Basis and 6295(o)(3)(B)) I. Background Purpose, 47 FR 42260 (Sept. 24, 1982). * * * * * The Commission issued the Funeral 3 Id. 4 Id. [FR Doc. 2020–00022 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Rule pursuant to its authority under 5 Certain portions of the Rule became effective on BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Sections 5 and 18 of the Federal Trade January 1, 1984 and others on April 30, 1984. 48 Commission Act to proscribe unfair or FR 45537, 45538 (Oct. 6, 1983); 49 FR 564 (Jan. 5, deceptive acts or practices.1 The 1984). Several funeral providers challenged the Rule, but it was upheld by the Fourth Circuit. Harry FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 1 Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission and Bryant Co. v. FTC, 726 F.2d 993 (4th Cir.), cert. Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), prohibits ‘‘unfair or deceptive denied, 469 U.S. 820 (1984). 16 CFR Part 453 acts or practices in or affecting commerce.’’ Section 6 16 CFR 453.10 (1982). 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, permits the 7 Amended Funeral Rule Statement of Basis and Funeral Industry Practices Rule Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal Purpose, 59 FR 1592 (Jan. 11, 1994). trade regulation rules that define with specificity 8 Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass’n, Inc. v. AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or FTC, 41 F.3d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1994).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8491

consumers to purchase a casket for additional death care businesses.10 The quantify these benefits and costs direct cremation; (3) condition the Commission likewise determined that wherever possible. furnishing of any funeral good or an amendment proceeding was not 4. Impact on Information: What funeral service upon the purchase of warranted for other changes advocated impact has the Rule had on the flow of any other funeral good or funeral service by some of the public comments.11 truthful information to consumers and or charge a fee as a condition to on the flow of misleading information to II. Regulatory Review of the Funeral furnishing any goods or services, such consumers? Rule as a ‘‘casket handling’’ fee to consumers 5. Compliance: Provide any evidence who provide their own casket; or (4) The Commission reviews its rules and concerning the degree of industry embalm the deceased for a fee without guides periodically to seek information compliance with the Rule. Does this authorization when embalming is not about their costs and benefits, regulatory evidence indicate that the Rule should required by law. and economic impact, and general be modified? If so, why, and how? If The Rule also specifies that it is a effectiveness in protecting consumers not, why not? deceptive act or practice for a funeral and helping industry to avoid deceptive 6. Possible Recommended Changes: provider to misrepresent the legal or or unfair practices. These reviews assist What modifications, if any, should the local cemetery requirements for: (1) the Commission in identifying rules and Commission make to the Rule to Embalming; (2) caskets in direct guides that warrant modification or increase its benefits or reduce its costs? cremations; (3) outer burial containers; rescission. How would these modifications affect or (4) the purchase of any other funeral With this document, the Commission the costs and benefits of the Rule for good or service. Further, the Rule initiates a new review. The Commission consumers? How would these prohibits misrepresentations that so- solicits comments on, among other modifications affect the costs and called ‘‘cash advance’’ items are things: (1) The economic impact of, and benefits of the Rule for businesses, provided to the consumer at the same the continuing need for, the Funeral particularly small businesses? price as that paid by the funeral Rule; (2) the Rule’s benefits to 7. Unnecessary Provisions: Provide provider, when that is not the case, or consumers; (3) and the burden it places any evidence, including empirical that any funeral goods or services will on industry members subject to the analyses, concerning whether any of the delay the natural decomposition of requirements, including small Rule’s provisions are no longer human remains for a long-term or businesses. necessary. Explain why these provisions indefinite time. III. Issues for Comment are unnecessary. The Rule sets forth preventive 8. Additional Unfair or Deceptive requirements in the form of itemized To aid commenters in submitting Practices: What potentially unfair or price and information disclosures to information, the Commission has deceptive practices, not covered by the ensure funeral providers do not engage prepared the following questions related Rule, related to funeral goods and in the unfair or deceptive acts or to the Funeral Rule. The Commission services, are occurring in the practices described above. First, the seeks comments on these and any other marketplace? Are any such practices Rule requires funeral providers give issues related to the Rule’s current prevalent in the market? If so, please persons inquiring about funeral goods or requirements. In their replies, describe such practices, including their services a General Price List (‘‘GPL’’) to commenters should provide any impact on consumers. Provide any keep, which lists the goods and services available evidence, including empirical evidence, such as empirical data, they offer and their itemized prices, analyses, that supports their position. consumer perception studies, or along with specific disclosures. Second, A. General Regulatory Review Questions consumer reports, that demonstrates the the Rule requires funeral providers extent of such practices. Provide any 1. Need: Is there a continuing need for show consumers a Casket Price List evidence that demonstrates whether the Rule? Why or why not? (‘‘CPL’’) identifying the caskets and such practices cause consumer injury, 2. Benefits and Costs to Consumers: alternative containers they carry, and an and quantify or estimate that injury if What benefits has the Rule provided to ‘‘Outer Burial Container Price List’’ possible. With reference to such consumers? Does the Rule impose any (‘‘OBCPL’’) listing the vaults and grave practices, should the Rule be modified? significant costs on consumers? Please liners they offer, along with specific If so, why, and how? If not, why not? quantify these benefits and costs disclosures. 9. Product and Service Coverage: wherever possible. On March 14, 2008, the Commission Should the Commission broaden the 3. Benefits and Costs to Industry completed a second regulatory review Rule to include products or services not Members: What benefits has the Rule (‘‘2008 Review’’), and concluded that currently covered? Provide any provided to businesses? Does the Rule the Rule was still needed and should be evidence that supports your position. impose any significant costs, including retained.9 The Commission also What potentially unfair or deceptive costs of compliance, on businesses, considered whether the Rule should be practices related to products or services including small businesses? Please expanded to cover cemeteries, not covered by the Rule are occurring in crematories and third-party sellers of 10 the marketplace? Are any such practices caskets, monuments, and other funeral 73 FR at 13742. 11 Id. In particular, the Commission found prevalent in the market? If so, please goods. However, the evidence amassed insufficient evidence that: (1) Widespread unfair or describe such practices, including their in the regulatory review record was not deceptive practices occur in the sale of pre-need impact on consumers. Provide any indicative of a sufficiently widespread funeral arrangements; (2) discount funeral packages evidence, such as empirical data, pattern of unfair or deceptive acts or offered in addition to itemized services cause consumer injury; and (3) adding additional consumer perception studies, or practices to suggest that, even if the disclosure requirements is necessary to remedy any consumer reports, that demonstrates the record were to be developed further, it widespread pattern of unfair practices. The extent of such practices. Provide any would justify an amendment proceeding Commission also determined that casket-handling evidence that demonstrates whether to expand the Rule to cover those fees should continue to be disallowed and that the such practices cause consumer injury, provision allowing funeral providers to charge a single non-declinable fee for their basic services and quantify or estimate that injury if 9 73 FR 13740 (Mar. 14, 2008). and overhead should be retained. possible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8492 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

10. Technological or Economic a. Should funeral providers be d. What, if any, modifications should Changes: What modifications, if any, required to provide the CPL and OBCPL be made in the Rule’s itemized price list should be made to the Rule to account at the same time as the GPL? Why or and disclosure requirements for funeral for current or impending changes in why not? providers offering only cremation technology or economic conditions? b. Should funeral providers be services as a final disposition? Why? How would these modifications affect required to combine the casket and How would such modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for outer burial container price information the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly and disclosures into the GPL? Why or consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses? why not? small businesses? 11. Conflicts with Other c. Should funeral providers be 17. New Forms of Cremation and Requirements: Does the Rule overlap or required to give consumers copies of Other Processes for Disposition: conflict with other federal, state, or local their CPL and their OBCPL to keep, as a. What new forms of cremation and laws or regulations? If so, how? Provide they are required to do for the GPL? other processes for the disposition of any evidence that supports your Why or why not? human remains (such as chemical and position. With reference to the asserted d. How would any of these suggested organic reduction processes) are conflicts, should the Rule be modified? modifications affect the costs and available in the U.S. market? What If so, why, and how? If not, why not? benefits of the Rule for consumers and percentage of consumers are choosing Are there any Rule changes necessary to businesses, particularly small these newer options? How has that help state law enforcement agencies businesses? changed in the last five years? How combat deceptive practices in the 15. Price List Format: many providers offer these new types of funeral services market? a. Should funeral providers be disposition services and what is the 12. Other State or Local Laws or required to provide their itemized price annual dollar volume of sales? Regulations: Are there state or local list information and disclosures in a b. What, if any, modifications should laws or regulations that lessen standardized format? Why or why not? be made to the Rule in light of new and competition or impede consumer If so, how should a standardized format developing processes for human protection in the funeral-services be developed and updated as the remains disposition? Why? Should the market? Provide any evidence that marketplace changes? definition of ‘‘cremation’’ in the Rule be supports your position. Should the b. Would a standardized format make amended to reflect these new processes? Commission, through its advocacy it easier for consumers to review and Why or why not? How would such work, encourage changes to these state compare itemized price list information modifications affect the costs and or local laws or regulations? If so, what from multiple providers? Why or why benefits of the Rule for consumers and changes? not? businesses, particularly small c. Would a uniform standardized businesses? B. Specific Questions Related to the format make it easier for funeral c. What types of alternative Funeral Rule providers to prepare compliant itemized containers, if any, are needed or 13. Online and Electronic Price List price lists, particularly small required for cremation and non-burial Information: businesses? Why or why not? types of dispositions? a. Should all funeral providers be d. How would such modifications d. Does the Rule’s required disclosure required to post their itemized GPLs, affect the costs and benefits of the Rule regarding alternative containers need to CPLs or OBCPLs online? Why or why for consumers and businesses, be modified in light of new disposition not? particularly small businesses? options and the containers required? b. Should funeral providers that have e. If the Rule was modified to include Why or why not? websites be required to post their a standardized format for some or all of 18. Non-Declinable Basic Services itemized GPL, CPLs or OBCPLs online? the itemized price list information and Fee: Should the Rule permit a non- Alternatively, should they be required disclosures, should use of such a form declinable basic services fee? Why or to provide an email address or other be a safe harbor for the Rule’s price list why not? Provide any evidence that online mechanism for a website visitor requirements for a funeral provider? supports your position. to request the itemized price list Why or why not? 19. Reduced Basic Services Fee for information electronically and be 16. Cremation and Cremation-Only Direct Cremation and Immediate Burial: subject to a time limit for replying to Funeral Providers: a. The Rule defines direct cremation such requests? Why or why not? a. What percentage of consumers are as ‘‘a disposition of human remains by c. If a funeral provider makes funeral choosing cremation each year? What is cremation, without formal viewing, arrangements without an in-person the annual dollar volume of sales for visitation, or ceremony with the body meeting (such as through a phone call, cremation services? How has that present.’’ Should the Rule be modified website, email, or text), should the changed in the last five years, in the last to expressly permit the addition of other funeral provider be required to provide ten years, and since the Rule was goods or services for consumers an electronic copy of its itemized GPL, enacted? choosing direct cremation or other CPL, or OBCPL prior to a consumer b. Should funeral providers be newer forms of human remains making any selections? Why or why required to include the cost, or the range disposition without requiring payment not? of costs, of any crematory fees that will of the full basic services fee? For d. How would any of these suggested be charged by outside providers for example, should the Rule permit a modifications affect the costs and cremation on their itemized price list? funeral provider to charge a reduced benefits of the Rule for consumers and Why or why not? basic services fee for a family choosing businesses, particularly small c. What percentage of funeral to have a loved one cremated but also businesses? Please quantify or estimate providers offer only cremation services wishing to have a limited viewing or these costs and benefits wherever without any burial options as a final visitation prior to or after the cremation? possible. disposition? What percentage of funeral b. If changes should be made to the 14. Casket and Outer Burial Container arrangements do these providers Rule to permit the addition of some Information: account for? goods or services to the direct cremation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8493

or newer forms of human remains prevalent? If so, provide any evidence, equivalent, passport number, financial disposition arrangements without such as empirical data, studies, or account number, or credit or debit card requiring the funeral provider charge reports, which demonstrates the extent number. You are also solely responsible the full basic services fee, what of such practices. for making sure that your comment does additional goods or services should be b. What percentage of cemeteries are not include any sensitive health included? Why? for-profit and therefore would fall information, such as medical records or c. If changes should be made to the within the FTC’s jurisdiction? What, if other individually identifiable health Rule to permit the addition of some any, concerns would arise if the information. In addition, your comment goods or services to the direct cremation Commission extended the Rule to for- should not include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or or newer forms of human remains profit cemeteries, but not non-profit any commercial or financial information disposition arrangements without cemeteries? What would the costs and requiring the funeral provider to charge benefits be to consumers and cemetery which . . . is privileged or the full basic services fee, should such providers if the Commission extended confidential’’—as provided in § 6(f) of a change also be made to permit limited the Rule to cemeteries? Provide the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC additional goods or services to evidence to support your conclusions. Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— immediate burial arrangements? Why or including in particular competitively IV. Instructions for Submitting why not? sensitive information such as costs, d. How would such modifications Comments sales statistics, inventories, formulas, affect the costs and benefits of the Rule You can file a comment online or on patterns, devices, manufacturing for consumers and businesses, paper. For the Commission to consider processes, or customer names. your comment, we must receive it on or particularly small businesses? Comments containing material for 20. Mandatory Disclosures: before April 14, 2020. Write ‘‘Funeral which confidential treatment is a. Do the existing mandatory Rule Regulatory Review, 16 CFR part disclosures in the Rule convey to 310, Project No. P034410’’ on your requested must be filed in paper form, consumers an accurate understanding of comment. Your comment, including must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ their choices? Should any of the your name and your state, will be and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). mandatory disclosures be modified to placed on the public record of this In particular, the written request for improve clarity? Why or why not? proceeding, including, to the extent confidential treatment that accompanies b. The current embalming disclosure practicable, on the https:// the comment must include the factual begins with a caveat: ‘‘Except in certain www.regulations.gov website. and legal basis for the request, and must special cases, embalming is not required Postal mail addressed to the identify the specific portions of the by law.’’ The Rule provides that this Commission is subject to delay due to comment to be withheld from the public italicized language ‘‘need not be heightened security screening. As a record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your included in this disclosure if state or result, we encourage you to submit your comment will be kept confidential only local law in the area(s) where the comments online. To make sure that the if the General Counsel grants your provider does business does not require Commission considers your online request in accordance with the law and embalming under any circumstances.’’ comment, you must file it through the public interest. Once your comment Should the Rule be changed to prohibit https://www.regulations.gov, by has been posted publicly at https:// the inclusion of the ‘‘certain special following the instructions on the web- www.regulations.gov—as legally cases’’ caveat in locations where the based form provided. required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot If you file your comment on paper, state or local law does not require redact or remove your comment, unless write ‘‘Funeral Rule Regulatory Review, embalming? Why or why not? you submit a confidentiality request that 21. Funeral Rule Offender Program: 16 CFR part 310, Project No. P034410’’ meets the requirements for such What impact, if any, has the FTC’s on your comment and on the envelope, policy of referring first-time violators to and mail your comment to the following treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the National Funeral Directors address: Federal Trade Commission, the General Counsel grants that request. Association’s Funeral Rule Offenders Office of the Secretary, 600 Visit the FTC website to read this Program (FROP) for compliance review Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC– request for comment and the news and training had on compliance with 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, release describing it. The FTC Act and the Rule? Would publication of some or or deliver your comment to the other laws that the Commission all of the names of those funeral following address: Federal Trade administers permit the collection of providers participating in the FROP Commission, Office of the Secretary, public comments to consider and use in program increase compliance with the Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, this proceeding as appropriate. The Rule? Would such publication benefit in 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC Commission will consider all timely other ways consumers shopping for 20024. If possible, please submit your and responsive public comments that it funeral services? Why or why not? paper comment to the Commission by receives on or before April 14, 2020. For 22. Cemeteries: courier or overnight service. information on the Commission’s a. Should the Commission broaden Because your comment will be placed privacy policy, including routine uses the Rule to apply to cemeteries? Why or on the publicly accessible website, why not? Identify any specific practices https://www.regulations.gov, you are permitted by the Privacy Act, see by cemeteries, such as failing to provide solely responsible for making sure that https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/ itemized price information or making your comment does not include any privacy-policy. any misrepresentations to consumers, sensitive or confidential information. In By direction of the Commission. that an extension of the Rule could particular, your comment should not April J. Tabor, address to protect consumers. Provide include any sensitive personal Acting Secretary. any evidence that demonstrates whether information such as your or anyone’s [FR Doc. 2020–02803 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] such practices cause consumer injury Social Security number, date of birth, and quantify or estimate that injury if driver’s license number or other state BILLING CODE 6750–01–P possible. Are any such practices identification number or foreign country

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8494 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • Federal eRulemaking Portal: The 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these amendment has been assigned Docket criteria, the Secretary of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation ID: OSM–2019–0009. If you would like conditionally approved the and Enforcement to submit comments go to http:// Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. www.regulations.gov. Follow the You can find background information 30 CFR Part 938 instructions for submitting comments. on the Pennsylvania program, including Instructions: All submissions received the Secretary’s findings, the disposition [SATS No. PA–171–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– must include the agency name and of comments, and conditions of 2019–0009; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 docket number for this rulemaking. For approval of the Pennsylvania program 201S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 detailed instructions on submitting in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register SX064A000 20XS501520] comments and additional information (47 FR 33050). You can also find later Pennsylvania Regulatory Program on the rulemaking process, see the actions concerning the Pennsylvania ‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading program and program amendments at 30 AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15, and Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. section of this document. 938.16. Docket: For access to the docket to ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment II. Description of the Proposed review copies of the Pennsylvania period and opportunity for public Amendment hearing on proposed amendment. program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings or By letter dated October 16, 2019, SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface meetings, and all written comments (Administrative Record No. PA 905.00), Mining Reclamation and Enforcement received in response to this document, Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a you must go to the address listed below its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. proposed amendment to the during normal business hours, Monday 1201 et seq.). Pennsylvania regulatory program through Friday, excluding holidays. You The proposed amendment would (hereinafter, the Pennsylvania program) may receive one free copy of the make changes to section 6.1 of under the Surface Mining Control and amendment by contacting OSMRE’s Pennsylvania’s Coal Refuse Disposal Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Pittsburgh Field Office or the full text of Control Act (52 P.S. § 30.56a). Act). The proposed amendment would the program amendment is available for Subsection (i) of that section requires make changes to Pennsylvania’s Coal you to read at www.regulations.gov. that for all new coal refuse disposal areas, operators must include a system Refuse Disposal Control Act. Those Ben Owens, Pittsburgh Field Office to prevent adverse impacts to surface changes would include establishing the Director, Office of Surface Mining and ground water, to prevent terms and conditions under which a Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 precipitation from contacting coal system that prevents precipitation from Parkway Center Drive South, 2nd refuse, and to allow for revegetation and contacting coal refuse must be installed, Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, prevention of erosion. Subsection (i) requiring that the regulations regarding Telephone: (412) 937–2827, Email: temporary cessation at coal refuse also requires that operators must install [email protected]. this system when the operator disposal areas conform with Federal In addition, you may review a copy of SMCRA regulations, and providing for temporarily ceases operation of the coal the amendment during regular business refuse disposal area for 90 days or more, future regulations addressing the hours at the following location: connection with source mines that are unless the Department approves a Pennsylvania Department of longer period of one year or less because in temporary cessation in determining Environmental Protection, Bureau of temporary cessation for the coal refuse of a labor strike or business necessity. Mining Programs, Rachel Carson State The proposed amendment would disposal permit. Office Building, P.O. Box 8461, remove the specific requirements for a This document provides the times Harrisburg, PA 17105–8461. labor strike or business necessity, and and locations that the Pennsylvania FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben allow the Department to approve a program and this proposed amendment Owens, Pittsburgh Field Office Director period of temporary cessation for coal to that program are available for your Telephone: (412) 937–2827. Email: refuse disposal areas of more than 90 inspection, the comment period during [email protected]. days without installation of the which you may submit written protective system at the operator’s comments on the amendment, and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: request. The proposed amendment procedures that we will follow for the I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program would also remove the one year limit on public hearing, if one is requested. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures temporary cessations without installing DATES: We will accept written IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews the protective system. comments on this amendment until 4:00 The proposed amendment would also p.m., Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.), I. Background on the Pennsylvania add subsection (j) to section 6.1 of the March 16, 2020. If requested, we may Program Pennsylvania Coal Refuse Disposal hold a public hearing or meeting on the Section 503(a) of the Act permits a Control Act. Subsection (j) would allow amendment on March 10, 2020. We will State to assume primacy for the the Department to promulgate new accept requests to speak at a hearing regulation of surface coal mining and regulations that connect the time limits until 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. reclamation operations on non-Federal on temporary cessation of a coal refuse ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, and non-Indian lands within its borders disposal area without installation of a identified by SATS No. PA–171–FOR, by demonstrating that its approved, protective system to cessations by any of the following methods: State program includes, among other occurring at the underground mine or • Mail/Hand Delivery: Ben Owens, things, State laws and regulations that coal preparation plant that produces the Field Office Director, Pittsburgh Field govern surface coal mining and source coal refuse or related material. Office, 3 Parkway Center South, 2nd reclamation operations in accordance Subsection (j) also requires any such Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15220. with the Act and consistent with the regulations, and any related policies, • Fax: (412) 937–2177. Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. rules, and standards, to conform to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8495

SMCRA and its implementing Public Hearing regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require regulations. If you wish to speak at the public us to publish a notice in the Federal Pennsylvania proposed this hearing, contact the person listed under Register indicating receipt of the amendment to address situations where FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by proposed amendment, its text or a the underground mines or coal 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. If you summary of its terms, and an preparation plants that produce coal are disabled and need reasonable opportunity for public comment. We refuse cease operations for longer than accommodations to attend a public conclude our review of the proposed a year. In such situations, the sources of hearing, contact the person listed under amendment after the close of the public the coal refuse has no time limit on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We comment period and determine whether cessation of operations, but the coal will arrange the location and time of the the amendment should be approved, refuse disposal area has a time limit of hearing with those persons requesting approved in part, or not approved. At one year or less. This has created the hearing. If no one requests an that time, we will also make the operational problems for the coal refuse opportunity to speak, we will not hold determinations and certifications disposal sites. a hearing. required by the various laws and To assist the transcriber and ensure an executive orders governing the The full text of the program accurate record, we request, if possible, rulemaking process and include them in amendment is available for you to read that each person who speaks at the the final rule. at the locations listed above under public hearing provide us with a written List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov. copy of his or her comments. The public Intergovernmental relations, Surface III. Public Comment Procedures hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak mining, Underground mining. Under the provisions of 30 CFR has been given an opportunity to be Dated: November 13, 2019. 732.17(h), we are seeking your heard. If you are in the audience and Thomas D. Shope, comments on whether the amendment have not been scheduled to speak and Regional Director, North Atlantic— satisfies the applicable program wish to do so, you will be allowed to Appalachian Region. approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we speak after those who have been [FR Doc. 2020–02885 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] approve the amendment, it will become scheduled. We will end the hearing after BILLING CODE 4310–05–P part of the State program. everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to Electronic or Written Comments speak, have been heard. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR If you submit written or electronic Public Meeting comments on the proposed rule during Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement the 30-day comment period, they should If only one person requests an be specific, confined to issues pertinent opportunity to speak, we may hold a 30 CFR Part 938 to the proposed regulations, and explain public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to the reason for any recommended [SATS No. PA–169–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– discuss the amendment, please request change(s). We appreciate any and all 2018–0006; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 a meeting by contacting the person comments, but those most useful and 201S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION likely to influence decisions on the final SX064A000 20XS501520] CONTACT. All such meetings are open to regulations will be those that either the public and, if possible, we will post Pennsylvania Regulatory Program involve personal experience or include notices of meetings at the locations citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining listed under ADDRESSES. We will make legislative history, its implementing Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. a written summary of each meeting a regulations, case law, other pertinent ACTION: part of the administrative record. Proposed rule; public comment State or Federal laws or regulations, period and opportunity for public technical literature, or other relevant IV. Statutory and Executive Oder hearing on proposed amendment. publications. Reviews SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface We cannot ensure that comments Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Mining Reclamation and Enforcement received after the close of the comment Planning and Review and Executive (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a period (see DATES) or sent to an address Order 13563—Improving Regulation proposed amendment to the other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) and Regulatory Review Pennsylvania regulatory program will be included in the docket for this Executive Order 12866 provides that (hereinafter, the Pennsylvania program) rulemaking and considered. the Office of Information and Regulatory under the Surface Mining Control and Public Availability of Comments Affairs in the Office of Management and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Budget (OMB) will review all significant Act). Through this proposed Before including your address, phone rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated amendment, Pennsylvania is requesting number, email address, or other October 12, 1993, the approval of State to adopt changes to its regulations personal identifying information in your program amendments is exempted from related to blaster’s licenses and storage, comment, you should be aware that OMB review under Executive Order handling and use of explosives. The your entire comment- including your 12866. Executive Order 13563, which proposed changes would update the personal identifying information- may reaffirms and supplements Executive regulations based on current industry be made publicly available at any time. Order 12866, retains this exemption. best practices and include blasting While you can ask us in your comment requirements related to seismic to withhold your personal identifying Other Laws and Executive Orders exploration. information from public review, we Affecting Rulemaking This document gives the times and cannot guarantee that we will be able to When a State submits a program locations that the Pennsylvania program do so. amendment to OSMRE for review, our and this proposed amendment to that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8496 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

program are available for your FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben for construction blasting and blasting for inspection, the comment period during Owens, Office of Surface Mining mining operations. which you may submit written Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 The full text of the program comments on the amendment, and the Parkway Center Drive South, 2nd Floor, amendment is available for you to read procedures that we will follow for the Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) at the locations listed above under public hearing, if one is requested. 937–2827. Email: [email protected]. ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov. DATES: We will accept written SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: III. Public Comment Procedures comments on this amendment until 4:00 I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program Under the provisions of 30 CFR p.m., Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.), II. Description of the Proposed Amendment March 16, 2020. If requested, we may III. Public Comment Procedures 732.17(h), we are seeking your hold a public hearing or meeting on the IV. Statutory Orders and Executive Reviews comments on whether the amendment amendment on March 10, 2020. We will satisfies the applicable program I. Background on the Pennsylvania approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we accept requests to speak at a hearing Program until 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. approve the amendment, it will become Section 503(a) of the Act permits a part of the State program. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, State to assume primacy for the identified by SATS No. PA–169–FOR, Electronic or Written Comments regulation of surface coal mining and Docket ID: OSM–2018–0006, by any of reclamation operations on non-Federal If you submit written or electronic the following methods: comments on the proposed rule during • Mail/Hand Delivery: Ben Owens, and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved, the 30-day comment period, they should Field Office Director, Pittsburgh Field be specific, confined to issues pertinent Office, 3 Parkway Center South, 2nd State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that to the proposed regulations, and explain Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15220. the reason for any recommended • Fax: (412) 937–2177. govern surface coal mining and • Federal eRulemaking Portal: The reclamation operations in accordance change(s). We appreciate any and all amendment has been assigned Docket with the Act and consistent with the comments, but those most useful and ID: OSM–2018–0006. If you would like Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. likely to influence decisions on the final to submit comments go to https:// 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these regulations will be those that either www.regulations.gov. Follow the criteria, the Secretary of the Interior involve personal experience or include instructions for submitting comments. conditionally approved the citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its Instructions: All submissions received Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. legislative history, its implementing must include the agency name and You can find background information regulations, case law, other pertinent docket number for this rulemaking. For on the Pennsylvania program, including State or Federal laws or regulations, detailed instructions on submitting the Secretary’s findings, the disposition technical literature, or other relevant comments and additional information of comments, and conditions of publications. on the rulemaking process, see the approval of the Pennsylvania program We cannot ensure that comments ‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register received after the close of the comment DATES of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (47 FR 33050). You can also find later period (see ) or sent to an address section of this document. actions concerning the Pennsylvania other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) Docket: To access the docket to program and program amendments at 30 will be included in the docket for this review copies of the Pennsylvania CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15, and rulemaking and considered. 938.16. regulatory program, this amendment, a Public Availability of Comments listing of any scheduled public hearings II. Description of the Proposed Before including your address, phone or meetings, and all written comments Amendment number, email address, or other received in response to this document, By letter dated July 5, 2018, personal identifying information in your you must go to the address listed below (Administrative Record No. PA 902.00), comment, you should be aware that during normal business hours, Monday Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to your entire comment including your through Friday, excluding holidays. You its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. personal identifying information, may may receive one free copy of the 1201 et seq.). be made publicly available at any time. amendment by contacting OSMRE’s The proposed amendment includes While you can ask us in your comment Pittsburgh Field Office or the full text of changes to the Pennsylvania regulatory to withhold your personal identifying the program amendment is available for program regulations that were adopted information from public review, we you to read at https:// by the Commonwealth on February 20, cannot guarantee that we will be able to www.regulations.gov. 2018, and became effective on June 23, do so. Ben Owens, Pittsburgh Field Office 2018. Chapters 210 and 211, relating to Director, Office of Surface Mining blasters’ licenses; and storage, handling Public Hearing Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 and use of explosives, were revised. The If you wish to speak at the public Parkway Center Drive South, 2nd proposed amendments update the hearing, contact the person listed under Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, regulations based on current industry FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by Telephone: (412) 937–2827, Email: best practices and include blasting 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. If you [email protected]. requirements related to seismic are disabled and need reasonable In addition, you may review a copy of exploration, which is fundamentally accommodations to attend a public the amendment during regular business different than most other uses of hearing, contact the person listed under hours at the following location: explosives. This proposed rule also FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We Pennsylvania Department of updates explosives use requirements to will arrange the location and time of the Environmental Protection, Bureau of reflect current practices and eliminates hearing with those persons requesting Mining Programs, Rachel Carson State outdated requirements. The updated the hearing. If no one requests an Office Building, P.O. Box 8461, requirements may result in more opportunity to speak, we will not hold Harrisburg, PA 17105–8461. consistency between the requirements a hearing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8497

To assist the transcriber and ensure an executive orders governing the accept requests to speak at a hearing accurate record, we request, if possible, rulemaking process and include them in until 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. that each person who speaks at the the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, public hearing provide us with a written List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 identified by SATS No. WV–126–FOR, copy of his or her comments. The public by any of the following methods: hearing will continue on the specified Intergovernmental relations, Surface • Mail/Hand Delivery: Mr. Ben date until everyone scheduled to speak mining, Underground mining. Owens, Field Office Director, Pittsburgh has been given an opportunity to be Dated: December 6, 2019. Field Office, Office of Surface Mining heard. If you are in the audience and Thomas D. Shope, Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 have not been scheduled to speak and Regional Director, North Atlantic— Parkway Center South, 2nd Floor, wish to do so, you will be allowed to Appalachian Region. Pittsburgh, PA 15220. speak after those who have been [FR Doc. 2020–02884 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] • Fax: (412) 937–2177. scheduled. We will end the hearing after • BILLING CODE 4310–05–P Federal eRulemaking Portal: The everyone scheduled to speak and others amendment has been assigned Docket present in the audience who wish to ID; OSM–2019–0012. If you would like speak, have been heard. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR to submit comments go to http:// Public Meeting www.regulations.gov. Follow the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation instructions for submitting comments. If only one person requests an and Enforcement Instructions: All submissions received opportunity to speak, we may hold a must include the agency name and public meeting rather than a public 30 CFR Part 948 docket number for this rulemaking. For hearing. If you wish to meet with us to detailed instructions on submitting discuss the amendment, please request [SATS No. WV–126–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– comments and additional information a meeting by contacting the person 2019–0012; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 on the rulemaking process, see the 201S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading CONTACT SX064A000 20XS501520] . All such meetings are open to of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION the public and, if possible, we will post West Virginia Regulatory Program section of this document. notices of meetings at the locations Docket: To access the docket to listed under ADDRESSES. We will make AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining review copies of the West Virginia a written summary of each meeting a Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. program, this amendment, a listing of part of the administrative record. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment any scheduled public hearing or IV. Statutory and Executive Order period and opportunity for public meetings, and all written comments Reviews hearing on proposed amendment. received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below Executive Order 12866—Regulatory SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface during normal business hours, Monday Planning and Review and Executive Mining Reclamation and Enforcement through Friday, excluding holidays. You Order 13563—Improving Regulation (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a may receive one free copy of the and Regulatory Review proposed amendment to the West amendment by contacting OSMRE’s Executive Order 12866 provides that Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter Charleston Field Office or the full text the Office of Information and Regulatory the West Virginia program) under the of the program amendment is available Affairs in the Office of Management and Surface Mining Control and for you to read at https:// Budget (OMB) will review all significant Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the www.regulations.gov. Act). The statutory provisions involve rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated Mr. Ben Owens, Pittsburgh Field Office the method in which permit October 12, 1993, the approval of State Director, Office of Surface Mining applications are advertised. The program amendments is exempted from Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 regulatory provisions involve non- OMB review under Executive Order Parkway Center South, 2nd Floor, substantive revisions to definitions, 12866. Executive Order 13563, which Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: reclamation, environmental security reaffirms and supplements Executive (412) 937–2827, Email: chfo@ account for water quality, water quality Order 12866, retains this exemption. osmre.gov. enhancement, and modifying sections Other Laws and Executive Orders on incremental bonding, requirement to In addition, you may review a copy of Affecting Rulemaking release bonds, forfeiture of bonds, and the amendment during regular business When a State submits a program effluent limitations. This document hours at the following locations: amendment to OSMRE for review, our gives the times and locations that the West Virginia Department of regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require West Virginia program and this Environmental Protection, 601 57th us to publish a notice in the Federal proposed amendment to that program Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304, Register indicating receipt of the are available for your inspection, the Telephone: (304) 926–0490 proposed amendment, its text or a comment period during which you may Office of Surface Mining Reclamation summary of its terms, and an submit written comments on the and Enforcement, Morgantown Area opportunity for public comment. We amendment, and the procedures that we Office, 604 Cheat Road, Suite 150, conclude our review of the proposed will follow for the public hearing, if one Morgantown, WV 26508, Telephone: amendment after the close of the public is requested. (304) 291–4004 (By Appointment comment period and determine whether DATES: We will accept written only) the amendment should be approved, comments on this amendment until 4:00 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation approved in part, or not approved. At p.m., Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.) on and Enforcement, Beckley Area that time, we will also make the March 16, 2020. If requested, we may Office, 313 Harper Park Drive, Suite 3, determinations and certifications hold a public hearing or meeting on the Beckley, WV 25801, Telephone: (304) required by the various laws and amendment on March 10, 2020. We will 255–5265.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8498 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. ADDRESSES or at https:// copy of his or her comments. The public Ben Owens, Pittsburgh Field Office www.regulations.gov hearing will continue on the specified Director, Telephone: (412) 937–2827. date until everyone scheduled to speak III. Public Comment Procedures Email: [email protected] has been given an opportunity to be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of 30 CFR heard. If you are in the audience and I. Background on the West Virginia 732.17(h), we are seeking your have not been scheduled to speak and Program comments on whether the amendment wish to do so, you will be allowed to II. Description of the Proposed Amendment satisfies the applicable program speak after those who have been III. Public Comment Procedures approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we scheduled. We will end the hearing after IV. Statutory Orders and Executive approve the amendment, it will become everyone scheduled to speak and others Reviews part of the State program. present in the audience who wish to I. Background on the West Virginia Electronic or Written Comments speak, have been heard. Program If you submit written or electronic Public Meeting Section 503(a) of the Act permits a comments on the proposed rule during State to assume primacy for the the 30-day comment period, they should If only one person requests an regulation of surface coal mining and be specific, confined to issues pertinent opportunity to speak, we may hold a reclamation operations on non-Federal to the proposed regulations, and explain public meeting rather than a public and non-Indian lands within its borders the reason for any recommended hearing. If you wish to meet with us to by demonstrating that its program change(s). We appreciate any and all discuss the amendment, please request includes, among other things, State laws comments, but those most useful and a meeting by contacting the person FOR FURTHER INFORMATION and regulations that govern surface coal likely to influence decisions on the final listed under mining and reclamation operations in regulations will be those that either CONTACT. All such meetings are open to accordance with the Act and consistent involve personal experience or include the public and, if possible, we will post with the Federal regulations. See 30 citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its notices of meetings at the locations U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis legislative history, its implementing listed under ADDRESSES. We will make of these criteria, the Secretary of the regulations, case law, other pertinent a written summary of each meeting a Interior conditionally approved the State or Federal laws or regulations, part of the administrative record. West Virginia program on January 21, technical literature, or other relevant IV. Statutory Orders and Executive 1981. You can find background publications. Reviews information on the West Virginia We cannot ensure that comments program, including the Secretary’s received after the close of the comment Executive Order 12866—Regulatory findings, the disposition of comments, period (see DATES) or sent to an address Planning and Review and Executive and conditions of approval of the West other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) Order 13563—Improving Regulation Virginia program in the January 21, will be included in the docket for this and Regulatory Review 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). rulemaking and considered. You can also find later actions Executive Order 12866 provides that concerning West Virginia’s program and Public Availability of Comments the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, Before including your address, phone Budget (OMB) will review all significant 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16. number, email address, or other rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated personal identifying information in your II. Description of the Proposed October 12, 1993, the approval of State comment, you should be aware that Amendment program amendments is exempted from your entire comment including your OMB review under Executive Order West Virginia submitted two letters, personal identifying information, may 12866. Executive Order 13563, which dated May 2, 2018, (Administrative be made publicly available at any time. reaffirms and supplements Executive Record Nos. 1613A and 1613B), While you can ask us in your comment Order 12866, retains this exemption. amending its program under SMCRA to withhold your personal identifying (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). This information from public review, we Other Laws and Executive Orders amendment involves revisions to cannot guarantee that we will be able to Affecting Rulemaking statutory provisions at W. Va. Code do so. Chapter 22–3 and regulatory provisions When a State submits a program at W. Va. CSR Section 38–2. The revised Public Hearing amendment to OSMRE for review, our statutory provisions were enacted If you wish to speak at the public regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require through West Virginia Senate Bill 163, hearing, contact the person listed under us to publish a notice in the Federal which was signed by the Governor on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by Register indicating receipt of the February 27, 2018. The statutory 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 2, 2020. If you proposed amendment, its text or a provisions involve the method in which are disabled and need reasonable summary of its terms, and an permit applications are advertised. The accommodations to attend a public opportunity for public comment. We regulatory provisions involve non- hearing, contact the person listed under conclude our review of the proposed substantive revisions to definitions, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We amendment after the close of the public reclamation, environmental security will arrange the location and time of the comment period and determine whether account for water quality, water quality hearing with those persons requesting the amendment should be approved, enhancement, and modifying sections the hearing. If no one requests an approved in part, or not approved. At on incremental bonding, requirement to opportunity to speak, we will not hold that time, we will also make the release bonds, forfeiture of bonds, and a hearing. determinations and certifications effluent limitations. To assist the transcriber and ensure an required by the various laws and The full text of the program accurate record, we request, if possible, executive orders governing the amendment is available for you to read that each person who speaks at the rulemaking process and include them in at the locations listed above under public hearing provide us with a written the final rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8499

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Comments’’ portion of the Coast Guard is amending and updating Intergovernmental relations, Surface SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for the special local regulations under 33 mining, Underground mining. further instructions on submitting CFR part 100.801, Table 1 to include the comments. most up to date list of recurring special Dated: December 6, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If local regulations for events held on or Thomas D. Shope, you have questions on this proposed around navigable waters within Sector Regional Director, North Atlantic— rule, call or email Petty Officer Riley Ohio Valley’s AOR. These events Appalachian Region. Jackson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast include marine parades, boat races, [FR Doc. 2020–02886 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Guard; telephone (502) 779–5347, email swim events, and other marine related BILLING CODE 4310–05–P [email protected]. events. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 requires amendment to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provide new information on existing DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND I. Table of Abbreviations special local regulations, add new SECURITY CFR Code of Federal Regulations special local regulations expected to COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Ohio recur annually or biannually, and Coast Guard Valley remove special local regulations that are DHS Department of Homeland Security no longer required. Issuing individual 33 CFR Part 100 E.O. Executive order regulations for each new special local FR Federal Register regulation, amendment, or removal of [Docket Number USCG–2020–0038] NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking an existing special local regulation Pub. L. Public Law creates unnecessary administrative costs RIN 1625–AA08 § Section U.S.C. United States Code and burdens. This single proposed Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio rulemaking will considerably reduce Valley Annual and Recurring Special II. Background, Purpose, and Legal administrative overhead and provide Local Regulations, Update Basis the public with notice through The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio publication in the Federal Register of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Valley (COTP) proposes to update the recurring special local regulations. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. current list of recurring special local III. Discussion of Proposed Rule regulations found in Table 1 of 33 CFR SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes Part 100 of 33 CFR contains amending and updating its special local 100.801 for events occurring within the Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility regulations to provide effective control regulations for recurring marine over regattas and marine parades parades, regattas, and other events that within the Coast Guard’s Eighth District region. conducted on U.S. navigable waters in take place in the Coast Guard Sector order to ensure the safety of life in the Ohio Valley area of responsibility This rule updates the list of annually recurring special local regulations under regatta or marine parade area. Section (AOR). Through this notice the current 100.801 provides the regulations list of recurring special local regulations 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 for annual special local regulations in the COTP applicable to events taking place in the is updated with revisions, additions, Eighth Coast Guard District and also and removals of events that no longer zone. The Coast Guard will address all comments through response via the provides a table listing each event and take place in the Sector Ohio Valley special local regulation. This section AOR. When these special local rulemaking process, including additional revisions to this regulatory requires amendment from time to time regulations are enforced, certain to properly reflect the recurring special restrictions are placed on marine traffic section. Additionally, these recurring events are provided to the public local regulations. This proposed rule in specified areas. We invite your updates § 100.801, Table 1 for Sector comments on this proposed rulemaking. through local means and planned by the local communities. Ohio Valley. DATES: Comments and related material The current list of annual and This proposed rule adds 8 new must be received by the Coast Guard on recurring special local regulations recurring special local regulation, and or before March 16, 2020. occurring in Sector Ohio Valley’s AOR amends the dates and or regulated areas ADDRESSES: You may submit comments is published under 33 CFR part 100.801, for 29 recurring special local regulations identified by docket number USCG– Table 1. The most recent list was already listed. 2020–0038 using the Federal created May 2, 2019 via 84 FR 18727. This proposed rule would add 8 new eRulemaking Portal at http:// The Coast Guard’s authority for recurring special local regulation in www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public establishing a special local regulation is Table 1 of § 100.801 for Sector Ohio Participation and Request for contained at 46 U.S.C. 70041(a). The Valley, as follows:

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area

2 days—First or second week of Head of the Ohio Rowing Race Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–3.0 (Pennsylvania). October. 3 days—The weekend of Labor Portsmouth Boat Race/Break- Portsmouth, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 355.5–356.8 (Ohio). Day. water Powerboat Association. 3 days—One weekend in April ... Big 10 Invitational Regatta ...... Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). 1 day—One day in June ...... Guntersville Lake Hydrofest ...... Guntersville, AL ...... Tennessee River south of mile 357.0 in Browns Creek, starting at the AL–69 Bridge, 34°21′38″ N, 86°20′36″ W, to 34°21′14″ N, 86°19′4″ W, to the TVA power lines, 34°20′9″ N, 86°21′7″ W, to 34°19′37″ N, 86°20′13″ W, extending from bank to bank within the creek. (Ala- bama).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8500 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area

1 day—Last weekend in July ...... Maysville Paddlefest ...... Maysville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 408–409 (Kentucky). 1 day—One weekend in Sep- Shoals Dragon Boat Festival ..... Florence, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 255.0–257.0 (Alabama). tember. 2 days—Two days in October ..... Secret City Head Race Regatta Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 49.0–54.0 (Tennessee). 1 day—The last week in May ..... Chickamauga Dam Swim ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 470.0–473.0 (Ten- nessee).

This proposed rule would revise 29 existing special local regulations in Table 1 of § 100.801, as follows:

Sector Ohio Valley Revision Line Date Sponsor/name location Regulated area (date/area)

1 ...... 3 days—One Weekend in March ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Car- Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. dinal Invitational. nessee). 2 ...... 1 day—One weekend in March ...... Vanderbilt Rowing/Vanderbilt Invite .. Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 188.0–192.7 Date. (Tennessee). 3 ...... 2 days—One weekend in March ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/ Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. Atomic City Turn and Burn. nessee). 5 ...... 3 days—One weekend in April ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/SIRA Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. Regatta. nessee). 6 ...... 3 days—One weekend in April ...... Thunder Over Louisville ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 597.0–607.0 (Ken- Date/Area. tucky). 8 ...... 3 days—One weekend in April ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Dog- Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. wood Junior Regatta. nessee). 9 ...... 3 days—One weekend in May ...... Vanderbilt Rowing/ACRA Henley ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 188.0–194.0 Date. (Tennessee). 10 ...... 3 days—One weekend in May ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Big Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. 12 Championships. nessee). 11 ...... 3 days—One weekend in May ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Dog- Oak Ridge, TN .... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. wood Masters. nessee). 14 ...... 2 days—One weekend in May or Visit Knoxville/Racing on the Ten- Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 647.0–648.0 Date. One weekend in June. nessee. (Tennessee). 15 ...... 2 days—Last weekend in May or one Outdoor Chattanooga/Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 454.0–468.0 Date. weekend in June. Swim Festival. (Tennessee). 17 ...... 1 day—One weekend in June ...... Visit Knoxville/Knoxville Powerboat Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 646.4–649.0 Date. Classic. (Tennessee). 22 ...... 3 days—One weekend in June ...... TM Thunder LLC/Thunder on the Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.6–192.3 Date. Cumberland. (Tennessee). 24 ...... 1 day—One weekend in June ...... Team Magic/Chattanooga Waterfront Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–466.0 Date. Triathlon. (Tennessee). 29 ...... 1 day—One weekend in May ...... Bradley Dean/Renaissance City Florence, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 254.0–258.0 Date. Triathlon. (Alabama). 33 ...... 1 day—One weekend in July ...... Team Magic/Music City Triathlon ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.3 Date. (Tennessee). 37 ...... 1 day—One weekend in August ...... Above the Fold Events/Riverbluff Ashland City, TN Cumberland River, Mile 157.0–159.5 Date. Triathlon. (Tennessee). 38 ...... 3 days—First or second weekend in Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta ...... Pittsburgh, PA ..... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–1.0, Ohio Date. August. River Mile 0.0–0.8, and Monongahela River Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 40 ...... 1 day— One weekend in August ...... Riverbluff Triathlon ...... Ashland City, TN Cumberland River, Mile 157.0–159.0 Date. (Tennessee). 45 ...... 1 day—One weekend in August ...... Team Rocket Tri-Club/Rocketman Huntsville, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 332.2–335.5 Date. Triathlon. (Alabama). 46 ...... 1 day—One weekend in August ...... Tennessee Clean Water Network/ Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 646.3–648.7 Date. Downtown Dragon Boat Races. (Tennessee). 58 ...... 1 day—One weekend in September Cumberland River Compact/Cum- Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.1 Date. berland River Dragon Boat Festival. (Tennessee). 61 ...... 1 day—One weekend in September City of Clarksville/Clarksville Clarksville, TN ..... Cumberland River, Mile 125.0–126.0 Date. Riverfest Cardboard Boat Regatta. (Tennessee). 65 ...... 1 day—One Sunday in September ... Team Rocket Tri Club/Swim Hobbs Huntsville, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 332.3–338.0 Date. Island. (Alabama). 66 ...... 1 day—One weekend in September Knoxville Open Water Swimmers/ Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 641.0–648.0 Date. Bridges to Bluffs. (Tennessee). 71 ...... 1 day—One weekend in September World Triathlon Corporation/ Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–467.5 Date. IRONMAN Chattanooga. (Tennessee). 74 ...... 1 day—One weekend in October ...... Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 Date. Head Race. (Tennessee). 75 ...... 3 days—One weekend in October .... Vanderbilt Rowing/Music City Head Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.5–196.0 Date. Race. (Tennessee). 77 ...... 3 days—One weekend in November Atlanta Rowing Club/Head of the Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 Date. Hooch Rowing Regatta. (Tennessee).

The effect of this proposed rule would these events. Vessels intending to transit special local regulations will only be be to restrict general navigation during the designated waterway through the allowed to transit the area when the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8501

COTP Ohio Valley, or designated 605(b) that this proposed rule would not Also, this proposed rule does not have representative, has deemed it safe to do have a significant economic impact on tribal implications under Executive so or at the completion of the event. a substantial number of small entities. Order 13175, Consultation and While some owners or operators of Coordination with Indian Tribal IV. Regulatory Analyses vessels intending to transit the regulated Governments, because it would not have We developed this proposed rule after area may be small entities, for reasons a substantial direct effect on one or considering numerous statutes and stated in section IV.A. above, this more Indian tribes, on the relationship executive orders (E.O.s) related to proposed rule would not have a between the Federal Government and rulemaking. Below we summarize our significant economic impact on any Indian tribes, or on the distribution of analyses based on a number of these owner or operator because they are power and responsibilities between the statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First limited in scope and will be in effect for Federal Government and Indian tribes. Amendment rights of protestors. short periods of time. Before the If you believe this proposed rule has A. Regulatory Planning and Review enforcement period, the Coast Guard implications for federalism or Indian COTP will issue maritime advisories tribes, please contact the person listed Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 widely available to waterway users. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION direct agencies to assess the costs and Deviation from the special local CONTACT section. benefits of available regulatory regulations established through this alternatives and, if regulation is proposed rulemaking may be requested E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act necessary, to select regulatory from the appropriate COTP and requests The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act approaches that maximize net benefits. will be considered on a case-by-case of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Executive Order 13771 directs agencies basis. Federal agencies to assess the effects of to control regulatory costs through a If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In budgeting process. This NPRM has not organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions been designated a ‘‘significant jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a regulatory action,’’ under Executive and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of has not been reviewed by the Office of please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Management and Budget (OMB), and ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such from the requirements of Executive this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the Order 13771. Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this The Coast Guard expects the Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble. economic impact of this proposed rule Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), F. Environment to be minimal, therefore a full regulatory we want to assist small entities in evaluation is unnecessary. This understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule proposed rule establishes special local rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland regulations limiting access to certain organization, or governmental Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, areas under 33 CFR 100 within Sector jurisdiction and you have questions associated implementing instructions, Ohio Valley’s AOR. The effect of this concerning its provisions or options for and Environmental Planning proposed rulemaking will not be compliance, please contact the person COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which significant because these special local listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION guide the Coast Guard in complying regulations are limited in scope and CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will with the National Environmental Policy duration. Additionally, the public is not retaliate against small entities that Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and given advance notification through local question or complain about this have made a preliminary determination forms of notice, the Federal Register, proposed rule or any policy or action of that this action is one of a category of and/or Notices of Enforcement and, the Coast Guard. actions that do not individually or thus, will be able to plan operations cumulatively have a significant effect on around the special local regulations C. Collection of Information the human environment. Normally such accordingly. Broadcast Notices to This proposed rule will not call for a actions are categorically excluded from Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners new collection of information under the further review under paragraph L61 of will also inform the community of these Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction special local regulations. Vessel traffic U.S.C. 3501–3520.). Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. of the may request permission from the COTP Instruction because it involves D. Federalism and Indian Tribal or a designated representative to enter establishment of special local Governments the restricted area. regulations related to marine event A rule has implications for federalism permits for marine parades, regattas, B. Impact on Small Entities under Executive Order 13132, and other marine events. We seek any The Regulatory Flexibility Act of Federalism, if it has a substantial direct comments or information that may lead 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, effect on the States, on the relationship to the discovery of a significant requires Federal agencies to consider between the national government and environmental impact from this the potential impact of regulations on the States, or on the distribution of proposed rule. small entities during rulemaking. The power and responsibilities among the term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small various levels of government. We have G. Protest Activities businesses, not-for-profit organizations analyzed this proposed rule under that The Coast Guard respects the First that are independently owned and Order and have determined that it is Amendment rights of protesters. operated and are not dominant in their consistent with the fundamental Protesters are asked to contact the fields, and governmental jurisdictions federalism principles and preemption person listed in the FOR FURTHER with populations of less than 50,000. requirements described in Executive INFORMATION CONTACT section to The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Order 13132. coordinate protest activities so that your

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8502 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

message can be received without www.regulations.gov, contact the person when comments are posted or a final jeopardizing the safety or security of in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION rule is published. people, places or vessels. CONTACT section of this document for List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 alternate instructions. V. Public Participation and Request for Marine safety, Navigation (water), Comments We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted Reporting and recordkeeping We view public participation as requirements, and Waterways. essential to effective rulemaking, and without change to https:// www.regulations.gov and will include For the reasons discussed in the will consider all comments and material preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard received during the comment period. any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as Your comment can help shape the follows: outcome of this rulemaking. If you submissions in response to this submit a comment, please include the document, see DHS’s Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON docket number for this rulemaking, NAVIGABLE WATERS indicate the specific section of this September 26, 2018). document to which each comment Documents mentioned in this NPRM ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 applies, and provide a reason for each as being available in the docket, and all continues to read as follows: public comments, will be in our online suggestion or recommendation. Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05– We encourage you to submit docket at http://www.regulations.gov 1. comments through the Federal and can be viewed by following that eRulemaking Portal at http:// website’s instructions. Additionally, if ■ 2. In § 100.801, revise Table 1 to read www.regulations.gov. If your material you go to the online docket and sign up as follows: cannot be submitted using http:// for email alerts, you will be notified * * * * * TABLE 1 TO § 100.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING MARINE EVENTS

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area

1. 3 days—Second or third weekend Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Car- Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). in March. dinal Invitational. 2. 1 day—Third weekend in March ..... Vanderbilt Rowing/Vanderbilt Invite ... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 188.0–192.7 (Tennessee). 3. 2 days—Fourth weekend in March Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Atom- Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). ic City Turn and Burn. 4. 3 days—One weekend in April ...... Big 10 Invitational Regatta ...... Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). 5. 1 day—One weekend in April ...... Lindamood Cup ...... Marietta, OH ...... Muskingum River, Mile 0.5–1.5 (Ohio). 6. 3 days—Third weekend in April ...... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/SIRA Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). Regatta. 7. 2 days—Third Friday and Saturday Thunder Over Louisville ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 597.0–604.0 (Kentucky). in April. 8. 1 day—During the last week of Great Steamboat Race ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 595.0–605.3 (Kentucky). April or first week of May. 9. 3 days—Fourth weekend in April ... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Dog- Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). wood Junior Regatta. 10. 3 days—Second weekend in May Vanderbilt Rowing/ACRA Henley ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 188.0–194.0 (Tennessee). 11. 3 days—Second weekend in May Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Big Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). 12 Championships. 12. 3 days—Third weekend in May .... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Dog- Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Tennessee). wood Masters. 13. 1 day—Third weekend in May ...... World Triathlon Corporation/ Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–467.5 (Tennessee). IRONMAN 70.3. 14. 1 day—During the last weekend in Mayor’s Hike, Bike and Paddle ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 601.0–604.5 (Kentucky). May or on Memorial Day. 15. 1 day—The last week in May ...... Chickamauga Dam Swim ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 470.0–473.0 (Tennessee). 16. 2 days—Last weekend in May or Visit Knoxville/Racing on the Ten- Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 647.0–648.0 (Tennessee). first weekend in June. nessee. 17. 2 days—Last weekend in May or Outdoor Chattanooga/Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 454.0–468.0 (Tennessee). one weekend in June. Swim Festival. 18. 2 days—First weekend of June .... Thunder on the Bay/KDBA ...... Pisgah Bay, KY ...... Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 19. 1 day—First weekend in June ...... Visit Knoxville/Knoxville Powerboat Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 646.4–649.0 (Tennessee). Classic. 20. 1 day—One weekend in June ...... Tri-Louisville ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 600.5–604.0 (Kentucky). 21. 2 days—One weekend in June .... New Martinsville Vintage Regatta ...... New Martinsville, WV ...... Ohio River Mile 127.5–128.5 (West Virginia). 22. 3 days—One of the last three Lawrenceburg Regatta/Whiskey City Lawrenceburg, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 491.0–497.0 (Indiana). weekends in June. Regatta. 23. 3 days—One of the last three Hadi Shrine/Evansville Shriners Fes- Evansville, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 790.0–796.0 (Indiana). weekends in June. tival. 24. 3 days—Third weekend in June ... TM Thunder LLC/Thunder on the Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.6–192.3 (Tennessee). Cumberland. 25. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in Greater Morgantown Convention and Morgantown, WV ...... Monongahela River, Mile 101.0–102.0 (West Virginia). June. Visitors Bureau/Mountaineer Triathlon. 26. 1 day—Fourth weekend in June ... Team Magic/Chattanooga Waterfront Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–466.0 (Tennessee). Triathlon. 27. 1 day—One day in June ...... Guntersville Lake Hydrofest ...... Guntersville, AL ...... Tennessee River south of mile 357.0 in Browns Creek, starting at the AL–69 Bridge, 34°21′38″ N, 86°20′36″ W, to 34°21′14″ N, 86°19′4″ W, to the TVA power lines, 34°20′9″ N, 86°21′7″ W, to 34°19′37″ N, 86°20′13″ W, extending from bank to bank within the creek. (Alabama).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8503

TABLE 1 TO § 100.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING MARINE EVENTS—Continued

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area

28. 3 days—The last weekend in Madison Regatta ...... Madison, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 554.0–561.0 (Indiana). June or one of the first two week- ends in July. 29. 1 day—During the first week of Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th Evansville, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 790.0–797.0 (Indiana). July. of July Freedom Celebration. 30. First weekend in July ...... Eddyville Creek Marina/Thunder Over Eddyville, KY ...... Cumberland River, Mile 46.0–47.0 (Kentucky). Eddy Bay. 31. 2 days—One of the first two Thunder on the Bay/KDBA ...... Pisgah Bay, KY ...... Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). weekends in July. 32. 1 day—Second weekend in July .. Bradley Dean/Renaissance Man Florence, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 254.0–258.0 (Alabama). Triathlon. 33. 1 day—Third or fourth Sunday of Tucson Racing/Cincinnati Triathlon ... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 468.3–471.2 (Ohio). July. 34. 2 days—One of the last three Dare to Care/KFC Mayor’s Cup Pad- Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 600.0–605.0 (Kentucky). weekends in July. dle Sports Races/Voyageur Canoe World Championships. 35. 2 days—Last two weeks in July or Friends of the Riverfront Inc./Pitts- Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–1.5 (Pennsylvania). first three weeks of August. burgh Triathlon and Adventure Races. 36. 1 day—Fourth weekend in July .... Team Magic/Music City Triathlon ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.3 (Tennessee). 37. 1 day—Last weekend in July ...... Maysville Paddlefest ...... Maysville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 408–409 (Kentucky). 38. 2 days—One weekend in July ...... Huntington Classic Regatta ...... Huntington, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 307.3–309.3 (West Virginia). 39. 2 days—One weekend in July ...... Marietta Riverfront Roar Regatta ...... Marietta, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 171.6–172.6 (Ohio). 40. 1 day—Last weekend in July or HealthyTriState.org/St. Marys Tri Huntington, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 305.1–308.3 (West Virginia). first weekend in August. State Kayathalon. 41. 1 day—first Sunday in August ...... Above the Fold Events/Riverbluff Ashland City, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 157.0–159.5 (Tennessee). Triathlon. 42. 3 days—First week of August ...... EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River mile 0.0–1.0, Ohio River mile 0.0–0.8, Monongahela River mile 0.5 (Pennsylvania). 43. 2 days—First weekend of August Thunder on the Bay/KDBA ...... Pisgah Bay, KY ...... Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 44. 1 day—First or second weekend Riverbluff Triathlon ...... Ashland City, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 157.0–159.0 (Tennessee). in August. 45. 1 day—One of the first two week- Green Umbrella/Ohio River Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 458.5–476.4 (Ohio and Kentucky). ends in August. Paddlefest. 46. 2 days—Third full weekend (Sat- Ohio County Tourism/Rising Sun Rising Sun, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 504.0–508.0 (Indiana and Kentucky). urday and Sunday) in August. Boat Races. 47. 3 days—Second or Third week- Kittanning Riverbration Boat Races ... Kittanning, PA ...... Allegheny River mile 42.0–46.0 (Pennsylvania). end in August. 48. 3 days—One of the last two Thunder on the Green ...... Livermore, KY ...... Green River, Mile 69.0–72.5 (Kentucky). weekends in August. 49. 1 day—Fourth weekend in August Team Rocket Tri-Club/Rocketman Huntsville, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 332.2–335.5 (Alabama). Triathlon. 50. 1 day—Last weekend in August ... Tennessee Clean Water Network/ Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 646.3–648.7 (Tennessee). Downtown Dragon Boat Races. 51. 3 days—One weekend in August Pro Water Cross Championships ...... Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Mile 56.7–57.6 (West Virginia). 52. 2 days—One weekend in August POWERBOAT NATIONALS— Ravenswood, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 220.5–221.5 (West Virginia). Ravenswood Regatta. 53. 2 days—One weekend in August Powerboat Nationals—Parkersburg Parkersburg, WV ...... Ohio River Mile 183.5–285.5 (West Virginia). Regatta/Parkersburg Homecoming. 54. 1 day—One weekend in August ... YMCA River Swim ...... Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Mile 58.3–61.8 (West Virginia). 55. 3 days—One weekend in August Grand Prix of Louisville ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 601.0–605.0 (Kentucky). 56. 3 days—One weekend in August Evansville HydroFest ...... Evansville, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 790.5–794.0 (Indiana). 57. 1 day—First or second weekend SUP3Rivers The Southside Outside Pittsburgh, PA ...... Monongahela River mile 0.0–3.09, Allegheny River mile of September. 0.0–0.6 (Pennsylvania). 58. 1 day—First weekend in Sep- Mayor’s Hike, Bike and Paddle ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 601.0–610.0 (Kentucky). tember or on Labor Day. 59. 2 days—Sunday before Labor Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 463.0–477.0 (Kentucky and Ohio) and Day and Labor Day. and Gamble/Riverfest. Licking River Mile 0.0–3.0 (Kentucky). 60. 2 days—Labor Day weekend ...... Wheeling Vintage Race Boat Asso- Wheeling, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 90.4–91.5 (West Virginia). ciation Ohio/Wheeling Vintage Re- gatta. 61. 3 days—The weekend of Labor Portsmouth Boat Race/Breakwater Portsmouth, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 355.5–356.8 (Ohio). Day. Powerboat Association. 62. 2 days—One of the first three Louisville Dragon Boat Festival ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 602.0–604.5 (Kentucky). weekends in September. 63. 1 day—One of the first three Cumberland River Compact/Cum- Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.1 (Tennessee). weekends in September. berland River Dragon Boat Festival. 64. 2 days—One of the first three State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run .. Jamestown, KY ...... Lake Cumberland (Kentucky). weekends in September. 65. 3 days—One of the first three Fleur de Lis Regatta ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 600.0–605.0 (Kentucky). weekends in September. 66. 1 day—Second weekend in Sep- City of Clarksville/Clarksville Riverfest Clarksville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 125.0–126.0 (Tennessee). tember. Cardboard Boat Regatta. 67. 1 day—One Sunday in September Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Com- Marietta, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 170.5–172.5 (Ohio). mittee Sternwheel race reenact- ment. 68. 1 Day—One weekend in Sep- Parkesburg Paddle Fest ...... Parkersburg, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 184.3–188 (West Virginia). tember. 69. 1 day—One weekend in Sep- Shoals Dragon Boat Festival ...... Florence, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 255.0–257.0 (Alabama). tember.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8504 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 TO § 100.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING MARINE EVENTS—Continued

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area

70. 2 days—One of the last three Madison Vintage Thunder ...... Madison, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 556.5–559.5 (Indiana). weekends in September. 71. 1 day—Third Sunday in Sep- Team Rocket Tri Club/Swim Hobbs Huntsville, AL ...... Tennessee River, Mile 332.3–338.0 (Alabama). tember. Island. 72. 1 day—Fourth or fifth weekend in Knoxville Open Water Swimmers/ Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 641.0–648.0 (Tennessee). September. Bridges to Bluffs. 73. 1 day—Fourth or fifth Sunday in Green Umbrella/Great Ohio River Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 468.8–471.2 (Ohio and Kentucky). September. Swim. 74. 1 day—One of the last two week- Ohio River Open Water Swim ...... Prospect, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 587.0–591.0 (Kentucky). ends in September. 75. 2 days—One of the last three Captain Quarters Regatta ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 594.0–598.0 (Kentucky). weekends in September or the first weekend in October. 76. 3 days—One of the last three Owensboro Air Show ...... Owensboro, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 754.0–760.0 (Kentucky). weekends in September or one of the first two weekends in October. 77. 1 day—Last weekend in Sep- World Triathlon Corporation/ Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–467.5 (Tennessee). tember. IRONMAN Chattanooga. 78. 3 days—Last weekend of Sep- New Martinsville Records and Re- New Martinsville, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 128–129 (West Virginia). tember and/or first weekend in Oc- gatta Challenge Committee. tober. 79. 2 days—First weekend of October Three Rivers Rowing Association/ Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River mile 0.0–5.0 (Pennsylvania). Head of the Ohio Regatta. 80. 1 day—First or second weekend Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 (Tennessee). in October. Head Race. 81. 3 days—First or Second weekend Vanderbilt Rowing/Music City Head Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Mile 189.5–196.0 (Tennessee). in October. Race. 82. 2 days—First or second week of Head of the Ohio Rowing Race ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–3.0 (Pennsylvania). October. 83. 2 days—One of the first three Norton Healthcare/Ironman Triathlon Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Mile 600.5–605.5 (Kentucky). weekends in October. 84. 2 days—Two days in October ...... Secret City Head Race Regatta ...... Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Mile 49.0–54.0 (Tennessee). 85. 3 days—First weekend in Novem- Atlanta Rowing Club/Head of the Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 (Tennessee). ber. Hooch Rowing Regatta. 86. 1 day—One weekend in Novem- Charleston Lighted Boat Parade ...... Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Mile 54.3–60.3 (West Virginia). ber or December.

* * * * * This proposed rulemaking would DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register Dated: February 7, 2020. prohibit persons and vessels from NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking A.M. Beach, entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Maryland-National Capital Region or the § Section Port, Sector Ohio Valley. U.S.C. United States Code Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We [FR Doc. 2020–02976 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] invite your comments on this proposed II. Background, Purpose, and Legal BILLING CODE 9110–04–P rulemaking. Basis DATES: Comments and related material Charcot Marie Tooth Association and must be received by the Coast Guard on DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Therapies for Inherited Neuropathies of or before March 16, 2020. SECURITY Trappe, MD, notified the Coast Guard ADDRESSES: You may submit comments that it will be conducting the swim Coast Guard identified by docket number USCG– portion of the Oxford Funathlon from 2020–0084 using the Federal 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on June 6, 2020. 33 CFR Part 100 eRulemaking Portal at http:// There is no alternate date scheduled for [Docket Number USCG–2020–0084] www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public this event. The open water swim Participation and Request for consists of approximately 40 RIN 1625–AA08 Comments’’ portion of the participants competing in a designated SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for Special Local Regulation; Tred Avon 1200-meter course that starts at the ferry further instructions on submitting dock in Bellevue, MD, and finishes at River, Between Bellevue and Oxford, comments. MD the Tred Avon Yacht Club in Oxford, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If MD. Hazards from the swim AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. you have questions about this proposed competition include participants ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron swimming within and adjacent to the Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector designated navigation channel and SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing Maryland-National Capital Region; interfering with vessels intending to to establish temporary special local telephone 410–576–2674, email operate within that channel, as well as regulations for certain waters of the [email protected]. swimming within approaches to local Tred Avon River. This action is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public and private marinas and public necessary to provide for the safety of life boat facilities. The Captain of the Port on these navigable waters located I. Table of Abbreviations (COTP) Maryland-National Capital between Bellevue, MD, and Oxford, MD, CFR Code of Federal Regulations Region has determined that potential during a swim event on June 6, 2020. COTP Captain of the Port hazards associated with the swim would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8505

be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate at a safe speed that minimizes reasons stated in section IV.A above, to participate in this event and for wake while within the regulated area. this proposed rule would not have a vessels that operate within specified Official patrol vessels would direct non- significant economic impact on any waters of the Tred Avon River. participants while within the regulated vessel owner or operator. The purpose of this rulemaking is to area. If you think that your business, protect event participants, non- The regulatory text we are proposing organization, or governmental participants, and transiting vessels on appears at the end of this document. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity before, during, and after the scheduled IV. Regulatory Analyses and that this rule would have a event. The Coast Guard is proposing this significant economic impact on it, rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. We developed this proposed rule after please submit a comment (see 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). considering numerous statutes and ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it Executive orders related to rulemaking. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule qualifies and how and to what degree Below we summarize our analyses this rule would economically affect it. The COTP Maryland-National Capital based on a number of these statutes and Under section 213(a) of the Small Region is proposing to establish special Executive orders, and we discuss First Business Regulatory Enforcement local regulations that would be enforced Amendment rights of protestors. from 6:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on June 6, Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 2020. The regulated area would cover A. Regulatory Planning and Review we want to assist small entities in all navigable waters of the Tred Avon Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 understanding this proposed rule. If the River, from shoreline to shoreline, direct agencies to assess the costs and rule would affect your small business, within an area bounded on the east by benefits of available regulatory organization, or governmental a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N, alternatives and, if regulation is jurisdiction and you have questions longitude 076°10′45″ W, thence south to necessary, to select regulatory concerning its provisions or options for latitude 38°41′37″ N, longitude approaches that maximize net benefits. compliance, please contact the person 076°10′26″ W, and bounded on the west Executive Order 13771 directs agencies listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ to control regulatory costs through a CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will N, longitude 076°11′04″ W, thence to budgeting process. This NPRM has not not retaliate against small entities that latitude 38°41′25″ N, longitude been designated a ‘‘significant question or complain about this 076°10′49″ W, thence east to latitude regulatory action,’’ under Executive proposed rule or any policy or action of 38°41′25″ N, longitude 076°10′30″ W, Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM the Coast Guard. located at Oxford, MD. The proposed has not been reviewed by the Office of C. Collection of Information duration of the rule and size of the Management and Budget (OMB), and regulated area are to ensure the safety of pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt This proposed rule would not call for life on these navigable waters before, from the requirements of Executive a new collection of information under during, and after the open water swim, Order 13771. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 scheduled to take place from 7:45 a.m. This regulatory action determination (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). to 9:15 a.m. on June 6, 2020. The COTP is based on size, time of day and D. Federalism and Indian Tribal and the Coast Guard Patrol Commander duration of the regulated area, which Governments (PATCOM) would have authority to would impact a small designated area of A rule has implications for federalism forbid and control the movement of all the Tred Avon River for 31⁄2 hours. The vessels and persons, including event Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast under Executive Order 13132, participants, in the regulated area. Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Except for Oxford Funathlon channel 16 about the status of the effect on the States, on the relationship participants and vessels already at regulated area. Moreover, the rule between the national government and berth, a vessel or person would be would allow vessels to seek permission the States, or on the distribution of required to get permission from the to enter the regulated area, and vessel power and responsibilities among the COTP or PATCOM before entering the traffic would be able to safely transit the various levels of government. We have regulated area. Vessel operators would regulated area once the PATCOM deems analyzed this proposed rule under that be able to request permission to enter it safe to do so. Order and have determined that it is and transit through the regulated area by consistent with the fundamental contacting the PATCOM on VHF–FM B. Impact on Small Entities federalism principles and preemption channel 16. Vessel traffic would be able The Regulatory Flexibility Act of requirements described in Executive to safely transit the regulated area once 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Order 13132. the PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A requires Federal agencies to consider Also, this proposed rule does not have person or vessel not registered with the the potential impact of regulations on tribal implications under Executive event sponsor as a participant or small entities during rulemaking. The Order 13175, Consultation and assigned as official patrols would be term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Coordination with Indian Tribal considered a non-participant. Official businesses, not-for-profit organizations Governments, because it would not have Patrols are any vessel assigned or that are independently owned and a substantial direct effect on one or approved by the Commander, Coast operated and are not dominant in their more Indian tribes, on the relationship Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital fields, and governmental jurisdictions between the Federal Government and Region with a commissioned, warrant, with populations of less than 50,000. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of or petty officer on board and displaying The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. power and responsibilities between the a Coast Guard ensign. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not Federal Government and Indian tribes. If permission is granted by the COTP have a significant economic impact on If you believe this proposed rule has or PATCOM, a person or vessel would a substantial number of small entities. implications for federalism or Indian be allowed to enter the regulated area or While some owners or operators of tribes, please contact the person listed pass directly through the regulated area vessels intending to transit the safety in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION as instructed. Vessels would be required zone may be small entities, for the CONTACT section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8506 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act indicate the specific section of this located at Oxford, MD. These The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act document to which each comment coordinates are based on datum NAD of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires applies, and provide a reason for each 1983. Federal agencies to assess the effects of suggestion or recommendation. (b) Definitions. As used in this We encourage you to submit their discretionary regulatory actions. In section— particular, the Act addresses actions comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland- that may result in the expenditure by a National Capital Region means the State, local, or tribal government, in the www.regulations.gov. If your material Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector aggregate, or by the private sector of cannot be submitted using http:// Maryland-National Capital Region or $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or www.regulations.gov, contact the person any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant more in any one year. Though this in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION proposed rule would not result in such CONTACT section of this document for or petty officer who has been authorized an expenditure, we do discuss the alternate instructions. by the COTP to act on his behalf. effects of this rule elsewhere in this We accept anonymous comments. All Coast Guard Patrol Commander preamble. comments received will be posted (PATCOM) means a commissioned, without change to http:// warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. F. Environment www.regulations.gov and will include Coast Guard who has been designated We have analyzed this proposed rule any personal information you have by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector under Department of Homeland provided. For more about privacy and Maryland-National Capital Region. Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, submissions in response to this docket, associated implementing instructions, see DHS’s Correspondence System of Official Patrol means any vessel and Environmental Planning Records notice (84 FR 48645, September assigned or approved by Commander, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 26, 2018). Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National guide the Coast Guard in complying Documents mentioned in this NPRM Capital Region with a commissioned, with the National Environmental Policy as being available in the docket, and all warrant, or petty officer on board and Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and public comments, will be in our online displaying a Coast Guard ensign. have made a preliminary determination docket at http://www.regulations.gov Participant means all persons and that this action is one of a category of and can be viewed by following that vessels registered with the event actions that do not individually or website’s instructions. Additionally, if sponsor as participating in the Maryland cumulatively have a significant effect on you go to the online docket and sign up Freedom Swim or otherwise designated the human environment. This proposed for email alerts, you will be notified by the event sponsor as having a rule involves implementation of when comments are posted or a final function tied to the event. regulations within 33 CFR part 100 rule is published. (c) Regulations. (1) Except for vessels applicable to organized marine events List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 on the navigable waters of the United already at berth, all non-participants are States that could negatively impact the Marine safety, Navigation (water), prohibited from entering, transiting safety of waterway users and shore side Reporting and recordkeeping through, anchoring in, or remaining activities in the event area lasting for 3 requirements, Waterways. within the regulated area described in and 1⁄2 hours. Normally such actions are For the reasons discussed in the paragraph (a) of this section unless categorically excluded from further preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing authorized by the COTP Maryland- review under paragraph L[61] of to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: National Capital Region or PATCOM. Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction (2) To seek permission to enter, Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. We PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON contact the COTP Maryland-National NAVIGABLE WATERS seek any comments or information that Capital Region at telephone number may lead to the discovery of a ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 410–576–2693 or on Marine Band significant environmental impact from continues to read as follows: Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 this proposed rule. MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05– G. Protest Activities 1. Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must The Coast Guard respects the First ■ 2. Add § 100.T05–0084 to read as comply with all lawful orders or Amendment rights of protesters. follows: directions given to them by the COTP Protesters are asked to contact the Maryland-National Capital Region or person listed in the FOR FURTHER § 100.T05–0084 Oxford Funathlon, Tred INFORMATION CONTACT section to Avon River, Between Bellevue and Oxford, PATCOM. coordinate protest activities so that your MD. (3) The COTP Maryland-National message can be received without (a) Regulated area. The regulations in Capital Region will provide notice of the jeopardizing the safety or security of this section apply to the following area: regulated area through advanced notice people, places, or vessels. All navigable waters of the Tred Avon via Fifth Coast Guard District Local River, from shoreline to shoreline, V. Public Participation and Request for Notice to Mariners, broadcast notice to within an area bounded on the east by mariners, and on-scene official patrols. Comments a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N, We view public participation as longitude 076°10′45″ W, thence south to (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast essential to effective rulemaking, and latitude 38°41′37″ N, longitude Guard may be assisted with marine will consider all comments and material 076°10′26″ W, and bounded on the west event patrol and enforcement of the received during the comment period. by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ regulated area by other Federal, State, Your comment can help shape the N, longitude 076°11′04″ W, thence south and local agencies. outcome of this rulemaking. If you to latitude 38°41′25″ N, longitude (e) Enforcement period. This section submit a comment, please include the 076°10′49″ W, thence east to latitude will be enforced from 6:45 a.m. to 10:15 docket number for this rulemaking, 38°41′25″ N, longitude 076°10′30″ W, a.m. on June 6, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8507

Dated: February 10, 2020. DHS Department of Homeland Security Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Joseph B. Loring, FR Federal Register Mariners at least 24 hours in advance. NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the The duration of the zone is intended to § Section Port Maryland-National Capital Region. ensure the safety of vessels and these U.S.C. United States Code [FR Doc. 2020–02945 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] navigable waters before, during, and BILLING CODE 9110–04–P II. Background, Purpose, and Legal after the scheduled fireworks display. Basis No vessel or person would be permitted On January 9, 2020, Pyrotecnico, Inc., to enter the safety zone without DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND of New Castle, PA, notified the Coast obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The SECURITY Guard that it will be conducting 7 regulatory text we are proposing appears fireworks displays, sponsored by The Coast Guard at the end of this document. Wharf DC, from 7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. for 33 CFR Part 165 various events from April 4, 2020, IV. Regulatory Analyses through December 31, 2020. The We developed this proposed rule after [Docket Number USCG–2020–0061] fireworks are to be launched from a considering numerous statutes and barge in the Washington Channel, RIN 1625–AA00 Executive orders related to rulemaking. adjacent to The Wharf DC in Below we summarize our analyses Safety Zone for Fireworks Displays, Washington, DC. The fireworks based on a number of these statutes and Upper Potomac River, Washington company has provided dates for two of Executive orders, and we discuss First Channel, DC the events, April 4, 2020, and December Amendment rights of protestors. 5, 2020. However, the dates for the AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. remaining five events have not yet been A. Regulatory Planning and Review ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. finalized. Hazards from the fireworks Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 displays include accidental discharge of direct agencies to assess the costs and SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and benefits of available regulatory to establish a temporary safety zone for falling hot embers or other debris. The alternatives and, if regulation is certain waters of the Upper Potomac Captain of the Port Maryland-National necessary, to select regulatory River. This action is necessary to Capital Region (COTP) has determined approaches that maximize net benefits. provide for the safety of life on these that potential hazards associated with Executive Order 13771 directs agencies navigable waters of the Washington the fireworks to be used in these to control regulatory costs through a Channel adjacent to The Wharf DC, displays would be a safety concern for budgeting process. This NPRM has not Washington, DC, for recurring fireworks anyone within 200 feet of the fireworks been designated a ‘‘significant displays from April 4, 2020, through barge. regulatory action,’’ under Executive December 31, 2020. This proposed The purpose of this rulemaking is to Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM rulemaking would prohibit persons and ensure the safety of vessels and the has not been reviewed by the Office of vessels from being in the safety zone navigable waters within 200 feet of the Management and Budget (OMB), and unless authorized by the Captain of the fireworks barge on the Washington pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt Port Maryland-National Capital Region Channel before, during, and after the from the requirements of Executive or a designated representative. We scheduled events. The Coast Guard is Order 13771. invite your comments on this proposed proposing this rulemaking under This regulatory action determination rulemaking. authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously is based on the size, duration, and time- DATES: Comments and related material 33 U.S.C. 1231). of-day of the safety zone. It is must be received by the Coast Guard on III. Discussion of Proposed Rule anticipated that the safety zone will be or before March 16, 2020. activated for seven separate events ADDRESSES: You may submit comments The COTP is proposing to establish a during 2020. Although vessel traffic will identified by docket number USCG– temporary recurring safety zone in the not be able to safely transit around this 2020–0061 using the Federal Washington Channel from April 4, 2020, safety zone when being enforced, the eRulemaking Portal at https:// through December 31, 2020. The safety impact would be for less than 5 hours www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public zone would cover all navigable waters during the evening when vessel traffic Participation and Request for of the Washington Channel within 200 in Washington Channel is normally low. Comments’’ portion of the feet of the fireworks barge. It is Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for anticipated that the safety zone will be Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– further instructions on submitting activated for seven separate events FM marine channel 16 about the zone. comments. during 2020. For each event, the barge will be located within an area bounded B. Impact on Small Entities FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If on the south by latitude 38°52′30″ N, The Regulatory Flexibility Act of you have questions about this proposed and bounded on the north by the 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Francis Case (I–395) Memorial Bridge, requires Federal agencies to consider Houck, Sector Maryland-National located at Washington, DC. The safety the potential impact of regulations on Capital Region Waterways Management zone would be enforced from 7 p.m. small entities during rulemaking. The Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone until 11:59 p.m. for each fireworks term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 410–576–2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@ display scheduled from April 4, 2020, businesses, not-for-profit organizations uscg.mil. through December 31, 2020. Prior to that are independently owned and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: enforcement, the COTP will provide operated and are not dominant in their notice by publishing a Notice of fields, and governmental jurisdictions I. Table of Abbreviations Enforcement at least 2 days in advance with populations of less than 50,000. CFR Code of Federal Regulations of the event in the Federal Register, as The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. COTP Captain of the Port well as issuing a Local Notice to 605(b) that this proposed rule would not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8508 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

have a significant economic impact on implications for federalism or Indian V. Public Participation and Request for a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please call or email the person Comments While some owners or operators of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION vessels intending to transit the safety CONTACT section. We view public participation as zone may be small entities, for the essential to effective rulemaking, and reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act will consider all comments and material this proposed rule would not have a received during the comment period. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act significant economic impact on any Your comment can help shape the vessel owner or operator. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires outcome of this rulemaking. If you If you think that your business, Federal agencies to assess the effects of submit a comment, please include the organization, or governmental their discretionary regulatory actions. In docket number for this rulemaking, jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity particular, the Act addresses actions indicate the specific section of this and that this rule would have a that may result in the expenditure by a document to which each comment significant economic impact on it, State, local, or tribal government, in the applies, and provide a reason for each please submit a comment (see aggregate, or by the private sector of suggestion or recommendation. ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or We encourage you to submit qualifies and how and to what degree more in any one year. Though this comments through the Federal this rule would economically affect it. proposed rule would not result in such Under section 213(a) of the Small an expenditure, we do discuss the eRulemaking Portal at https:// Business Regulatory Enforcement effects of this rule elsewhere in this www.regulations.gov. If your material Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), preamble. cannot be submitted using https:// we want to assist small entities in www.regulations.gov, call or email the understanding this proposed rule. If the F. Environment person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION rule would affect your small business, CONTACT section of this document for We have analyzed this proposed rule alternate instructions. organization, or governmental under Department of Homeland jurisdiction and you have questions Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, We accept anonymous comments. All concerning its provisions or options for associated implementing instructions, comments received will be posted compliance, please call or email the and Environmental Planning without change to https:// person listed in the FOR FURTHER COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which www.regulations.gov and will include INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast guide the Coast Guard in complying any personal information you have Guard will not retaliate against small with the National Environmental Policy provided. For more about privacy and entities that question or complain about submissions in response to this this proposed rule or any policy or Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination document, see DHS’s Correspondence action of the Coast Guard. System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, that this action is one of a category of September 26, 2018). C. Collection of Information actions that do not individually or This proposed rule would not call for cumulatively have a significant effect on Documents mentioned in this NPRM a new collection of information under the human environment. This proposed as being available in the docket, and all the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 rule involves a safety zone that will be public comments, will be in our online (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). in effect for the entire year, however, docket at https://www.regulations.gov when activated, lasting less than 5 hours and can be viewed by following that D. Federalism and Indian Tribal that would prohibit entry within a website’s instructions. Additionally, if Governments portion of the Washington Channel. you go to the online docket and sign up A rule has implications for federalism Normally such actions are categorically for email alerts, you will be notified under Executive Order 13132 excluded from further review under when comments are posted or a final (Federalism), if it has a substantial paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table rule is published. direct effect on the States, on the 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 relationship between the national 001–01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of government and the States, or on the Environmental Consideration Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation distribution of power and supporting this determination is (water), Reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities among the various available in the docket. For instructions requirements, Security measures, levels of government. We have analyzed on locating the docket, see the Waterways. this proposed rule under that Order and ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We For the reasons discussed in the have determined that it is consistent seek any comments or information that with the fundamental federalism preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing may lead to the discovery of a to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: principles and preemption requirements significant environmental impact from described in Executive Order 13132. this proposed rule. Also, this proposed rule does not have PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION tribal implications under Executive G. Protest Activities AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal The Coast Guard respects the First ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 Governments) because it would not Amendment rights of protesters. continues to read as follows: Protesters are asked to call or email the have a substantial direct effect on one or Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR FOR FURTHER more Indian tribes, on the relationship person listed in the 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; between the Federal Government and INFORMATION CONTACT section to Department of Homeland Security Delegation Indian tribes, or on the distribution of coordinate protest activities so that your No. 0170.1. power and responsibilities between the message can be received without Federal Government and Indian tribes. jeopardizing the safety or security of ■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0061 to read as If you believe this proposed rule has people, places, or vessels. follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8509

§ 165.T05–0061 Safety Zone for Fireworks be 5 hours or less. Prior to enforcement, further instructions on submitting Displays; Upper Potomac River, the COTP will provide notice by comments. Washington Channel, Washington, DC. publishing a Notice of Enforcement at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If (a) Location. The following area is a least 2 days in advance of the event in you have questions on this proposed safety zone: All navigable waters of the the Federal Register, as well as issuing rule, call or email Petty Officer Riley Washington Channel within 200 feet of a Local Notice to Mariners and Jackson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast the fireworks barge which will be Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least 24 Guard; telephone (502) 779–5347, email located within an area bounded on the hours in advance. south by latitude 38°52′30″ N, and [email protected]. Dated: February 10, 2020. bounded on the north by the southern SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: extent of the Francis Case (I–395) Joseph B. Loring, Memorial Bridge, located at Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the I. Table of Abbreviations Washington, DC. These coordinates are Port Maryland-National Capital Region. CFR Code of Federal Regulations based on datum NAD 1983. [FR Doc. 2020–02967 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Ohio (b) Definitions. As used in this BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Valley section: DHS Department of Homeland Security (1) Captain of the Port (COTP) means E.O. Executive Order the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FR Federal Register SECURITY NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Sector Maryland-National Capital § Section Region. Coast Guard U.S.C. United States Code (2) Designated representative means AOR Area of Responsibility any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been 33 CFR Part 165 II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis authorized by the Captain of the Port [Docket Number USCG–2020–0037] Maryland-National Capital Region to The Captain of the Port, Sector Ohio RIN 1625–AA00 assist in enforcing the safety zone Valley (COTP) proposes to amend 33 described in paragraph (a) of this Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector CFR 165.801 to update regulations for section. annual fireworks displays and other (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update events in the Eighth Coast Guard safety zone regulations in subpart C of District requiring safety zones with this part, you may not enter the safety AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. respect to those in Sector Ohio Valley. zone described in paragraph (a) of this ACTION: section unless authorized by the COTP Notice of proposed rulemaking. The current list of annual and recurring safety zones occurring in or the COTP’s designated representative. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to All vessels underway within this safety Sector Ohio Valley’s area of amend and update its list of recurring responsibility (AOR) is published under zone at the time it is activated are to safety zone regulations that take place in depart the zone. 33 CFR 165.801 in Table no. 1 for the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area annual safety zones in the COTP Ohio (2) To seek permission to enter, of responsibility (AOR). This informs contact the COTP or the COTP’s Valley zone. The most recent list was the public of regularly scheduled events created May 3, 2019 through the designated representative by telephone that require additional safety measures at 410–576–2693 or on Marine Band rulemaking 84 FR 18975. through establishing a safety zone. The Coast Guard proposed to amend Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 Through this, the current list of MHz). The Coast Guard vessels and update the safety zone regulations recurring safety zones is proposed to be under 33 CFR part 165 to include the enforcing this section can be contacted updated with revisions, additional on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM most up to date list of recurring safety events, and removal of events that no zones for events held on or around channel 16 (156.8 MHz). longer take place. When these safety (3) Those in the safety zone must navigable waters within Sector Ohio zones are enforced, vessel traffic is comply with all lawful orders or Valley’s AOR. These events include air restricted from the specified areas. directions given to them by the COTP or shows, fireworks displays, and other Additionally, this proposed rulemaking the COTP’s designated representative. marine related events requiring a project reduces administrative costs (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. limited access area restricting vessel involved in producing separate Coast Guard may be assisted in the traffic for safety purposes. The current proposed rules for each individual patrol and enforcement of the safety list in 33 CFR 165.801 needs to be recurring safety zone and serves to zone by Federal, State, and local amended to provide new information on provide notice of the known recurring agencies. existing safety zones, and to include (e) Enforcement. This safety zone will safety zones throughout the year. We new safety zones expected to recur be enforced April 4, 2020, through invite your comments on this proposed annually or biannually, and to remove December 31, 2020, from 7 p.m. to 11:59 rulemaking. safety zones that are no longer required. p.m. each day that a barge with a DATES: Comments and related material Issuing individual regulations for each ‘‘FIREWORKS—DANGER—STAY must be received by the Coast Guard on new safety zone, amendment, or AWAY’’ sign on the port and starboard or before March 16, 2020. removal of an existing safety zone sides is on-scene or a ‘‘FIREWORKS— ADDRESSES: You may submit comments creates unnecessary administrative costs DANGER—STAY AWAY’’ sign is identified by docket number USCG– and burdens. This single proposed posted on land adjacent to the shoreline, 2020–0037 using the Federal rulemaking will considerably reduce near the location described in paragraph eRulemaking Portal at http:// administrative overhead and provide (a) of this section. The enforcement www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public the public with notice through times of this section are subject to Participation and Request for publication in the Federal Register of change, but the duration of each Comments’’ portion of the the upcoming recurring safety zone enforcement of the zone is expected to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8510 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The Coast Guard encourages the III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule safety zone regulations in Sector Ohio public to participate in this proposed Part 165 of 33 CFR contains Valley’s AOR. This proposed rule rulemaking through the comment regulations establishing limited access amends and updates § 165.801 by process so that any necessary changes areas to restrict vessel traffic for the revising the current table for Sector can be identified and implemented in a safety of persons and property. Section Ohio Valley. timely and efficient manner. The Coast 165.801 establishes recurring safety Additionally, this proposed rule adds Guard will address all public comments zones to restrict vessel transit into and 10 new recurring safety zones, removes accordingly, whether through response, through specified areas to protect 01 recurring events and amends the additional revision to the regulation, or spectators, mariners, and other persons date, regulated area, and/or name for 20 otherwise. Additionally, these recurring and property from potential hazards recurring safety zones already listed in events are provided to the public presented during certain events taking § 165.801 as follows: through local avenues and planned by place in Sector Ohio Valley’s AOR. This This proposed rule would add the the local communities. section requires amendment from time following 10 safety zones to the existing to time to properly reflect the recurring Table 1 of § 165.801 as follows:

Sector Ohio valley Date Sponsor/name location Safety zone

3 days in June ...... CMA Festival ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 190.7–191.1 extending 100 feet from the left de- scending bank (Tennessee). 1 day—The second or third weekend of Green Turtle Bay Resort/Grand Rivers Grand Rivers, KY.. 420 foot radius, from the fireworks August. Marina Day. launch site, at the entrance to Green Turtle Bay Resort, on the Cum- berland River at mile marker 31.5. (Kentucky). 1 day—July 3rd...... Moors Resort and Marina/Kentucky Gilbertsville, KY..... 600 foot radius, from the fireworks Lake Big Bang. launch site, on the entrance jetty to Moors Resort and Marina, on the Tennessee River at mile marker 30.5. (Kentucky). 1 day—One weekend in September ..... Aurora Fireworks ...... Aurora, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 496.3–497.3 (Ohio). 1 day—Last two weekends in Sep- Cabana on the River ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 483.2–484.2 (Ohio). tember. 1 day—Last weekend in July or first Fort Armstrong Folk Music Festival ...... Kittanning, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 45.1–45.5 (Penn- weekend in August. sylvania). 2 days—One of the last three week- Monster Pumpkin Festival ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–0.25 (Penn- ends in October. sylvania). 1 day—First week of July ...... Toronto 4th of July Fireworks ...... Toronto, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 58.2–58.8 (Ohio). 1 day—One Friday in May prior to me- Live on the Levee Memorial Day Fire- Charleston, WV ..... Kanawha River, Mile 58.1–59.1 (West morial day. works/City of Charleston. Virginia). 1 day—Labor day ...... Portsmouth Labor Day Fireworks/Ham- Portsmouth, OH .... Ohio River, Mile 355.8–356.8 (Ohio). burg Fireworks.

This proposed rule would remove the following safety zone from the existing Table 1 to § 165.801 as follows:

3 days—One weekend in April ..... Thunder Over Louisville ...... Louisville, KY .... Ohio River, Miles 597.0–607.0 Date. (Kentucky).

The Coast Guard also proposes to involve changes to marine event dates, safety zones being amended are listed revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 by regulated areas, and/or event names, below: amending 20 existing safety zones listed with reference by line number to the in the current table. The amendments current Table 1 of § 165.801. The 20

Sector Ohio Revision (date/ Line Date Sponsor/name valley location Regulated area area/name)

7 ...... 3 Days in May ... US Rowing Southeast Youth Oak Ridge, TN ... Clinch River, Mile 48.5–52.0 (Ten- Date. Championship Regatta. nessee). 9 ...... 1 day in June ..... Cumberland River Compact/Nash- Nashville, TN ..... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7– Date. ville Splash Bash. 192.1 (Tennessee). 13 ...... 1 day in June..... Friends of the Festival, Inc./ Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Miles 462.7– Date. Riverbend Festival Fireworks. 465.2 (Tennessee). 25 ...... 1 day in July ...... Town of Cumberland City/Lighting Cumberland City, Cumberland River, Miles 103.0– Date. up the Cumberland. TN. 105.5 (Tennessee). 26 ...... 1 day in July ...... Chattanooga Presents/Pops on the Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Miles 462.7– Date. River. 465.2 (Tennessee).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8511

Sector Ohio Revision (date/ Line Date Sponsor/name valley location Regulated area area/name)

27 ...... 1 day in July ...... Randy Boyd/Independence Cele- Knoxville, TN..... Tennessee River, Miles 625.0– Date. bration Fireworks Display. 628.0 (Tennessee). 30 ...... 1 day in July ...... City of Knoxville/Knoxville Festival Knoxville, TN..... Tennessee River, Miles 646.3– Date. on the 4th. 648.7 (Tennessee). 31 ...... 1 day in July ...... Nashville NCVC/Independence Nashville, TN ..... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7– Date. Celebration. 192.3 (Tennessee). 32 ...... 1 day in July ...... Shoals Radio Group/Spirit of Free- Florence, AL...... Tennessee River, Miles 254.5– Date. dom Fireworks. 257.4 (Alabama). 47 ...... 1 day—First Pittsburgh 4th of July Celebration Pittsburgh, PA .... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Alle- Date and Name. week of July. gheny River, Mile 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0– 0.5 (Pennsylvania). 54 ...... 1 day in July ...... Grand Harbor Marina/Grand Har- Counce, TN ...... Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Date. bor Marina July 4th Celebration. Miles 448.5–451.0 (Tennessee). 61 ...... 1 Day in July ...... Three Rivers Regatta ...... Knoxville, TN ..... Tennessee River, Miles 642–653 Date. (Tennessee). 75 ...... 1 day in Sep- Nashville Symphony/Concert Fire- Nashville, TN ..... Cumberland River, Miles 190.1– Date. tember. works. 192.3 (Tennessee). 76 ...... 1 day in Sep- City of Clarksville/Clarksville Clarksville, TN ... Cumberland River, Miles 124.5– Date. tember. Riverfest. 127.0 (Tennessee). 82 ...... 1 day—First Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/ Pittsburgh, PA.... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Alle- Date and Area. three weeks of Light the Night. gheny River, Mile 0.0–0.5, and October. Monongahela River, Mile 0.0– 0.5 (Pennsylvania). 83 ...... 1 day in October Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/ Nashville, TN ..... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7– Date. Light the Night Walk Fireworks. 192.1 (Tennessee). 85 ...... 1 day in October Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Miles 452.0– Date. Suck. 454.5 (Tennessee). 86 ...... 1 day in October Chattajack ...... Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Miles 462.7– Date. 465.5 (Tennessee). 90 ...... 1 day—Friday Santa Spectacular/Light up Night .. Pittsburgh, PA .... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Alle- Name and Area. before Thanks- gheny River, Mile 0.0–0.5, and giving. Monongahela River, Mile 0.0– 0.5 (Pennsylvania). 92 ...... 1 day in Novem- Friends of the Festival/Cheer at Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Miles 462.7– Date. ber. the Pier. 465.2 (Tennessee).

The effect of this proposed rule would budgeting process. This NPRM has not designated representative to enter the be to restrict general navigation in the been designated a ‘‘significant restricted area. safety zone during the events. Vessels regulatory action,’’ under Executive B. Impact on Small Entities intending to transit the designated Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM waterway through the safety zone will has not been reviewed by the Office of The Regulatory Flexibility Act of only be allowed to transit the area when Management and Budget (OMB), and 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, COTP, or a designated representative, pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt requires Federal agencies to consider has deemed it safe to do so or at the from the requirements of Executive the potential impact of regulations on completion of the event. The proposed Order 13771. small entities during rulemaking. The annually recurring safety zones are term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small The Coast Guard expects the necessary to provide for the safety of life businesses, not-for-profit organizations economic impact of this proposed rule on navigable waters during the events. that are independently owned and to be minimal, therefore a full regulatory operated and are not dominant in their IV. Regulatory Analyses evaluation is unnecessary. This fields, and governmental jurisdictions We developed this proposed rule after proposed rule establishes safety zones with populations of less than 50,000. considering numerous statutes and limiting access to certain areas under 33 The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Executive orders related to rulemaking. CFR 165 within Sector Ohio Valley’s 605(b) that this proposed rule would not Below we summarize our analyses AOR. The effect of this proposed have a significant economic impact on based on a number of these statutes and rulemaking will not be significant a substantial number of small entities. Executive orders and we discuss First because these safety zones are limited in While some owners or operators of Amendment rights of protestors. scope and duration. Additionally, the vessels intending to transit the safety public is given advance notification zone may be small entities, for the A. Regulatory Planning and Review through local forms of notice, the reasons stated in section IV.A above this Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Federal Register, and/or Notices of proposed rule would not have a direct agencies to assess the costs and Enforcement and, thus, will be able to significant economic impact on any benefits of available regulatory plan operations around the safety zones. vessel owner or operator. alternatives and, if regulation is Also, advance Broadcast Notices to If you think that your business, necessary, to select regulatory Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners organization, or governmental approaches that maximize net benefits. will inform the community of these jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity Executive Order 13771 directs agencies safety zones. Vessel traffic may request and that this rule would have a to control regulatory costs through a permission from the COTP or a significant economic impact on it,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8512 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

please submit a comment (see Federal agencies to assess the effects of docket number for this rulemaking, ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it their discretionary regulatory actions. In indicate the specific section of this qualifies and how and to what degree particular, the Act addresses actions document to which each comment this rule would economically affect it. that may result in the expenditure by a applies, and provide a reason for each Under section 213(a) of the Small State, local, or tribal government, in the suggestion or recommendation. Business Regulatory Enforcement aggregate, or by the private sector of We encourage you to submit Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or comments through the Federal we want to assist small entities in more in any one year. Though this eRulemaking Portal at https:// understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would not result in such www.regulations.gov. If your material proposed rule would affect your small an expenditure, we do discuss the cannot be submitted using https:// business, organization, or governmental effects of this rule elsewhere in this www.regulations.gov, call or email the jurisdiction and you have questions preamble. person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION concerning its provisions or options for F. Environment CONTACT section of this document for compliance, please contact the person alternate instructions. listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION We have analyzed this proposed rule We accept anonymous comments. All CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will under Department of Homeland not retaliate against small entities that Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, comments received will be posted question or complain about this associated implementing instructions, without change to https:// proposed rule or any policy or action of and Environmental Planning www.regulations.gov and will include the Coast Guard. COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which any personal information you have guide the Coast Guard in complying provided. For more about privacy and C. Collection of Information with the National Environmental Policy submissions in response to this This proposed rule will not call for a Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and document, see DHS’s Correspondence new collection of information under the have made a preliminary determination System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 that this action is one of a category of September 26, 2018). U.S.C. 3501–3520.). actions that do not individually or Documents mentioned in this NPRM cumulatively have a significant effect on as being available in the docket, and all D. Federalism and Indian Tribal the human environment. Normally such public comments, will be in our online Governments actions are categorically excluded from docket at https://www.regulations.gov A rule has implications for federalism further review under paragraph L60(a) and can be viewed by following that under Executive Order 13132 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS website’s instructions. Additionally, if (Federalism), if it has a substantial Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, you go to the online docket and sign up direct effect on the States, on the Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of for email alerts, you will be notified relationship between the national Environmental Consideration when comments are posted or a final government and the States, or on the supporting this determination is rule is published. distribution of power and available in the docket. For instructions List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 responsibilities among the various on locating the docket, see the levels of government. We have analyzed ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation this proposed rule under that Order and seek any comments or information that (water), Reporting and recordkeeping have determined that it is consistent may lead to the discovery of a requirements, Security measures, with the fundamental federalism significant environmental impact from Waterways. principles and preemption requirements this proposed rule. described in Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed in the Also, this proposed rule does not have G. Protest Activities preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard tribal implications under Executive The Coast Guard respects the First proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as Order 13175 (Consultation and Amendment rights of protesters. follows: Coordination with Indian Tribal Protesters are asked to call or email the PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Governments) because it would not person listed in the FOR FURTHER AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS have a substantial direct effect on one or INFORMATION CONTACT section to more Indian tribes, on the relationship coordinate protest activities so that your ■ between the Federal Government and message can be received without 1. The authority citation for part 165 Indian tribes, or on the distribution of jeopardizing the safety or security of continues to read as follows: power and responsibilities between the people, places, or vessels. Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR Federal Government and Indian tribes. 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; V. Public Participation and Request for If you believe this proposed rule has Department of Homeland Security Delegation Comments implications for federalism or Indian No. 0170.1. tribes, please call or email the person We view public participation as ■ 2. In § 165.801, revise Table 1 to read listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION essential to effective rulemaking, and as follows: CONTACT section. will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. § 165.801 Annual Fireworks displays and E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Your comment can help shape the other events in the Eighth Coast Guard The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act outcome of this rulemaking. If you District recurring safety zones. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires submit a comment, please include the * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8513

TABLE 1 OF § 165.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES

Sector Ohio valley lo- Date Sponsor/name cation Safety zone

1. 3 days—Third or Henderson Breakfast Lions Club Tri-Fest ...... Henderson, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 802.5–805.5 (Kentucky). Fourth weekend in April. 2. Multiple days—April Pittsburgh Pirates Season Fireworks ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.2–0.9 (Pennsyl- through November. vania). 3. Multiple days—April Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 470.1–470.4; extending 500 through November. ft. from the State of Ohio shoreline (Ohio). 4. Multiple days—April Pittsburgh Riverhounds Season Fireworks .... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Monongahela River, Miles 0.22–0.77 (Penn- through November. sylvania). 5. 1 day—First week in Belterra Park Gaming Fireworks ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 460.0–462.0 (Ohio). May. 6. 3 days in May ...... US Rowing Southeast Youth Championship Oak Ridge, TN ...... Clinch River, Miles 48.5–52 (Tennessee). Regatta. 7. 1 day—One Friday Live on the Levee Memorial Day Fireworks/ Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Mile 58.1–59.1 (West Vir- in May prior to me- City of Charleston. ginia). morial day. 8. 1 day—Saturday be- Venture Outdoors Festival ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–0.25; fore Memorial Day. Monongahela River, Miles 0.0–0.25 (Penn- sylvania). 9. 3 days in June ...... CMA Festival ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 190.7–191.1 ex- tending 100 feet from the left descending bank (Tennessee). 10. 1 day in June ...... Cumberland River Compact/Nashville Splash Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7–192.1 (Ten- Bash. nessee). 11. 2 days—A week- Rice’s Landing Riverfest ...... Rice’s Landing, PA ..... Monongahela River, Miles 68.0–68.8 (Penn- end in June. sylvania). 12. 2 days—Second City of Newport, KY/Italianfest ...... Newport, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 468.6–471.0 (Kentucky and Friday and Saturday Ohio). in June. 13. 1 day in June ...... Friends of the Festival, Inc./Riverbend Fes- Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.2 (Ten- tival Fireworks. nessee). 14. 1 day—Second or TriState Pottery Festival Fireworks ...... East Liverpool, OH ..... Ohio River, Miles 42.5–45.0 (Ohio). Third week of June. 15. 3 days—One of the Hadi Shrine/Evansville Freedom Festival Air Evansville, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 790.0–796.0 (Indiana). last three weekends Show. in June. 16. 1 day—One week- West Virginia Symphony Orchestra/Sym- Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 59.5–60.5 (West Vir- end in June. phony Sunday. ginia). 17. 1 day—Last week- Riverview Park Independence Festival ...... Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 617.5–620.5 (Kentucky). end in June or first weekend in July. 18. 1 day—Last week- City of Point Pleasant/Point Pleasant Point Pleasant, WV.... Ohio River, Miles 265.2–266.2, Kanawha end in June or First Sternwheel Fireworks. River Miles 0.0–0.5 (West Virginia). weekend in July. 19. 1 day—Last week- City of Aurora/Aurora Firecracker Festival ..... Aurora, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 496.7; 1400 ft. radius from end in June or first the Consolidated Grain Dock located along weekend in July. the State of Indiana shoreline at (Indiana and Kentucky). 20. 1 day—Last week PUSH Beaver County/Beaver County Boom Beaver, PA ...... Ohio River, Miles 25.2–25.6 (Pennsylvania). of June or first week of July. 21. 1 day—Last week- Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th of July Evansville, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 790.0–796.0 (Indiana). end in June or first Fireworks. week in July. 22. 1 day—Last week Newburgh Fireworks Display ...... Newburgh, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 777.3–778.3 (Indiana). in June or first week of July. 23. 1 day—Last week Rising Sun Fireworks ...... Rising Sun, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 506.0–507.0 (Indiana). in June or First week in July. 24. 1 day—Weekend Kentucky Dam Marine/Kentucky Dam Marina Gilbertsville, KY ...... 350 foot radius, from the fireworks launch before the 4th of July. Fireworks. site, on the entrance jetties at Kentucky Dam Marina, on the Tennessee River at Mile Marker 23 (Kentucky). 25. 1 day in July...... Town of Cumberland City/Lighting up the Cumberland City, TN Cumberland River, Miles 103.0–105.5 (Ten- Cumberlands. nessee). 26. 1 day in July ...... Chattanooga Presents/Pops on the River ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.2 (Ten- nessee). 27. 1 day in July ...... Randy Boyd/Independence Celebration Fire- Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 625.0–628.0 (Ten- works Display. nessee).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8514 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 OF § 165.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES—Continued

Sector Ohio valley lo- Date Sponsor/name cation Safety zone

28. 1 day—July 3rd ..... Moors Resort and Marina/Kentucky Lake Big Gilbertsville, KY ...... 600 foot radius, from the fireworks launch Bang. site, on the entrance jetty to Moors Resort and Marina, on the Tennessee River at mile marker 30.5. (Kentucky). 29. 1 day—3rd or 4th City of Paducah, KY ...... Paducah, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 934.0–936.0; Tennessee of July. River, Miles 0.0–1.0 (Kentucky). 30. 1 day—3rd or 4th City of Hickman, KY/Town Of Hickman Fire- Hickman, KY...... 700 foot radius from GPS coordinate of July. works. 36°34.5035 N, 089°11.919 W, in Hickman Harbor located at mile marker 921.5 on the Lower Mississippi River (Kentucky). 31. 1 day—July 4th ..... City of Knoxville/Knoxville Festival on the 4th Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 646.3–648.7 (Ten- nessee). 32. 1 day in July ...... Nashville NCVC/Independence Celebration ... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7–192.3 (Ten- nessee). 33. 1 day in July ...... Shoals Radio Group/Spirit of Freedom Fire- Florence, AL...... Tennessee River, Miles 254.5–257.4 (Ala- works. bama). 34. 1 day—4th of July Monongahela Area Chamber of Commerce/ Monongahela, PA...... Monongahela River, Milse 032.0–033.0 (Rain date–July 5th). Monongahela 4th of July Celebration. (Pennsylvania). 35. 1 day—July 4th ..... Cities of Cincinnati, OH and Newport, KY/July Newport, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 469.6–470.2 (Kentucky and 4th Fireworks. Ohio). 36. 1 day—July 4th ..... Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg Wellsburg, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 73.5–74.5 (West Virginia). 4th of July Freedom Celebration. 37. 1 day—week of Wheeling Symphony fireworks ...... Wheeling, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 90–92 (West Virginia). July 4th. 38. 1 day—First week Summer Motions Inc./Summer Motion ...... Ashland, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 322.1–323.1 (Kentucky). or weekend in July. 39. 1 day—week of Chester Fireworks ...... Chester, WV ...... Ohio River mile 42.0–44.0 (West Virginia). July 4th. 40. 1 day—First week Toronto 4th of July Fireworks ...... Toronto, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 58.2–58.8 (Ohio). of July. 41. 1 day—First week Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 460.0–462.0 (Ohio). of July. 42. 1 day—First week- Queen’s Landing Fireworks ...... Greenup, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 339.3–340.3 (West Vir- end or week in July. ginia). 43. 1 day—First week Gallia County Chamber of Commerce/Gallip- Gallipolis, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 269.5–270.5 (Ohio). or weekend in July. olis River Recreation Festival. 44. 1 day—First week Kindred Communications/Dawg Dazzle ...... Huntington, WV...... Ohio River, Miles 307.8–308.8 (West Vir- or weekend in July. ginia). 45. 1 day—First week Greenup City ...... Greenup, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 335.2–336.2 (Kentucky). or weekend in July. 46. 1 day—First week Middleport Community Association ...... Middleport, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 251.5–252.5 (Ohio). or weekend in July. 47. 1 day—First week People for the Point Party in the Park ...... South Point, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 317–318 (Ohio). or weekend in July. 48. 1 day—One of the City of Bellevue, KY/Bellevue Beach Park Bellevue, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 468.2–469.2 (Kentucky & first two weekends in Concert Fireworks. Ohio). July. 49. 1 day— First Week Pittsburgh 4th of July Celebration ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Ohio River, Miles 0.0–0.5, Allegheny River, of July. Miles 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Miles 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 50. 1 day—First week City of Charleston/City of Charleston Inde- Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 58.1–59.1 (West Vir- or weekend in July. pendence Day Celebration. ginia). 51. 1 day—First week Portsmouth River Days ...... Portsmouth, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 355.5–357.0 (Ohio). or weekend in July. 52. 1 day—During the Louisville Bats Baseball Club/Louisville Bats Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 602.0–605.0 (Kentucky). first week of July. Firework Show. 53. 1 day—During the Waterfront Independence Festival/Louisville Louisville, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 602.0–605.0 (Kentucky). first week of July. Orchestra Waterfront 4th. 54. 1 day—During the Celebration of the American Spirit Fireworks/ Owensboro, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 754.0–760.0 (Kentucky). first week of July. All American 4th of July. 55. 1 day—During the Riverfront Independence Festival Fireworks .. New Albany, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 606.5–609.6 (Indiana). first week of July. 56. 1 day in July ...... Grand Harbor Marina/Grand Harbor Marina Counce, TN...... Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Miles July 4th Celebration. 448.5–451.0 (Tennessee). 57. 1 day—During the City of Maysville Fireworks ...... Maysville, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 408–409 (Kentucky). first two weeks of July. 58. 1 day—One of the Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta ...... Madison, IN ...... Ohio River, Miles 554.0–561.0 (Indiana). first two weekends in July.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8515

TABLE 1 OF § 165.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES—Continued

Sector Ohio valley lo- Date Sponsor/name cation Safety zone

59. 1 day—Third Satur- Pittsburgh Irish Rowing Club/St. Brendan’s Pittsburgh, PA ...... Ohio River, Miles 7.0–9.0 (Pennsylvania). day in July. Cup Currach Regatta. 60. 1 day—Third or Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival/ Wheeling, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 90.0–90.5 (West Virginia). fourth week in July. Upper Ohio Valley Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks. 61. 1 day—Saturday Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Oakmont, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 12.0–12.5 (Pennsyl- Third or Fourth full Fireworks. vania). week of July (Rain date–following Sun- day). 62. 2 days—One week- Marietta Riverfront Roar Fireworks ...... Marietta, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 171.6–172.6 (Ohio). end in July. 63. 1 Day in July ...... Three Rivers Regatta ...... Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 642–653 (Ten- nessee). 64. 1 day—Last week- Fort Armstrong Folk Music Festival ...... Kittanning, PA ...... Allegheny River, Mile 45.1–45.5 (Pennsyl- end in July or first vania). weekend in August. 65. 1 day—First week Kittaning Folk Festival ...... Kittanning, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 44.0–46.0 (Pennsyl- of August. vania). 66. 1 day—First week Gliers Goetta Fest LLC ...... Newport, KY ...... Ohio River, Miles 469.0–471.0. in August. 67. 1 day—First or sec- Bellaire All-American Days ...... Bellaire, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 93.5–94.5 (Ohio). ond week of August. 68. 1 day—Second full PA FOB Fireworks Display ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.8–1.0 (Pennsyl- week of August. vania). 69. 1 day—Second Guyasuta Days Festival/Borough of Sharps- Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 005.5–006.0 (Pennsyl- Saturday in August. burg. vania). 70. 1 day—In the Pittsburgh Foundation/Bob O’Connor Cookie Pittsburgh, PA ...... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). Month of August. Cruise. 71. 1 day—Third week Beaver River Regatta Fireworks ...... Beaver, PA ...... Ohio River, Miles 25.2–25.8 (Pennsylvania). of August. 72. 1 day—One week- Parkersburg Homecoming Festival-Fireworks Parkersburg, WV...... Ohio River, Miles 183.5–185.5 (West Vir- end in August. ginia). 73. 1 day—One week- Ravenswood River Festival ...... Ravenswood, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 220–221 (West Virginia). end in August. 74. 1 day—The second Green Turtle Bay Resort/Grand Rivers Ma- Grand Rivers, KY ...... 420 foot radius, from the fireworks launch or third weekend of rina Day. site, at the entrance to Green Turtle Bay August. Resort, on the Cumberland River at mile marker 31.5. (Kentucky). 75. 1 day—last 2 week- Wheeling Dragon Boat Race ...... Wheeling, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 90.4–91.5 (West Virginia). ends in August/first week of September. 76. Sunday, Monday, Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–0.25, Ohio River, or Thursday from Au- Miles 0.0–0.1, Monongahela River, Miles gust through Feb- 0.0–0.1. (Pennsylvania). ruary. 77. 1 day—Labor day .. Portsmouth Labor Day Fireworks/Hamburg Portsmouth, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 355.8–356.8 (Ohio). Fireworks. 78. 1 day—one week- Riverfest/Riverfest Inc ...... Nitro, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 43.1–44.2 (West Vir- end before Labor ginia). Day. 79. 2 days—Sunday Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor and Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 469.2–470.5 (Kentucky and before Labor Day Gamble/Riverfest. Ohio) and Licking River, Miles 0.0–3.0 and Labor Day. (Kentucky). 80. 1 day—Labor Day Labor Day Fireworks Show ...... Marmet, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 67.5–68 (West Vir- or first week of Sep- ginia). tember. 81. 1 day in September Nashville Symphony/Concert Fireworks ...... Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 190.1–192.3 (Ten- nessee). 82. 1 day—Second City of Clarksville/Clarksville Riverfest ...... Clarksville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 124.5–127.0 (Ten- weekend in Sep- nessee). tember. 83. 3 days—Second or Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival Wheeling, WV ...... Ohio River, Miles 90.2–90.7 (West Virginia). third week in Sep- Foundation/Wheeling Heritage Port tember. Sternwheel Festival. 84. 1 day—One week- Boomtown Days—Fireworks ...... Nitro, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 43.1–44.2 (West Vir- end in September. ginia). 85. 1 day—One week- Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee Marietta, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 171.5–172.5 (Ohio). end in September. fireworks. 86. 1 day—One week- Tribute to the River ...... Point Pleasant, WV .... Ohio River, Miles 264.6–265.6 (West Vir- end in September. ginia).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8516 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 OF § 165.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES—Continued

Sector Ohio valley lo- Date Sponsor/name cation Safety zone

87. 1 day—One week- Aurora Fireworks ...... Aurora, IN ...... Ohio River, Mile 496.3–497.3 (Ohio). end in September. 88. 1 day—Last two Cabana on the River ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Mile 483.2–484.2 (Ohio). weekends in Sep- tember. 89. Multiple days— University of Pittsburgh Athletic Department/ Pittsburgh, PA...... Ohio River, Miles 0.0–0.1, Monongahela September through University of Pittsburgh Fireworks. River, Miles 0.0–0.1, Allegheny River, Miles January. 0.0–0.25 (Pennsylvania). 90. 1 day—First three Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/Light the Pittsburgh, PA ...... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Allegheny River, weeks of October. Night. Mile 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 91. 1 day in October ... Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/Light the Nashville, TN ...... Cumberland River, Miles 189.7–192.1 (Ten- Night Walk Fireworks. nessee). 92. 1 day—First two Yeatman’s Fireworks ...... Cincinnati, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 469.0–470.5 (Ohio). weeks in October. 93. 1 day in October ... Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the Suck ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 452.0–454.5 (Ten- nessee). 94. 1 day in October ... Chattajack ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.5 (Ten- nessee). 95. 1 day—One week- West Virginia Motor Car Festival ...... Charleston, WV ...... Kanawha River, Miles 58–59 (West Virginia). end in October. 96. 2 days—One of the Monster Pumpkin Festival...... Pittsburgh, PA...... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–0.25 (Pennsyl- last three weekends vania). in October. 97. 1 day—Friday be- Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership/Light Up Pittsburgh, PA...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–1.0 (Pennsyl- fore Thanksgiving. Night. vania). 98. 1 day—Friday be- Kittanning Light Up Night Firework Display .... Kittanning, PA ...... Allegheny River, Miles 44.5–45.5 (Pennsyl- fore Thanksgiving. vania). 99. 1 day—Friday be- Santa Spectacular/Light up Night ...... Pittsburgh, PA ...... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Allegheny River, fore Thanksgiving. Mile 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 100. 1 day—Friday be- Monongahela Holiday Show ...... Monongahela, PA ...... Ohio River, Miles 31.5–32.5 (Pennsylvania). fore Thanksgiving. 101. 1 day in Novem- Friends of the Festival/Cheer at the Pier ...... Chattanooga, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.2 (Ten- ber. nessee). 102. 1 day—Third Gallipolis in Lights ...... Gallipolis, OH ...... Ohio River, Miles 269.2–270 (Ohio). week of November. 103. 1 day—December Pittsburgh Cultural Trust/Highmark First Night Pittsburgh, PA...... Allegheny River, Miles 0.5–1.0 (Pennsyl- 31. Pittsburgh. vania). 104. 7 days—Sched- University of Tennessee/UT Football Fire- Knoxville, TN ...... Tennessee River, Miles 645.6–648.3 (Ten- uled home games. works. nessee).

* * * * * ARCHITECTURAL AND process of updating our existing Dated: February 7, 2020. TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles COMPLIANCE BOARD covered by the Americans with A.M. Beach, Disabilities Act (ADA). By this ANPRM, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 36 CFR Part 1192 the Access Board invites public Port, Sector Ohio Valley. [Docket No. ATBCB–2020–0002] comment on the substance of [FR Doc. 2020–02978 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] recommendations contained in the BILLING CODE 9110–04–P RIN 3014–AA42 report issued by its Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC) and Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for poses related questions. The Board will Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles consider comments received in response to this ANPRM, along with the AGENCY: Architectural and recommendations in the RVACC report, Transportation Barriers Compliance to develop proposed updates to our rail Board. vehicle accessibility guidelines in a ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed future rulemaking. Rulemaking. DATE: Submit comments by May 14, SUMMARY: We, the Architectural and 2020. Transportation Barriers Compliance ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Board (hereafter, ‘‘Access Board’’, identified by docket number (ATBCB– ‘‘Board’’, or ‘‘we’’), are issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed 2020–0002), by any of the following Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the methods:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8517

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 45756 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified at 36 transportation providers that operated www.regulations.gov. Follow the CFR part 1192) (hereafter, ‘‘ADA fixed guideway systems, organizations instructions for submitting comments. Accessibility Guidelines for representing individuals with • Email: [email protected]. Transportation Vehicles’’). That same disabilities, and other entities whose Include docket number ATBCB–2020– day, DOT adopted the Board’s ADA interests may be affected by the 0002 in the subject line of the message. Accessibility Guidelines for accessibility guidelines.2 Id. Due to time • Fax: 202–272–0081. Transportation Vehicles as enforceable constraints, the Committee decided to • Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: accessibility standards applicable to focus only on recommendations for new Office of Technical and Information new, used, or remanufactured ADA- rail vehicles. Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F covered vehicles. See 56 FR 45584, The RVAAC organized itself into the Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 45619–20 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified at 49 following four subcommittees: 20004–1111. CFR part 38). Communications; Boarding and Instructions: All submissions must Over the ensuing years, while the Alighting; Onboard Circulation and include the docket number (ATBCB– Access Board has issued updates to the Seating; and Rooms and Spaces. 2020–0002) for this regulatory action. ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Committee members spent most of their All comments received will be posted Transportation Vehicles for non-rail time working in the subcommittees, without change to http:// vehicles, the Board has not yet revised which reported to the full Committee. www.regulations.gov, including any the accessibility requirements The full Committee met seven times. personal information provided. applicable to rail vehicles since their The Committee adopted the following Docket: For access to the docket to initial promulgation.1 The existing guiding principles to develop its read background documents or guidelines for rail vehicles thus need to recommendations: comments received, go to be updated to, among other things, • Features providing access for www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ATBCB- incorporate new accessibility-related people with disabilities must be 2020-0002. technologies that did not exist nearly equivalent to those provided to others in three decades ago and to ensure FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terms of functionality and aesthetics, consistency with the Board’s other Technical information: Juliet Shoultz, and must not segregate individuals with subsequently issued regulations. Indeed, (202) 272–0045, Email: shoultz@access- disabilities; in 2016, when the Board revised the • board.gov. Legal information: Wendy Accessible features should be the accessibility guidelines for non-rail Marshall, (202) 272–0043, marshall@ norm for everyone; vehicles, we expressly noted that our • There may not be restrictions on access-board.gov. existing guidelines for transportation using any facilities or features until the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: vehicles that operated in fixed guideway train is stopped; • I. Legal Authority systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, Safety concerns must be balanced commuter rail, and intercity rail), which with the underlying civil rights The Americans with Disabilities Act similarly needed updating, would be principles of the ADA; (ADA) charges the Access Board with addressed in a future rulemaking. See • Establishing policy mandates will developing and maintaining minimum Final Rule, 81 FR at 90600. drive the development of improved guidelines to ensure the accessibility In May 2013, as a first step in the generations of technology; and usability of covered transportation process to update our existing rail • All train cars should be accessible; vehicles, including rail passenger cars, vehicles guidelines, the Access Board • Access Board guidelines should for persons with disabilities. See 42 convened the Rail Vehicles Access promote the development of technology, U.S.C. 12204; see also 29 U.S.C Advisory Committee (RVAAC or and not freeze current technology in 792(b)(3)(B) & (b)(10) (authorizing the Committee). See Notice of place; and Access Board to ‘‘establish and Establishment; Appointment of • ‘‘[G]rowing demographics (graying maintain’’ minimum guidelines for Members, Rail Vehicles Access of America)’’ must be considered when standards issued pursuant to titles II Advisory Committee, 78 FR 30828 (May establishing scoping for accessible and III of the ADA). These Access Board 23, 2013). RVAAC was charged with features. guidelines serve as the basis for legally ‘‘mak[ing] recommendations to the In July 2015, the Committee formally enforceable accessibility standards Board on matters associated with presented its final report (hereinafter issued by the Department of revising and updating our [rail vehicle] RVAAC Report) to the Access Board. Transportation (DOT), which is the accessibility guidelines.’’ Id. at 30829. The RVAAC Report, which totals 71 federal entity responsible for The Committee was comprised of pages, consists of a ‘‘main’’ report that implementing and enforcing the ADA’s manufacturers of transportation vehicles is broken down into five chapters non-discrimination provisions related to that operate on fixed guideway systems, (which, except for the introductory transportation vehicles. See, e.g., 42 chapter, mirror the topics covered by U.S.C. 12149(b), 12163, 12186(c) 1 For example, in 1998, the Access Board and the four subcommittees) and several (accessibility standards in DOT DOT issued a joint final rule specifying new accompanying appendices. The full regulations implementing ADA titles II accessibility requirements for over-the-road buses. RVAAC Report is available at https:// See 63 FR 51670 (Sept. 28, 1998). Also, in 2016, the and III must be ‘‘consistent with’’ the Access Board updated its existing guidelines for www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and- Access Board’s minimum guidelines). buses, over-the-road buses (OTRBs), and vans. standards/transportation/vehicles/rail- These updated guidelines incorporated new vehicles-access-advisory-committee. II. Background: Rulemaking History accessibility-related technologies, such as In sum, the Report provides the and Rail Vehicles Access Advisory automated announcement systems and level Committee’s recommendations for Committee boarding bus systems, as well as additional changes to ensure that the Board’s transportation vehicle In 1991, the Access Board first issued guidelines remained consistent with its other 2 The full list of organizations represented on the accessibility guidelines for ADA- regulations issued since 1998. See 81 FR 90600 Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee is (Dec. 14, 2016) (codified at 36 CFR 1192.21 & App. available at https://www.access-board.gov/ covered transportation vehicles, which A). DOT has not yet adopted these updated guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/ addressed minimum requirements for accessibility guidelines for non-rail vehicles as rail-vehicles-access-advisory-committee/advisory- buses, vans, and rail vehicles. 56 FR enforceable standards. committee-members.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8518 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

updated accessibility requirements with the formatting used in other currently operate rail transportation applicable to newly acquired rail accessibility guidelines. systems covered by the ADA. With vehicles, which are written using While this notice highlights certain respect to small businesses, are there regulatory-style language interspersed sections of the RVAAC Report and poses any specific issues or concerns that the with occasional textual discussion. The related questions, the Access Board Access Board should consider when appendices provide supplementary seeks comments on all developing any proposed regulatory information in the form of a reference recommendations presented in the updates to its existing accessibility copy of ADA provisions relating to RVAAC Report. More broadly, we also guidelines for rail vehicles? transportation vehicles (Appendix A), a seek comment on cross-cutting issues list of operational matters for DOT including the potential impact of the B. Communication Access consideration that arose during Report’s recommendations on the safety of rail passengers and personnel, Currently, the only provisions committee deliberations but fall outside regarding communication for rail the Board’s jurisdiction (Appendix B), implementation costs, and the ways that vehicles in the existing guidelines and minority reports submitted by three such costs might be minimized while specify that each vehicle be equipped Committee members (Appendix C). still achieving an appropriate level of access for persons with disabilities. with a public address system permitting It is important to emphasize that the transportation system personnel, or RVAAC Report merely sets forth the IV. Discussion of RVAAC recorded or digitized human speech Committee’s non-binding Recommendations and Questions for messages, to announce stations and recommendations for consideration by Public Comment provide other information, with some the Access Board. The Committee’s Discussed below are some of the exceptions. See 36 CFR 1192.61, recommendations should not be viewed recommendations posed in the RVAAC 1192.87, 1192.103 & 1192.121. as the Board’s own proposed revisions Report that, if implemented, would to our existing rail vehicle accessibility The RVAAC Report recommended a represent changes from the Access guidelines. While we will consider the robust expansion of requirements for Board’s existing requirements for rail RVAAC Report when formulating accessible communications, including vehicles in the ADA Accessibility proposed updates to the rail vehicle provisions for variable message signage Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles guidelines, other pertinent sources, (VMS) and hearing induction loops. It (36 CFR part 1192). The Board including public comment received in also recommended requiring VMS and highlights these recommendations and response to this ANPRM, will be real-time route map tracking (where poses related questions to the public for considered. provided) to be located in at least two the purpose of obtaining additional locations in each car, so that every seat III. Areas for Public Comment information about recent research and has a view of one or more of the current technology relevant to these Considering the significant public accessible signs. RVAAC Report, Chap. recommended changes, and the interest in the RVAAC Report and in 2, §§ I–XI. potential costs of implementing such anticipation of a future rulemaking to changes. Question 4: What solutions or ‘‘refresh’’ the accessibility guidelines for technologies are commercially available rail vehicles, the Access Board issues A. Application that, if implemented, would be capable this ANPRM. Specifically the Board The Access Board’s existing rail of providing access to public seeks public comment in two areas: (a) vehicle guidelines apply to all ADA- communications onboard rail vehicles? The substance of the recommendations covered new, used, and remanufactured Question 5: What solutions or in the RVAAC Report; and (b) related rail vehicles. However, due to time technologies are commercially available questions about the feasibility or constraints, the RVAAC only addressed that, if implemented on rail vehicles, potential impact of specific and provided recommendations would provide accessible emergency recommendations (e.g., design, pertaining to new rail vehicles. This information to passengers in real-time? operations, cost), as well as current limited scope of the RVAAC Report research, data, and technologies relating does not mean that, when the Access Question 6: What are the design and to the improvement of rail vehicle Board issues a proposed rule to update cost impacts of the RVAAC’s proposed accessibility. The Access Board our existing accessibility guidelines, we requirement for variable messaging encourages all interested parties to will similarly limit our scope to new rail systems on rail cars? provide comment, including vehicles. governmental agencies, private entities Question 7: What are the design and Question 1: Would it be feasible for cost impacts of the RVAAC’s proposed that own or operate rail vehicles, remanufactured rail cars to meet the individuals with disabilities, and requirement for hearing induction loops accessibility requirements on rail cars? advocacy organizations. Comments recommended in the RVAAC Report? submitted in response to this ANPRM What would be the challenges and costs C. Boarding and Alighting will be considered by the Access Board of applying the RVAAC’s proposed when developing any forthcoming accessibility requirements to The RVACC Report stressed that ‘‘full- notice of proposed rulemaking. remanufactured rail cars? For each length level or near level boarding In reviewing and commenting on the challenge and or cost that you raise, should be the highest priority and most RVAAC Report, we strongly encourage please indicate the type of rail vehicle preferred method of boarding on all commenters to focus on the substance of affected. fixed guideway (e.g. rail) modes.’’ the Committee’s recommendations, Question 2: What is the typical RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § I.A. But, rather than the specific wording of lifespan of different types of rail when not required or possible, particular recommendations. In any vehicles? How often is each type of ‘‘boarding should be, as often as future proposal to update the existing existing rail vehicle replaced with a new possible, by ramp or bridge-plate as the accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles, or remanufactured vehicle? primary means for boarding’’ and the Access Board will develop its own Question 3: We are not aware of any mechanical lifts should only be used as regulatory text and ensure consistency small governmental jurisdictions that a back-up alternative. See id. § I.B.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8519

1. Car-Borne Ramps, Bridge Plates, and additional information regarding design proposal is to ensure passengers can Lifts loads on rail vehicles. readily board and alight from vehicles, Question 10: What would be the especially during high capacity periods Currently, the existing guidelines for design and cost impacts if the design and when alternative doorways are not rail vehicles permit station-based ramps, load requirement for rail vehicle-based available, including when one of the bi- bridge plates, and lifts for use in lifts was increased to 800 pounds parting doors fails to open. However, boarding and alighting in certain minimum? Are there any types of rail the Committee recommended this as a situations. See 36 CFR 1192.83, 1192.95 vehicles requiring a lift to board for best practice and not a requirement & 1192.125. The Committee which an 800-pound minimum design because it recognized that larger panels recommended requiring car-borne load would not be feasible? can create unintended consequences ramps, bridge plates, and lifts in certain Question 11: What is the current and it did not want to inhibit more instances. RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § I.B. design load of newly manufactured lifts efficient, reliable, and safe designs. Were this recommendation included in used for rail vehicles? RVACC Report, Chap. 4, §§ I.A & I.B(1)– a proposed rule, it would, in most 3. Platform Lift Service Size (2). circumstances, prohibit the use of Question 13: How prevalent is the Currently, the Access Board’s rail station-based lifts, and would instead situation where a single leaf of a bi- vehicles guidelines require lift platforms require rail vehicles to provide car- parting side door on a rail vehicle fails to have a minimum clear width of 30 borne ramps, bridge plates, and lifts. In to open, thereby restricting the clear inches and a minimum clear length of a minority report, the Metropolitan width to less than 32-inches? Transportation Authority of the State of 48 inches, as measured from 2 inches Question 14: What would be the New York raised concerns with this above the platform surface to 30 inches design implications of a requirement recommendation, asserting that the new above the surface. The minimum clear that one leaf of bi-parting doors on rail gap recommendations will require that width as measured at the platform vehicles provide a clear width of 32 the bridge plates installed on the cars be surface to a height of 2 inches is inches minimum? capable of traversing the largest vertical permitted to be 281⁄2 inches instead of and horizontal gap at any station. The 30 inches to accommodate the structure 5. Between-Car Barriers and frame of doors on some rail station with the largest gap will dictate The existing guidelines for rail vehicles. See 36 CFR 1192.83(b)(6), the bridge plate design for all new cars. vehicles require between-car barriers for 1192.95(b)(6) & 1192.125(b)(6). The Consequently, the bridge plates carried light and rapid rail systems and certain RVAAC Report recommended on the cars may be very long to commuter rail systems. 36 CFR 1192.63, increasing the size of lift platform accommodate the largest gaps. These 1192.85 & 1192.109. This requires that surfaces to a clear width of 32 inches long bridge plates may create a safety a device or system be provided to minimum and a clear length of 54 hazard when deployed in confined areas prevent, deter, or warn individuals from inches minimum, both measured from at a station. Id. at App. C (MTA–SNY inadvertently stepping off the platform the platform surface to 40 inches above Minority Report, pp. 62–63). between cars. Id. the platform surface. See RVAAC Question 8: Please identify research The RVAAC Report recommends that Report, Chap. 3, § IV.B. studies or data that address the impact between-car barriers also be required for of car-borne ramps, bridge plates, or lifts Currently available research and the RVAAC’s recommendations rail vehicles used in intercity and high- on rail vehicle operation, maintenance, speed rail systems. RVAAC Report, or rider safety. demonstrate a potential need to increase the size of the lift platform to Chap. 4, § V.A. Amtrak raised concerns Question 9: What would be the cost accommodate larger wheeled mobility about this proposal in a minority report, implications if ramps, bridge plates, and devices and advancement in their asserting that while between-car barriers lifts were required to be mounted on rail engineering and design. See Center for are appropriate for high-platform, level- vehicles instead of being based at Inclusive Design and Environmental boarding, ‘‘[b]i-level long intercity trains stations? Access, Anthropometry of Wheeled will see no benefit from adding the barriers, will add cost and may in fact 2. Lift Design Load Mobility Project—Final Report (Dec. 2010), available at http:// create a safety hazard to railroad The RVAAC Report recommended www.udeworld.com/documents/ employees responsible for coupling and increasing the lift design load from the anthropometry/pdfs/Anthropometryof uncoupling cars.’’ RVAAC Report, existing requirement of 600 pounds to WheeledMobilityProject_Final Appendix C (Amtrak Minority Report, 800 pounds. See RVAAC Report, Chap. Report.pdf. p. 53). 3, § IV.A; see also 36 CFR 1192.83(b), Question 12: What would be the Question 15: What data or other 1192.95(b) & 1192.125(b) (existing design impacts on rail vehicles if the evidence supports a need for between- Access Board specifications for design required size of platforms on rail car barriers on rail vehicles used for loads of rail vehicle-based lifts). In the vehicle-based lifts was increased to a intercity or high-speed rail service, if Access Board’s final rule promulgating clear width of 32 inches minimum and any? updated accessibility requirements for clear length of 54 inches minimum? Question 16: If requirements for non-rail vehicles, we retained the 600- between-car barriers were extended to pound design load for vehicle lifts based 4. Bi-Parting Side Doors rail vehicles used for intercity or high- on the National Highway Traffic Safety The existing guidelines require that speed rail service, should there be a Administration’s Federal Motor Vehicle accessible passenger doorways have a specified minimum between-car gap Safety Standards for public use lifts, clear opening width of 32 inches. See 38 that would trigger application of such a which are codified at 49 CFR 571.403 CFR 1192.53(a)(1), 1192.73(a)(1), requirement? If so, what size gap should and 571.404. See 36 CFR 1192.21, 1192.93(a)(1) & 1192.113(a)(1). The be used to trigger any such requirement? Appendix A, T402.2. However, the RVACC Report recommends that bi- Question 17: What would be the cost Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards parting side doors should have one leaf of requiring between-car barriers on rail address lifts used on motor vehicles, not that provides a clear width opening of vehicles used for intercity or high-speed rail cars. The Access Board thus seeks at least 32 inches. The purpose of this rail service?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8520 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

D. On Board Accessibility upper level. RVAAC Report, Chap 4, they attempted to use convertible spaces § IX. during the development of their new 1. Mobility Aid Seating Location Size Question 19: Should vertical access be dining cars, the convertible spaces were The Access Board’s existing required on new intercity bi-level criticized as ‘‘making a spectacle’’ of the guidelines require clear floor space for lounge cars? If so, should such a arrival of someone using a wheelchair. mobility aid seating locations of 48 requirement apply only to certain types RVAAC Report, Appendix C (Amtrak inches by 30 inches. See 36 CFR of intercity bi-level cars (such as those Minority Report, p. 54). 1192.83(a)(1), 1192.57(b), 1192.125(d)(2) that provide a viewing dome on the Question 25: What would be the & 1192.95(d)(2). In the RVAAC Report, upper level)? advantages and disadvantages of having the Committee recommended increasing Question 20: Is it technically feasible convertible/readily removable seating in required clear floor space to 54 inches for platform lifts to serve the upper dining cars on rail vehicles to by 32 inches where the space is levels of bi-level rail cars? accommodate passengers using confined on no more than two sides, Question 21: What are the likely costs, wheelchairs. including both one-time equipment and 59 inches by 32 inches where the David M. Capozzi, space is confined on three sides. installation costs and ongoing Executive Director. RVAAC Report, Chap 4, § IV.A. See also maintenance, if vertical access was Center for Inclusive Design and required on intercity bi-level rail cars? [FR Doc. 2020–02843 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150–01–P Environmental Access, Anthropometry 3. Handrails and Stanchions for of Wheeled Mobility Project—Final Onboard Circulation Report (Dec. 2010), available at http:// The Access Board’s existing www.udeworld.com/documents/ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION guidelines require that handrails and anthropometry/pdfs/Anthropometryof AGENCY stanchions not encroach on the WheeledMobilityProject_Final accessible routes and permit safe 40 CFR Part 52 Report.pdf. The Metropolitan boarding, onboard circulation, seating Transportation Authority of the State of [EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0029; FRL–10005– and standing assistance, and alighting New York raised concerns in a RVAAC 07-Region 1] by persons with disabilities. 36 CFR Minority Report about the loss of 1192.57, 1192.77, 1192.97 & 1192.115. additional seats with the increased floor Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; The RVAAC recommended retaining the space. RVAAC Report, Appendix C Approval of Single Source Order existing requirement for the diameter of (MTA–SNY Minority Report, p. 68). the interior handrails and stanchions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Question 18: What would be the effect with additional specifications that (a) Agency(EPA). on the design and operation of rail cars handrails or handholds be included on ACTION: Proposed rule. if the required size of mobility aid transverse passenger seats in all rail seating locations were increased from 48 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection cars, and (b) in light and rapid rail Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a inches by 30 inches to a requirement of systems, vertical stanchions be provided (1) 54 inches by 32 inches where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) adjacent to, or as part of, seats on revision submitted by the State of New space is confined on no more than two alternate rows and sides of the aisle. sides and (2) 59 inches by 32 inches Hampshire. The revision approves a RVAAC Report, Chap. 4, § VI.B. The single source order for PSI Molded where the space is confined on three current regulation does not address the sides? Plastics. The intended effect of this visibility of handholds, handrails, and action is to propose approval of this 2. Vertical Access stanchions. The Access Board is item into the New Hampshire SIP. This interested in obtaining public comment There is no requirement in the action is being taken in accordance with on any potential need for visual contrast the Clean Air Act. existing guidelines to provide vertical for handholds, handrails, or stanchions. DATES: access on rail cars. In the RVAAC Question 22: Are additional types of Written comments must be report, the committee recommended handholds, handrails, or stanchions received on or before March 16, 2020. adding a requirement for vertical access needed on rapid, light rail, intercity or ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, in new intercity bi-level lounge cars. commuter rail vehicles beyond those identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– The Committee explained that a lounge currently required? If so, please OAR–2020–0029 at https:// ‘‘means any car with a primary function describe. www.regulations.gov, or via email to that is to enhance the passenger Question 23: Are handholds, [email protected]. For experience beyond the purchased coach handrails, or stanchions for rail vehicles comments submitted at Regulations.gov, or sleeper accommodation and is so currently designed with visual contrast? follow the online instructions for designed to enhance viewing from the Question 24: Is there a need for visual submitting comments. Once submitted, second level.’’ Such lounge cars include contrast on handholds, handrails, or comments cannot be edited or removed open platform observation areas that are stanchions? If so, please explain. from Regulations.gov. For either manner accessible to passengers, whether or not of submission, the EPA may publish any an extra fare is charged, and single level E. Dining Cars comment received to its public docket. cars (known as ‘‘dome cars) that offer an Regarding accessible seating in dining Do not submit electronically any elevated area designed for viewing cars, the RVAAC proposed to increase information you consider to be scenery. The Committee explained that the required wheelchair spaces and Confidential Business Information (CBI) the goal is to expand the full rail travel transfer seating at tables from one to two or other information whose disclosure is experience for passengers who might spaces. The Committee also noted that restricted by statute. Multimedia otherwise miss out on key features of this requirement could be met with submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be the travel. This would include convertible spaces. RVAAC Report, accompanied by a written comment. providing a lift, an accessible restroom Chap. 5, § II.A. In response to this The written comment is considered the (if an upper level restroom is provided), suggested requirement, Amtrak, in a official comment and should include and accessible wheelchair spaces on the minority report, indicated that when discussion of all points you wish to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8521

make. The EPA will generally not Dated: January 30, 2020. Identifier Number (0920–AA68) for this consider comments or comment Dennis Deziel, rulemaking. All relevant comments, contents located outside of the primary Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. including any personal information submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or [FR Doc. 2020–02226 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] provided, will be posted without change other file sharing system). For BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to http://www.regulations.gov. For additional submission methods, please detailed instructions on submitting contact the person identified in the FOR public comments, see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of For the full EPA public comment policy, HUMAN SERVICES information about CBI or multimedia this document. submissions, and general guidance on 42 CFR Part 37 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: making effective comments, please visit Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ [Docket No. CDC–2019–0088; NIOSH–330] Tusculum Ave., MS: C–48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818–1629 commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly RIN 0920–AA68 available docket materials are available (this is a toll-free number); email at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance [email protected]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Program: B Reader Decertification and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Autopsy Payment I. Public Participation Radiation Division, 5 Post Office AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Interested parties may participate in Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA Prevention, HHS. this rulemaking by submitting written requests that if at all possible, you views, opinions, recommendations, and contact the contact listed in the FOR ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. data. Comments received, including FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to SUMMARY: HHS proposes to revise the attachments and other supporting schedule your inspection. The Regional National Institute for Occupational materials, are part of the public record Office’s official hours of business are Safety and Health (NIOSH), Coal and subject to public disclosure. Do not Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to Workers’ Health Surveillance Program include any information in your 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. (Program) regulations by adding a comment or supporting materials that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob provision to allow NIOSH to suspend or you do not wish to be disclosed. You McConnell, Environmental Engineer, revoke B Reader certification. may submit comments on any topic Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code Certification may be revoked for any B related to this notice of proposed 05–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Reader found by NIOSH to have rulemaking. engaged in a pattern of providing Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, II. Statutory Authority Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts unreasonably inaccurate chest The Federal Mine Safety and Health 02109–3912; (617) 918–1046. radiograph classifications in practice— Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 91–173, 30 U.S.C. [email protected]. those that are found by the Program to diverge substantially from a competent 801 et seq.) (Mine Act), authorizes the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the interpretation of the radiographs, as HHS Secretary (Secretary) to work with Final Rules Section of this Federal determined by a panel of practicing, coal mine operators to make available to Register, EPA is approving the State’s certified B Readers selected by NIOSH. coal miners the opportunity to have SIP submittal as a direct final rule In addition to the B Reader provisions, regular and routine chest radiographs without prior proposal because the HHS would also amend existing (X-rays) in order to detect coal workers’ Agency views this as a noncontroversial regulatory text to allow compensation pneumoconiosis (i.e., black lung) and submittal and anticipates no adverse for pathologists who perform autopsies prevent its progression in individual comments. A detailed rationale for the on coal miners at a market rate, on a miners. The Mine Act grants the approval is set forth in the direct final discretionary basis as needed for public Secretary general authority to issue rule. If no adverse comments are health purposes. regulations as is deemed appropriate to carry out provisions of the Act and received in response to this action rule, DATES: Comments must be received by no further activity is contemplated. If specifically directs that medical May 14, 2020. Comments on the examination of coal miners shall be EPA receives adverse comments, the information collection approval request direct final rule will be withdrawn and given in accordance with specifications sought under the Paperwork Reduction prescribed by the Secretary (30 U.S.C. all public comments received will be Act must be received by April 14, 2020. addressed in a subsequent final rule 843(a), 957). The Mine Act also ADDRESSES: Written comments: based on this proposed rule. EPA will authorizes the Secretary to establish Comments may be submitted by any of specifications for the reading of not institute a second comment period. the following methods: Any parties interested in commenting radiographs and to pay for autopsies • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// submitted to the Program. on this action should do so at this time. www.regulations.gov. Follow the Please note that if EPA receives adverse instructions for submitting comments to III. Background and Need for comment on an amendment, paragraph, the docket. Rulemaking or section of this rule and if that • Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert All mining work generates fine provision may be severed from the A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 1090 particles of dust in the air. Coal miners remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, OH who inhale excessive dust are known to as final those provisions of the rule that 45226. develop a group of diseases of the lungs are not the subject of an adverse Instructions: All submissions received and airways, including dust-induced comment. must include the agency name (Centers fibrotic lung disease (pneumoconiosis) For additional information, see the for Disease Control and Prevention, and chronic obstructive pulmonary direct final rule which is located in the HHS) and docket number (CDC–2019– disease, including chronic bronchitis Rules Section of this Federal Register. 0088; NIOSH–330) or Regulation and emphysema. To address such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8522 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

threats to the U.S. coal mining classifications in accordance with ILO has occasionally learned of B Readers workforce, the Mine Act was enacted in standards. The B Reader examination found to provide unreasonably 1969 and amended in 1977, authorizing currently offered by NIOSH consists of inaccurate radiograph classifications in the NIOSH Coal Workers’ Health the classification of 125 chest formal litigation and compensation Surveillance Program, within the radiographs over the course of 6 hours; proceedings relative to the actual Respiratory Health Division, to detect the test addresses proficiency in features of the chest radiographs in pneumoconiosis and prevent its classification of small opacities, large question. ‘‘Unreasonably inaccurate’’ progression in individual miners, while opacities, pleural abnormalities, and classifications are those that diverge at the same time providing information certain other abnormalities that may substantially from a competent for evaluation of temporal and appear in the lung radiographs. In order interpretation of the radiographs and are geographic trends in pneumoconiosis. to maintain B Reader status, B Readers unsupported by the chest radiographs in To inform each miner of his or her must take and pass the B Reader question, as determined by a panel of health status, the Act requires that coal recertification exam every 5 years. practicing, certified B Readers selected mine operators provide each miner who B Readers participate in the NIOSH by NIOSH. For example, one B Reader begins work at a coal mine for the first Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance was accused of ‘‘under-reading’’ chest time a chest radiograph (X-ray) through Program, as well as other national and radiographs, frequently not identifying an approved facility as soon as possible state programs addressing dust-related severe cases of pneumoconiosis that after employment starts. Three years illnesses,2 and are also involved with may have been indicated by the later a miner must be offered a second epidemiologic evaluations, surveillance, radiographs; 4 another was accused of chest radiograph. If this second and worker monitoring programs ‘‘over-reading,’’ frequently identifying examination reveals evidence of involving many types of asbestosis where the radiographs were pneumoconiosis, the miner is entitled to pneumoconioses. In applying the ILO subsequently found not to support that a third chest radiograph 2 years after the Classification, B Readers compare sets determination.5 The Program second. Further, all miners working in of standard images, which represent regulations in 42 CFR part 37 do not a coal mine must be offered a chest different types of abnormalities and currently provide a mechanism for radiograph approximately every 5 years. levels of disease severity, with images of NIOSH to take remedial action Under NIOSH supervision, chest the individual being evaluated to addressing such B Readers. radiographs are assessed and a summary identify parenchymal abnormalities report based on at least two (small and large opacities), pleural Autopsies independent classifications (readings) of changes, and other features that can The Mine Act also authorizes HHS to each periodic chest radiograph is sent to occur in chest radiographs of provide for coal miner autopsies and to each participating coal miner, who then individuals with pneumoconiosis. In pay for their submission to NIOSH. has the opportunity to take action to the current ILO Classification, the B Autopsies can be used for public health reduce further dust exposure if early Reader is first asked to grade film purposes such as studying the emerging dust-induced lung disease is detected. quality and then to categorize small issue of rapidly progressive and severe The combined results of these opacities according to their presence, pneumoconiosis in coal miners by radiographic examinations of miners shape and size, location, and profusion. assessing its pathology and lung content also enable NIOSH to track rates and Large opacities are classified according of mineral particles relative to what was patterns of pneumoconiosis among the to their presence and size. The B Reader seen in the past. Also, autopsies are participating miners. also assesses the presence, location, sometimes requested after mine disasters. The current regulatory B Readers width, extent, and degree of calcification of pleural abnormalities as language, promulgated over 45 years Pursuant to NIOSH Coal Workers’ well as provides a description of ago, provides for payments to Health Surveillance Program regulations additional features related to dust pathologists up to $200; today, in 42 CFR 37.51 and 37.52, chest exposure and other etiologies visible on autopsies generally cost between $2,000 radiographs taken for the Program are the chest radiograph.3 and $3,000. As a result, very few assessed by qualified licensed physician The classification of chest radiographs autopsies of coal miners are provided to B Readers. B Readers are physicians is semi-quantitative and relies on the B the Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance who have demonstrated proficiency in Reader’s professional judgment, Program and the Autopsy Program is the use of the International Labour comparing case radiographs to the ILO rarely used. Increasing the Office (ILO) Classification of standard classification radiographs. compensation rate would make it Radiographs of Pneumoconioses 1 by Skilled B Readers can disagree about the possible for pathologists to conduct taking and passing a specially-designed presence of disease, particularly in a autopsies of coal miners, thereby proficiency examination offered by radiograph with borderline findings, or allowing the NIOSH Respiratory Health NIOSH, as specified in 42 CFR 37.52. differ somewhat in classifying the Division to better study pneumoconiosis The goal of the NIOSH B Reader severity of disease. However, since the in contemporary coal miners and to Program is to ensure competency in the beginning of the Program in the 1970s, more thoroughly perform public health detection of pneumoconiosis by the NIOSH Respiratory Health Division investigations, especially in the evaluating the ability of readers to aftermath of mine disasters. classify a test set of radiographs, thereby 2 Other examples of national compensation creating and maintaining a pool of programs that use B Readers include the 4 The Center for Public Integrity [2013], Johns qualified readers having the skills and Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Hopkins Medical Unit Rarely Finds Black Lung, Compensation Programs (OWCP), Division of Coal Helping Coal Industry Defeat Miners’ Claims, ability to provide accurate and precise Mine Workers’ Compensation, Black Lung Program; https://publicintegrity.org/environment/johns- and the Asbestos Medical Surveillance Program, hopkins-medical-unit-rarely-finds-black-lung- 1 International Labour Office [2011], Guidelines administered by the Navy and Marine Corps Public helping-coal-industry-defeat-miners-claims/. for the use of ILO International Classification of Health Center. 5 Fisher D [2012], Law Firm Hit with $429,000 Pneumoconiosis, revised edition 2011, Geneva, 3 NIOSH [2015], Chest Radiograph Classification, Verdict over Faked Asbestos Suits, Forbes, https:// Switzerland: International Labour Office. CDC/NIOSH form (M) 2.8, http://www.cdc.gov/ www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/12/21/law- Occupational Safety and Health Series No. 22 (Rev. niosh/topics/surveillance/ords/pdfs/CWHSP- firm-hit-with-429000-verdict-over-faked-asbestos- 2011). ReadingForm-2.8.pdf. suits/#14f1d2f92325.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8523

IV. Summary of Proposed Rule pattern of providing unreasonably V. Regulatory Assessment To promote administrative efficiency inaccurate chest radiographs in practice, Requirements and ensure program integrity, HHS the B Reader’s certification will be A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory proposes to amend 42 CFR part 37 by permanently revoked. Planning and Review) and Executive adding a new paragraph (d) to § 37.52, A new paragraph (d)(3) would Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and to allow NIOSH to take remedial action establish an appeal process for those B Regulatory Review) for any B Reader found by NIOSH to Readers whose certifications have been have engaged in a pattern of providing Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 revoked by the Coal Workers’ Health direct agencies to assess all costs and chest radiograph classifications in Surveillance Program. practice that are found by the Program benefits of available regulatory to be unreasonably inaccurate, as HHS is also considering permitting alternatives and, if regulation is determined by a panel of practicing, the revocation or suspension of B necessary, to select regulatory certified B Readers selected by NIOSH. Reader certifications for demonstrated approaches that maximize net benefits Remedial actions may be taken at patterns of violating the B Reader’s Code (including potential economic, NIOSH’s discretion or in response to a of Ethics. The Code of Ethics is available environmental, public health and safety complaint from any interested party or on the NIOSH website at https:// effects, distributive impacts, and at the discretion of the Coal Workers’ www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the Health Surveillance Program. To ensure chestradiography/breader-ethics.html, importance of quantifying both costs that NIOSH can identify those B Readers and would be included in part 37 as an and benefits, of reducing costs, of who provide unreasonably inaccurate appendix should this option be adopted. harmonizing rules, and of promoting classifications to compensation HHS encourages comments on this flexibility. programs, a valid complaint from any matter. This proposed rule has been determined not to be a ‘‘significant interested party must provide the chest In addition to the proposed regulatory radiograph(s) and ILO classification(s) regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of language on remediating inaccurate B E.O. 12866. The revisions proposed in being contested, as well as a letter from Readers, HHS would also amend a medical professional supporting the this notice would allow NIOSH to take existing regulatory text in §§ 37.202 remedial action addressing any B complaint that the classification was through 37.204 to allow NIOSH, on a unreasonable. A new § 37.52(d)(1) Readers who frequently provide chest discretionary basis as needed for public would describe the complaint process. radiograph classifications in practice health purposes, to better compensate Paragraph (d)(1)(i) would define that are determined by the Program to pathologists who perform autopsies on ‘‘unreasonably inaccurate’’ be unreasonably inaccurate. Part 37 classifications as those that a panel of B coal miners. Existing text in § 37.202(a) would also be revised to allow NIOSH Readers would unanimously determine would be revised to clarify that to compensate pathologists at a are substantially divergent from a pathologists must secure prior contemporary rate for autopsies competent interpretation of the authorization from NIOSH and have submitted to the Coal Workers’ Health radiographs and are unsupported by the legal consent to conduct an autopsy on Surveillance Program. radiographs in question. Paragraph a coal miner. New language in The proposed revisions to Part 37 (d)(1)(ii) would describe the elements of § 37.202(a)(2)(i) and (ii) would clarify would not impose significant costs on a valid complaint; paragraph (d)(1)(iii) the types of chest radiographs accepted the public and would benefit coal would describe an invalid complaint. by the Program, and new language in miners and coal mine operators. A new § 37.52(d)(2) would describe § 37.202(b) would specify that Depending on the types of unreasonably the procedures that would be used by pathologists would be compensated in inaccurate classifications they provide, NIOSH to determine whether an accordance with the ordinary, usual, or B Readers can compromise the health of individual B Reader has engaged in a customary fee charged by other and benefits owed to coal miners who pattern of providing unreasonably pathologists for the same services. have pneumoconiosis by under-reading inaccurate chest radiographs in practice. Section 37.203 would be revised to or cause unnecessary emotional distress Complaint investigations would involve update the reference for standard to miners and unnecessary costs for a panel of at least four B Readers who autopsy procedures. Finally, new mine operators by over-reading. would independently review the language in § 37.204(a) would detail the Allowing the NIOSH Respiratory Health information provided in each new requirement that the pathologist Division to take remedial actions complaint. If at least one B Reader on obtain written authorization from the addressing these B Readers through the panel finds that the contested NIOSH Respiratory Health Division suspension or revocation of their B classification is reasonable, no further prior to completion of the autopsy. Reader certifications would ensure that review will be conducted. If the B Existing language specifying how claims these adverse outcomes were minimized Readers on the panel independently and for payment should be submitted to or avoided. Allowing the NIOSH Respiratory Health Division to better unanimously conclude that the NIOSH would be reorganized. classification is not reasonable, the compensate pathologists for autopsies actions described in paragraphs In existing § 37.201(b), the definition submitted to the Program would also (d)(2)(ii)–(v) will be taken. of Miner would be revised to remove the ensure that NIOSH is able to study In accordance with the new word ‘‘underground,’’ to clarify that the pneumoconiosis in coal miners. provisions in § 37.52(d)(2), the autopsy provisions pertain to all coal The costs to the Federal government certification of a B Reader who is under miners. Section 37.201(d) would also be of administering these revisions would investigation will remain in good revised to update the definition of be minor and infrequent. NIOSH standing until the Program issues its ‘‘NIOSH,’’ clarifying that the name of estimates that over a 5-year period, it final decision regarding remedial the NIOSH division responsible for might conduct two evaluations of B actions. If three independent complaint administering the Coal Workers’ Health Readers, costing NIOSH approximately investigations conclude that an Surveillance Program is now the $3,000. Over the same period, NIOSH individual B Reader has engaged in a Respiratory Health Division. estimates it might fund up to 20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8524 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

autopsies, costing NIOSH approximately this proposed rule has ‘‘no significant collected; and (d) ways to minimize the $60,000. economic impact upon a substantial burden of the collection of information The only costs potentially imposed on number of small entities’’ within the on respondents. Written comments the public would be borne by B Readers meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility should be received within 60 days of the whose certifications are suspended or Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). publication of this notice. The addition revoked. NIOSH estimates that over a 5- of additional paperwork requirements D. Paperwork Reduction Act year period it might suspend or revoke resulting from this proposed rule will certifications for one B Reader. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), increase the burden associated with the However, conducting B Reader medical 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an following provisions: examinations is generally infrequent agency to invite public comment on, Section 37.52 Proficiency in the use of within a physician’s medical practice, and to obtain Office of Management and systems for classifying the and moreover, other medical procedures Budget (OMB) approval of, any pneumoconioses. This section similarly compensated would likely regulation that requires 10 or more establishes the process for certifying B substitute for conducting B Reader people to report information to the Readers. Of the 167 B Readers currently examinations. It is not possible to agency or to keep certain records. In certified and the approximately reasonably estimate whether such costs accordance with section 3507(d) of the additional 200 who will be certified would arise and, if so, their level and PRA, HHS has determined that the PRA over the next 10 years, HHS anticipates frequency. does apply to information collection that no more than three B Readers may B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing and recordkeeping requirements be disciplined over time. Of those, HHS Regulation and Controlling Regulatory included in this rule. OMB has already expects two B Readers to challenge or Costs) approved the information collection and appeal the decision to take disciplinary recordkeeping requirements under OMB Executive Order 13771 requires action; if all decisions are challenged Control Number 0920–0020, National executive departments and agencies to and the final decision to revoke Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance eliminate at least two existing certification is appealed, NIOSH would regulations for every new significant Program (CWHSP) (expiration date 9/ receive up to eight letters (for each of regulation that imposes costs. HHS has 30/2021). HHS has determined that the the four final disciplinary decisions). determined that this rulemaking is cost- proposed amendments in this HHS estimates that the challenge or neutral because it does not require any rulemaking would not impact the appeal letter will take no more than 30 new action by stakeholders. The existing collection of data but would minutes to complete, totaling 4 hours rulemaking ensures that coal miners add two new items to the approval: B annually. There will be no form properly receive compensation for their Reader challenge and appeal, and the associated with this collection. occupational illness and that NIOSH pathologist prior authorization request. Section 37.204 Procedure for can more thoroughly study the To request more information or to obtaining payment. This section would development of pneumoconiosis. obtain a copy of the data collection establish that a pathologist who wants Because OMB has determined that this plans and instruments, you may call to submit an autopsy to the Coal rulemaking is not significant, pursuant 404–639–5960; send comments to Workers’ Health Surveillance Program to E.O. 12866, and because it does not Kimberly S. Lane, 1600 Clifton Road, must first obtain written authorization impose costs, OMB has determined that MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333; or send an from the NIOSH Respiratory Health this rulemaking is exempt from the email to [email protected]. Division. HHS expects that the number requirements of E.O. 13771. Thus it has Comments are invited on the of requests will vary substantially from not been reviewed by OMB. following: (a) Whether the proposed year-to-year. For example, more requests collection of information is necessary might be granted following a mine C. Regulatory Flexibility Act for the proper performance of the disaster. Over a period of years, HHS The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), functions of the Agency, including expects an average of about four 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires each whether the information shall have requests for prior authorization agency to consider the potential impact practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the annually. HHS estimates that each of its regulations on small entities Agency’s estimate of the burden of the request for prior authorization will take including small businesses, small proposed collection of information; (c) no more than 15 minutes to complete, governmental units, and small not-for- ways to enhance the quality, utility, and averaging about 1 hour annually over a profit organizations. HHS certifies that clarity of the information to be period of years.

Average Number of Responses burden per Total burden Section Title respondents per response (hr) respondent (min)

37.52 ...... Challenge to disciplinary action and appeal of decerti- 2 4 30/60 4 fication decision. 37.204 ...... Autopsy prior authorization ...... 4 1 15/60 1

Total ...... 5

E. Small Business Regulatory seq.), HHS will report the promulgation F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Enforcement Fairness Act of this rule to Congress prior to its 1995 effective date. As required by Congress under the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8525

effects of Federal regulatory actions on consistent with the Federal Plain (iii) A complaint that fails to include State, local, and Tribal governments, Writing Act guidelines. any required element will be considered and the private sector ‘‘other than to the invalid, and the NIOSH Respiratory List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 37 extent that such regulations incorporate Health Division will notify the requirements specifically set forth in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary complainant that no further law.’’ For purposes of the Unfunded Disease, Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis, investigation will occur. Mandates Reform Act, this proposed Incorporation by reference, Lung (2) Investigations may be initiated at rule does not include any Federal diseases, Mine safety and health, NIOSH’s discretion or in response to a mandate that may result in increased Occupational safety and health, Part 90 valid complaint, pursuant to paragraph annual expenditures in excess of $100 miner, Part 90 transfer rights, (d)(1) of this section, to determine million by State, local, or Tribal Pneumoconiosis, Respiratory and whether a B Reader has provided chest governments in the aggregate, or by the pulmonary diseases, Silicosis, radiograph classifications in practice private sector. Spirometry, Surface coal mining, that are unreasonably inaccurate. Underground coal mining, X-rays. (i) Investigations will include the G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice following: Reform) Proposed Rule (A) The NIOSH Respiratory Health This proposed rule has been drafted For the reasons discussed in the Division will choose a panel of at least and reviewed in accordance with preamble, the Department of Health and four B Readers who will independently Executive Order 12988 and will not Human Services proposes to amend 42 review the information provided in each unduly burden the Federal court CFR part 37 as follows: valid complaint. system. This rule has been reviewed (B) If one or more of the B Readers on carefully to eliminate drafting errors and PART 37—SPECIFICATIONS FOR the panel independently determines ambiguities. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF COAL that the classification being contested is MINERS reasonable, the NIOSH Respiratory H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Health Division will conclude that the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 37 HHS has reviewed this proposed rule classification being contested is continues to read as follows: in accordance with Executive Order reasonable. The complainant will be 13132 regarding federalism, and has Authority: Sec. 203, 83 Stat. 763, 30 U.S.C. notified of the finding and no further determined that it does not have 843, unless otherwise noted. action will be conducted. ‘‘federalism implications.’’ The rule ■ 2. Revise § 37.52 by adding paragraph (C) If the B Readers on the panel does not ‘‘have substantial direct effects (d) to read as follows: independently and unanimously concur on the States, on the relationship that the classification being contested is between the national government and § 37.52 Proficiency in the use of systems unreasonable, remedial actions will be for classifying the pneumoconioses. the States, or on the distribution of taken by the NIOSH Respiratory Health power and responsibilities among the * * * * * Division pursuant to paragraphs various levels of government.’’ (d) Remedial Actions. (1) Any (d)(2)(ii) through (v) of this section, interested party may make a complaint accordingly. I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of to the NIOSH Coal Workers’ Health (ii) If, after an investigation, a panel Children From Environmental Health Surveillance Program against any B of B Readers unanimously finds that the Risks and Safety Risks) Reader who routinely provides chest classification contested in a complaint In accordance with Executive Order radiograph classifications in practice is unreasonably inaccurate, the Program 13045, HHS has evaluated the that are believed to be unreasonably will issue an initial report to the B environmental health and safety effects inaccurate. Reader under review. If the B Reader of this proposed rule on children. HHS (i) Inaccurate classifications are those chooses not to challenge the initial has determined that the rule would have that fail to identify small or large report within 30 days, the initial report no environmental health and safety opacities in lung fields, pleural changes, becomes a final determination. If the B effect on children. and other features indicating the Reader chooses to challenge the initial presence of lung disease where they report, the Coal Workers’ Health J. Executive Order 13211 (Actions exist, or those that identify small or Surveillance Program will respond Concerning Regulations That large opacities, pleural changes, and within 90 days; the Program’s decision Significantly Affect Energy Supply, other features where they do not exist. is final. The first final report may be Distribution, or Use) Unreasonably inaccurate classifications considered a warning that further In accordance with Executive Order are those that a panel of B Readers misclassification of small or large 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of would unanimously determine are opacities or other types of pleural this proposed rule on energy supply, substantially divergent from a abnormalities will result in suspension distribution or use, and has determined competent interpretation of the or revocation of the B Reader’s that the rule will not have a significant radiographs and are unsupported by the certification. adverse effect. chest radiographs in question. (iii) If, after an investigation, a panel (ii) A valid complaint must be of B Readers unanimously finds that the K. Plain Writing Act of 2010 submitted to the NIOSH Coal Workers’ classification contested in a second Under Public Law 111–274 (October Health Surveillance Program, complaint is unreasonably inaccurate, 13, 2010), executive Departments and Respiratory Health Division, and the Program will issue an initial report Agencies are required to use plain include the chest radiographs and ILO to the B Reader under review. If the B language in documents that explain to classifications being contested as well as Reader chooses not to challenge the the public how to comply with a a letter of support from a medical initial report within 30 days, the initial requirement the Federal government professional. A complaint that report becomes a final determination. If administers or enforces. HHS has demonstrates more than a reasonable the B Reader chooses to challenge the attempted to use plain language in difference of opinion will be considered initial report, the Coal Workers’ Health promulgating the proposed rule valid. Surveillance Program will respond

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8526 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

within 90 days, during which time the any information demonstrating that the authorization from NIOSH pursuant to B Reader’s certification will remain in decertification decision was not § 37.204(a), and with legal consent: good standing; the Program’s decision is reasonable, and/or relevant new (1) Performs an autopsy on a miner in final and may result in the 1-year information not previously considered accordance with this subpart; and suspension of the B Reader’s by the Coal Workers’ Health (2) Submits the findings and other certification with the 1-year period Surveillance Program. materials to NIOSH in accordance with beginning on the date the Program (iii) The appeal request must be sent this subpart within 180 calendar days issues the final decision letter. The to the NIOSH Respiratory Health after having performed the autopsy. suspended B Reader must take and pass Division Director at the address (i) Types of chest radiographic images the certification examination at the specified in the decertification letter. accepted for submission include a conclusion of the suspension period in (iv) The NIOSH Respiratory Health digital chest image (posteroanterior order to be reinstated. Division Director will review the Coal view) provided in an electronic format (iv) If, after an investigation, a panel Workers’ Health Surveillance Program consistent with the DICOM standards of B Readers unanimously finds that the decision and any relevant information described in § 37.42(c)(5), a chest classification contested in a third provided by the B Reader and make a computed tomography provided in an complaint is unreasonably inaccurate, final decision on the appeal. The electronic format consistent with the Program will issue an initial report Director will notify the B Reader of the DICOM standards, or a good-quality to the B Reader under review. If the B following in writing: copy or original of a film chest Reader chooses not to challenge the (A) The Director’s final decision on radiograph (posteroanterior view). initial report within 30 days, the initial the appeal; (ii) More than one type of chest report becomes a final determination. If (B) An explanation of the reason(s) for radiographic image may be submitted. the B Reader chooses to challenge the the Director’s final decision on the (b) Pathologists will be compensated initial report, the Coal Workers’ Health appeal; and in accordance with the ordinary, usual, Surveillance Program will respond (C) Any administrative actions taken or customary fee charged by other within 90 days, during which time the by the Coal Workers’ Health pathologists for the same services, at the B Reader’s certification will remain in Surveillance Program. discretion of NIOSH. NIOSH will good standing; the Program’s decision is ■ 3. Revise § 37.201 to read as follows: additionally compensate a pathologist final, unless the B Reader successfully for the submission of chest radiographic appeals the decision pursuant to § 37.201 Definitions. images made of the subject of the § 37.52(d)(3), and will result in As used in this subpart: autopsy within 5 years prior to his/her permanent revocation of the B Reader’s (a) Secretary means the Secretary of death together with copies of any certification beginning on the date the Health and Human Services. interpretations made. Program issues the final decision letter. (b) Miner means any individual who (c) A pathologist who receives any (v) If the first complaint is found to be during his/her life was employed in any other specific payment, fee, or valid and to demonstrate a pattern of coal mine. reimbursement in connection with the inaccurate chest radiograph (c) Pathologist means autopsy from the miner’s widow/ classifications, the Program will issue (1) A physician certified in anatomic widower, his/her family, his/her estate, an initial report to the B Reader under pathology or pathology by the American or any other Federal agency will not review and immediately apply the Board of Pathology or the American receive compensation from NIOSH. procedures in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of Osteopathic Board of Pathology, ■ 5. Revise § 37.203 to read as follows: this section. To demonstrate a pattern of (2) A physician who possesses inaccurate classifications, the valid qualifications which are considered § 37.203 Autopsy specifications. complaint must provide radiographs board-eligible by the American Board of (a) Each autopsy for which a claim for from three or more patients conducted Pathology or American Osteopathic payment is submitted pursuant to this within a one-year period that are Board of Pathology, or subpart must be performed in a manner determined by the Program to be (3) An intern, resident, or other consistent with standard autopsy inaccurate. physician in a training program in procedures such as those, for example, (3) A B Reader whose certification is pathology who performs the autopsy set forth in Autopsy Performance & revoked after three final adverse under the supervision of a pathologist as Reporting, third edition (Kim A. Collins, determinations is no longer a certified B defined in paragraph (c) (1) or (2) of this ed., College of American Pathologists, Reader. Such B Reader may appeal the section. 2017). Copies of this document may be Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance (d) NIOSH means the National borrowed from NIOSH. Program’s decision to revoke the B Institute for Occupational Safety and (b) Each autopsy must include: Reader’s certification. Health, located within the Centers for (1) Gross and microscopic (i) An appeal request must be Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). examination of the lungs, pulmonary submitted in writing to the NIOSH Within NIOSH, the Respiratory Health pleura, and tracheobronchial lymph Respiratory Health Division Director, Division (formerly called the Division of nodes; signed and postmarked within 30 Respiratory Disease Studies and the (2) Weights of the heart and each lung calendar days of the date of the letter Appalachian Laboratory for (these and all other measurements notifying the B Reader of the Occupational Safety and Health) is the required under this subparagraph must decertification decision. Electronic organizational unit that has be in the metric system); versions of the signed appeal request programmatic responsibility for the (3) Circumference of each cardiac letter will also be accepted. medical examination and surveillance valve when opened; (ii) The appeal request must state the program. (4) Thickness of right and left reason(s) the B Reader believes the ■ 4. Revise § 37.202 to read as follows: ventricles; these measurements must be decertification decision is incorrect and made perpendicular to the ventricular should be reversed. The appeal request § 37.202 Payment for autopsy. surface and must not include may include scientific or medical (a) NIOSH may, at its discretion, pay trabeculations or pericardial fat. The information correcting factual errors, any pathologist who has received prior right ventricle must be measured at a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8527

point midway between the tricuspid (3) Report of autopsy: North Capitol Street NW, Washington, valve and the apex, and the left (i) The information, slides, and blocks DC 20573–0001. Phone: (202) 523–5725. ventricle must be measured directly of tissue required by this subpart. Email: [email protected]. above the insertion of the anterior (ii) Clinical abstract of terminal illness • Comments regarding the revised papillary muscle; and other data that the pathologist information collections should be (5) Size, number, consistency, determines is relevant. submitted to the Commission through location, description and other relevant (iii) Final summary, including final one of the preceding methods and a details of all lesions of the lungs; anatomical diagnoses, indicating copy should also be sent to the Office (6) Level of the diaphragm; presence or absence of simple and of Information and Regulatory Affairs, (7) From each type of suspected complicated pneumoconiosis, and Office of Management and Budget, pneumoconiotic lesion, representative correlation with clinical history if Attention: Desk Officer for Federal microscopic slides stained with indicated. Maritime Commission, 725 17th Street hematoxylin eosin or other appropriate Dated: January 10, 2020. NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: stain, and one formalin fixed, paraffin- _ Alex M. Azar II (202) 395–5167; or by email: OIRA impregnated block of tissue; a minimum [email protected]. of three stained slides and three blocks Secretary, Department of Health and Human Instructions: For detailed instructions Services. of tissue must be submitted. When no on submitting comments, including such lesion is recognized, similar [FR Doc. 2020–02705 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] requesting confidential treatment of material must be submitted from three BILLING CODE 4163–218–P comments, and additional information separate areas of the lungs selected at on the rulemaking process, see the random; a minimum of three stained Public Participation heading of the slides and three formalin fixed, paraffin- FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Supplementary Information section of impregnated blocks of tissue must be this document. Note that all comments 46 CFR Part 530 submitted. received will be posted without change (c) Needle biopsy techniques will not [Docket No. 20–02] to the Commission’s website, unless the be accepted. commenter has requested confidential RIN 3072–AC80 ■ 6. Revise § 37.204 to read as follows: treatment. § 37.204 Procedure for obtaining payment. Service Contracts Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or (a) Prior to performing an autopsy, the AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. comments received, go to the pathologist must obtain written Commission’s Electronic Reading Room authorization from NIOSH and ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. at: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/ agreement regarding payment amount SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime proceeding/20-02/, or to the Docket for services specified in § 37.202(a) by Commission (FMC or Commission) Activity Library at 800 North Capitol submitting an Authorization for proposes to amend its rules governing Street NW, Washington, DC 20573, 9:00 Payment of Autopsy (form CDC Service Contracts. The proposed rule is a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through #0.1585). intended to reduce regulatory burden. Friday, except Federal holidays. (1) NIOSH will maintain up-to-date DATES Telephone: (202) 523–5725. information about the availability of : Submit comments on or before: payments on its website. If payments are April 14, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For not available, the online Authorization In compliance with the Paperwork questions regarding submitting of Payment for Autopsy form will not be Reduction Act, the Commission is also comments or the treatment of active and available for completion on seeking comment on revisions to one confidential information, contact Rachel the NIOSH website. information collections. See the E. Dickon, Secretary. Phone: (202) 523– (2) After receiving a completed Paperwork Reduction Act section under 5725. Email: [email protected]. For authorization request form, NIOSH will Regulatory Analyses and Notices below. technical questions, contact Florence A. reply in writing with an authorization Please submit all comments relating to Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade determination within 3 working days. the revised information collections to Analysis, Federal Maritime (b) After performance of an autopsy, the Commission and to the Office of Commission, 800 North Capitol Street each claim for payment under this Management and Budget (OMB) at the NW, Washington, DC 20573–0001. subpart must be submitted to NIOSH address listed in the ADDRESSES section Phone: (202) 523–5796. Email: and must include: on or before April 14, 2020. Comments [email protected]. (1) An invoice (in duplicate) on the to OMB are most useful if submitted SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: pathologist’s letterhead or billhead within 30 days of publication. Introduction indicating the date of autopsy, the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments amount of the claim and a signed identified by the Docket No. 20–02 in On September 18, 2018, the Federal statement that the pathologist is not the heading of this document, by the Maritime Commission (FMC or receiving any other specific following methods: Commission) issued a Notice of Filing compensation for the autopsy from the • Email: [email protected]. Include and Request for Comments to obtain miner’s widow/widower, his/her in the subject line: ‘‘Docket No. 20–02, public comments on Petition No. P3–18, surviving next-of-kin, the estate of the Comments on Proposed Service the petition of the World Shipping miner, or any other source. Contract Regulations.’’ Comments Council (WSC), (Petitioner) pursuant to (2) Completed Consent, Release and should be attached to the email as a 46 CFR 502.92 ‘‘. . . for an exemption History Form for Autopsy (CDC/NIOSH Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF from service contract filing and essential (M)2.6). This form may be completed document. Comments containing terms publication requirements set forth with the assistance of the pathologist, confidential information should not be at 46 U.S.C 40502(b) and (d), attending physician, family physician, submitted by email. respectively . . .’’ Petitioner further or any other responsible person who can • Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary, petitions the Commission for the provide reliable information. Federal Maritime Commission, 800 initiation of a rulemaking proceeding to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8528 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

amend its service contract regulations the service contract, including the line- benefits to publishing a ‘‘blanket’’ rule set forth at 46 CFR part 530 in a manner haul rate, in tariff format. or notice in the carrier’s ET tariff that consistent with the requested The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of applies to most, or all, service contracts, exemption. 1998 (OSRA) amended the Shipping Act thereby eliminating the potential need Comments were received in support of 1984 to eliminate the requirement to periodically amend hundreds of of WSC’s petition from Atlantic that service contract rates be published individual service contracts. In contrast, Container Line, AB (ACL); the National in the carrier’s public tariff. Public Law a Statement of Essential Terms is Industrial Transportation League 105–258, 106. One of the primary published in the carrier’s tariff when (NITL); and the Caribbean Shipowners impacts of OSRA was to render service each new service contract is Association (CSO). Frankford Candy contract rates confidential, and thus no confidentially filed, and typically must LLC (Frankford) and Wheaton Grain Inc. longer available to ocean carriers and be reviewed by the tariff publisher each (Wheaton) filed comments opposing the shippers as carrier pricing information. time a contract is amended, whether or petition. In addition, similarly situated shippers not it is ultimately determined that the On December 20, 2019, the could no longer utilize the rates and public terms must be updated. In some Commission issued an order denying in terms of published service contracts. cases, the Statement of Essential Terms Subsequent to OSRA, the ET part and granting in part the petition. is continuously updated to keep the ET publication has been limited to: origin Specifically, the Commission denied amendment number in sync with the and destination port ranges, WSC’s request for an exemption from contract amendment number. commodities, minimum volume or the requirement in 46 U.S.C. 40502(b) Although the Commission has that ocean common carriers file service portion, and duration. The deletion of rates from the scope of the ET determined to exempt carriers from the contracts with the Commission. Pet’n of requirement that they publish the World Shipping Council for an publication protected U.S. exporters from their foreign competitors who Statements of Essential Terms for Exemption from Certain Provisions of would be able to ascertain proprietary individual service contracts, the the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, business information from these Commission wants to ensure that and for a Rulemaking Proceeding, Pet. publicly available essential terms. At carriers continue to publish generally No. P3–18, slip op., (FMC Dec. 20, 2019) the same time, the ET publication was applicable service contract tariff rules (P3–18 Order). In contrast, the also no longer useful either to shippers and notices. The Commission therefore Commission granted WSC’s request for in contract negotiations with carriers, or proposes to replace the requirement in an exemption from the requirement in among carriers as a tool in potential § 530.12 that carriers publish Statements § 40502(d) that carriers publish ETs pricing coordination. of Essential Terms for individual service with each service contract, determining contracts with a requirement that that an exemption from § 40502(d) Discussion carriers publish general service contract would not result in a substantial As explained in the P3–18 Order, the rules and notices as a separate part of reduction in competition or be Commission’s experience indicates that the individual carrier’s automated tariff detrimental to commerce. Id. The the publication of Statements of Commission also determined to initiate system. The Commission is also Essential Terms corresponding to proposing changes to a number of other a rulemaking to implement the ET individual service contracts is of publication exemption. Id. sections in part 530 to reflect the questionable value. No commenters elimination of the Statement of Essential The Commission is therefore claimed a use for these publications, nor Terms publication requirements. proposing to amend its regulations in does the Commission use them in-house Finally, the Commission proposes to part 530 in accordance with the P3–18 inasmuch as the Commission has the correct in part 530 outdated references Order and requests comment on the ability to access complete service proposed changes. The Commission to FMC bureaus and offices, as well as contracts, including rate matrices and correct an outdated reference to a emphasizes that the scope of this contract terms. Department of Defense Command. rulemaking is limited to amending part In determining how to best implement 530 in line with the Commission’s the determination to exempt carriers Public Participation decision. The merits of WSC’s petition from the ET publication requirements in and the Commission’s findings in the 46 U.S.C. 40502(d), the Commission How do I prepare and submit P3–18 Order are outside the scope of notes that § 40502(d) and the comments? this rulemaking. Commission’s regulations at 46 CFR Your comments must be written and 530.12 require that carriers publish Background in English. To ensure that your concise Statements of Essential Terms comments are correctly filed in the The Shipping Act of 1984 (the corresponding to individual service docket, please include the docket Shipping Act or the Act) introduced the contracts in tariff format. In addition to number of this document in your option for liner services to be priced via the required Statements of Essential comments. negotiated service contracts between Terms, carriers often include in their ET ocean common carriers and their tariff rules and notices that generally You may submit your comments via shipper customers, rather than solely by apply to all service contracts. An ocean email to the email address listed above public tariffs. Pursuant to the Shipping carrier’s ET tariff may therefore under ADDRESSES. Please include the Act and FMC regulations, ocean freight comprise two components: (1) Tariff docket number associated with this rates, surcharges, and accessorial rules and notices that generally apply to notice and the subject matter in the charges had to be published in tariffs, or all service contracts; and (2) the subject line of the email. Comments agreed to via a service contract filed required concise Statements of Essential should be attached to the email as a with the Commission. Terms corresponding to individual Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF Contemporaneous with the filing of service contracts. document. Only non-confidential and service contracts, ocean carriers were The general tariff rules and notices are public versions of confidential required to make publicly available a rarely amended once initially comments should be submitted by statement of the essential terms (ET) of published. Indeed, there are significant email.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8529

You may also submit comments by of the agency certifies that the terms corresponding to original service mail to the address listed above under rulemaking will not have a significant contracts and amendments, the ADDRESSES. economic impact on a substantial Commission estimates the savings to number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, VOCCs as roughly 41,048 man-hours, How do I submit confidential business 605. Accordingly, the Chairman of the for an approximate savings of information? Federal Maritime Commission certifies $1,987,133 annually.1 Service contract The Commission will provide that the proposed rule, if promulgated, rules and notices in carrier automated confidential treatment for identified will not have a significant impact on a tariff systems, on the other hand, are confidential information to the extent substantial number of small entities. rarely published or revised, inasmuch as allowed by law. If your comments The regulated business entities that they govern a broad swath of carrier contain confidential information, you would be impacted by the rule are contracts, and many times are intended must submit the following by mail to vessel-operating common carriers to quickly and efficiently address an ad the address listed above under (VOCCs). The Commission has hoc industry situation.2 Thus, in any ADDRESSES: determined that VOCCs generally do not given year, there may be no new service • A transmittal letter requesting qualify as small entities under the contract rules or notices published in a confidential treatment that identifies the guidelines of the Small Business carrier’s automated tariff system. The specific information in the comments Administration (SBA). See FMC Policy Commission observes that the benefit of for which protection is sought and and Procedures Regarding Proper maintaining rules and notices which demonstrates that the information is a Consideration of Small Entities in allow a carrier to avoid revising trade secret or other confidential Rulemakings (Feb. 7, 2003), available at hundreds of service contracts greatly research, development, or commercial https://www.fmc.gov/wp-content/ outweighs the burden of publishing information. uploads/2018/10/SBREFA_Guidelines_ such a notice. The Commission invites • A confidential copy of your 2003.pdf. comment on this. comments, consisting of the complete Regarding the burden associated with filing with a cover page marked Paperwork Reduction Act the filing of service contracts with the ‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ and the The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Commission, a substantial majority of confidential material clearly marked on (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) (PRA) requires an filers, 74 percent, have recognized each page. You should submit the agency to seek and receive approval greater efficiencies by automating their confidential copy to the Commission by from the Office of Management and service contract filing processes using mail. Budget (OMB) before collecting • the Commission’s ‘‘web services’’ A public version of your comments information from the public. 44 U.S.C. automated filing system. Using FY 2018 with the confidential information 3507. The agency must submit figures, BTA staff estimates the excluded. The public version must state collections of information in proposed remaining burden associated with ‘‘Public Version—confidential materials rules to OMB in conjunction with the service contract filing to be roughly excluded’’ on the cover page and on publication of the notice of proposed 3,542 man-hours, or $402,088 each affected page, and must clearly rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. annually.3 Inclusive of the burden indicate any information withheld. You The information collection may submit the public version to the requirements in Part 530, Service 1 The Commission’s previous service contract Commission by email or mail. Contracts, are currently authorized rulemaking in Docket No. 16–05 estimated the time associated with preparation of an individual ET Will the Commission consider late under OMB Control Number 3072–0065. If approved, this rule would eliminate publication as 3 minutes. No commenters opposed comments? that estimate. More recently, BTA informally for VOCCs the publication of concise interviewed two major tariff publishers that file The Commission will consider all statements of essential terms in their service contracts and publish ETs for multiple comments received before the close of carrier automated tariff systems. The VOCCs. These tariff publishers estimated the time business on the comment closing date proposed rule would require VOCCs to required to prepare an ET to be 3 to 6 minutes. The indicated above under DATES. To the larger of the two tariff publishers reported that their continue their general practice of 3-minute preparation time was due to its extent possible, we will also consider publishing service contract rules and proprietary technological efficiencies. The above- comments received after that date. notices in their carrier automated tariff referenced savings are based on the 3-minute systems. The proposed rule does not preparation time estimate, using the Commission’s How can I read comments submitted by most recent fiscal year’s filing statistics for new other people? make any changes to the requirement to contracts and amendments. In FY 2018, 47,962 new file service contracts with the service contracts and 772,803 amendments were You may read the comments received Commission. filed. by the Commission at the Commission’s As background, of the 155 vessel- 2 As one example, a major ocean carrier published Electronic Reading Room or the Docket operating common carriers serving the a blanket notice in its ET tariff applying to Activity Library at the addresses listed hundreds of its service contracts when it deployed U.S. trades, 68 do not file service an extra loader vessel to meet unexpected shipper ADDRESSES above under . contracts with the Commission, and demand. This notice allowed existing contract rates Regulatory Notices and Analysis thus would not be impacted by this applying to a specifically named service string to rulemaking. Further, of the 87 carriers also apply to cargo moving on the extra loader Regulatory Flexibility Act vessel, thereby eliminating the VOCC’s burden of that file service contracts, 31 filed less amending hundreds of service contracts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 than ten contracts or amendments thus 3 In the Commission’s previous service contract U.S.C. 601–612, provides that whenever far in FY 2019, with ten of those only rulemaking in Docket No. 16–05, each service an agency is required to publish a notice filing 1 contract this fiscal year. Among contract filing (new or amendment) was estimated to take 3 minutes. Since that rulemaking, carriers of proposed rulemaking under the VOCCs that utilize service contracts and tariff publishers comprising the highest volume Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 more extensively as a pricing service contract filers have continued automating U.S.C. 553, the agency must prepare and mechanism, only 31 filed over 100 their filing processes. Filers that implemented the make available for public comment an original contracts this fiscal year. Commission’s ‘‘web services’’ automated filing process have advised that minimal software initial regulatory flexibility analysis With respect to the cost savings programming was required to facilitate the describing the impact of the proposed associated with eliminating the automated upload of service contracts and rule on small entities, unless the head publication of statements of essential Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8530 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

associated with the Service Contract Regulation Identifier Number requested by a responsible official of the 4 Rules Publication requirement, the The Commission assigns a regulation service contract carrier in writing by entire burden associated with this identifier number (RIN) to each submitting to BTA the Registration information collection is calculated as regulatory action listed in the Unified Form (FMC–83) in Exhibit 1 to this part. $3,482,351 for contract filers, a Agenda of Federal Regulatory and * * * * * substantial reduction. Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). ■ 5. Amend § 530.8 by revising In compliance with the PRA, the The Regulatory Information Service paragraph (d) introductory text and Commission has submitted the Center publishes the Unified Agenda in removing paragraph (d)(4) to read as proposed revised information collection April and October of each year. You follows: to the Office of Management and may use the RIN contained in the § 530.8 Service Contracts. Budget. heading at the beginning of this Comments are invited on: document to find this action in the * * * * * • Whether the collection of Unified Agenda, at http:// (d) Every service contract filed with information is necessary for the proper www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ BTA shall include, as set forth in performance of the functions of the eAgendaMain. appendix A to this part by: * * * * * Commission, including whether the Proposed Rule information will have practical utility; § 530.10 [Amended] • Whether the Commission’s estimate For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal ■ 6. Amend § 530.10 by removing for the burden of the information paragraph (f). collection is accurate; Maritime Commission proposes to ■ 7. Revise subpart C heading to read as • amend 46 CFR part 530 as follows: Ways to enhance the quality, utility, follows. and clarity of the information to be List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 530 collected; Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and Subpart C—Publication of Essential • Ways to minimize the burden of the recordkeeping requirements. Terms collection of information on ■ respondents, including the use of PART 530—SERVICE CONTRACTS 8. Revise § 530.12 to read as follows: automated collection techniques or ■ § 530.12 Rules and Notices. other forms of information technology. 1. The authority citation for part 530 continues to read as follows: (a) Location—(1) Generally. A Please submit any comments, statement of service contract rules and identified by the docket number in the Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40301–40306, 40501–40503, 41307. notices shall be published as a separate heading of this document, by any of the part of the individual ocean common methods described in the ADDRESSES ■ 2. Amend § 530.1 by revising the first carrier’s automated tariff system. section of this document. sentence to read as follows: (2) Multi-party service contracts. For National Environmental Policy Act § 530.1 Purpose service contracts in which more than one carrier participates or is eligible to The Commission’s regulations The purpose of this part is to facilitate the filing of service contracts as required participate, the statement of service categorically exclude certain contract rules and notices shall be rulemakings from any requirement to by section 8(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘the Act’’) (46 U.S.C. 40502). published: prepare an environmental assessment or (i) If the service contract is entered an environmental impact statement *** ■ 3. Amend § 530.3 by revising into under the authority of a conference because they do not increase or decrease agreement, then in that conference’s air, water or noise pollution or the use paragraphs (d) and (o) and removing paragraph (s) to read as follows: automated tariff system; of fossil fuels, recyclables, or energy. 46 (ii) If the service contract is entered CFR 504.4. The proposed rule amends § 530.3 Definitions. into under the authority of a non- the requirements related to the * * * * * conference agreement, then in each of publication of essential terms associated (d) BTA means the Commission’s the participating or eligible-to- with service contracts. This rulemaking Bureau of Trade Analysis or its participate carriers’ individual thus falls within the categorical successor bureau. automated tariff systems, clearly exclusion for actions related to the * * * * * indicating the relevant FMC-assigned receipt service contracts (§ 504.4(a)(5)). (o) OIT means the Commission’s agreement number. Therefore, no environmental assessment Office of Information Technology. (b) Certainty of terms. The statement or environmental impact statement is of service contract rules and notices required. * * * * * ■ 4. Amend § 530.5 by revising described in paragraph (a) of this Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as section may not: Reform) follows: (1) Be uncertain, vague, or ambiguous; or This rule meets the applicable § 530.5 Duty to file. (2) Make reference to terms not standards in E.O. 12988 titled, ‘‘Civil (a) The duty under this part to file explicitly detailed in the statement of Justice Reform,’’ to minimize litigation, service contracts, amendments, and service contract rules and notices, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce notices shall be upon the individual unless those terms are contained in a burden. carrier party or parties participating or publication widely available to the eligible to participate in the service public and well known within the amendments. Once automated, contract data can be contract. industry. transmitted into SERVCON in a matter of seconds, (c) Agents. Common carriers, without need for human intervention. * * * * * 4 In our OMB filing related to this Information (c) * * * conferences, or agreements may use Collection, the burden of maintaining service (1) Application. Authority to file or agents to meet their publication contract rules and notices is estimated at 87 hours. delegate the authority to file must be requirements under this part.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8531

(d) Commission listing. The implement the Pallone-Thune SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Commission will publish on its website, Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal summary of the Commission’s Notice of www.fmc.gov, a listing of the locations Enforcement and Deterrence Act Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20–11, EB of all service contract rules and notices. (TRACED Act) to establish a registration Docket No. 20–22, adopted on February ■ 9. Amend § 530.13 by revising process for the registration of a single 5, 2020 and released on February 6, paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: consortium that conducts private-led 2020. The full text of this document is efforts to trace back the origin of available for public inspection during § 530.13 Exceptions and exemptions. suspected unlawful robocalls. regular business hours in the FCC * * * * * DATES: Comments are due on or before Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, (b) * * * Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554, (2) Department of Defense cargo. February 24, 2020 and reply comments are due on or before March 2, 2020. or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ Transportation of U.S. Department of attachments/FCC-20-11A1.pdf. To Defense cargo moving in foreign ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, request this document in accessible commerce under terms and conditions identified by EB Docket No. 20–22, by formats for people with disabilities (e.g., negotiated and approved by the Surface any of the following methods: Braille, large print, electronic files, • Deployment and Distribution Command Electronic Filers: Comments may be audio format, etc.) or to request and published in a universal service filed electronically using the internet by reasonable accommodations (e.g., contract. An exact copy of the universal accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ accessible format documents, sign service contract, including any ecfs2/. language interpreters, CART, etc.), send amendments thereto, shall be filed with • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to an email to [email protected] or call the the Commission as soon as it becomes file by paper must file an original and FCC’s Consumer and Governmental available. one copy of each filing. If more than one Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 * * * * * docket or rulemaking number appears in (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). ■ 10. Amend § 530.15 by revising the caption of this proceeding, filers paragraph (c) to read as follows: must submit two additional copies for Synopsis each additional docket or rulemaking 1. In this Notice of Proposed § 530.15 Recordkeeping and audit. number. Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal * * * * * Filings can be sent by hand or Communications Commission (c) Production for audit within 30 messenger delivery, by commercial (Commission) proposes to implement days of request. Every carrier or overnight courier, or by first-class or section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune agreement shall, upon written request of overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal the FMC’s Director, Bureau of filings must be addressed to the Enforcement Act (TRACED Act). Enforcement, any Area Representative Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Unlawful prerecorded voice message or the Director, Bureau of Trade Secretary, Federal Communications calls—robocalls—plague the American Analysis, submit copies of requested Commission. public. Despite the Commission’s efforts original service contracts or their • All hand-delivered or messenger- to combat unlawful robocalls, which associated records within thirty (30) delivered paper filings for the includes efforts to trace unlawful days of the date of the request. Commission’s Secretary must be spoofed robocalls to their origination— * * * * * delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 a process known as traceback—these calls persist. Congress recognized the Appendix A to Part 530 [Amended] 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours continued problem and enacted the ■ 11. In Appendix A revise all are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand TRACED Act to further aid the references to ‘‘BTCL’’ to read ‘‘BTA’’ deliveries must be held together with Commission’s efforts. Congress and revise all references to ‘‘OIRM’’ to rubber bands or fasteners. Any acknowledged the beneficial read ‘‘OIT’’. envelopes and boxes must be disposed collaboration between the Commission By the Commission. of before entering the building. and the private sector on traceback Rachel Dickon, • Commercial overnight mail (other issues and, in section 13(d) of the TRACED Act, required the Commission Secretary. than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail to issue rules for the registration of a [FR Doc. 2020–02561 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 single consortium that conducts private- Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD BILLING CODE 6731–AA–P led efforts to trace back the origin of 20701. • suspected unlawful robocalls. U.S. Postal Service first class, 2. The Commission proposes rules to FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Express, and Priority mail must be implement a simple registration process. COMMISSION addressed to 445 12th Street SW, First, we propose that the Enforcement Washington, DC 20554. Bureau issue an annual public notice 47 CFR Parts 0 and 64 People with Disabilities: Contact the seeking registration of a single [EB Docket No. 20–22; FCC 20–11; FRS FCC to request reasonable consortium that conducts private-led 16480] accommodations (accessible format efforts to trace back the origin of documents, sign language interpreters, suspected unlawful robocalls. The Implementing the Pallone-Thune CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] Enforcement Bureau would issue the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– public notice no later than April 28 this Enforcement and Deterrence Act 418–0432. year, as required by the TRACED Act, AGENCY: Federal Communications FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For and by that date annually thereafter. We Commission. additional information on this invite comment on this proposal. ACTION: Proposed rule. proceeding, contact Sonja Rifken of the 3. Second, we propose to require an Telecommunications Consumers entity that plans to register as the SUMMARY: In this document, the Division, Enforcement Bureau, at consortium for private-led traceback Commission proposes rules to [email protected] or (202) 418–1730. efforts to submit in this docket a letter

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8532 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

of notice of its intent to conduct private- the Commission. Moreover, we propose operated; (2) is not dominant in its field led traceback efforts and its intent to to heavily weight whether the of operation; and (3) satisfies any register as the single consortium. We consortium applicant is open to all additional criteria established by the propose that the letter of notice include voice service providers. The degree of Small Business Administration (SBA). the name of the entity and a statement openness is indicative of the level of 8. In this NPRM, the Commission of its intent to conduct private-led neutrality we would expect in order to seeks comment on a limited and simple traceback efforts and its intent to accept a consortium’s registration. We process for registration with the register with the Commission as the invite comment on these proposals and Commission of a single consortium that single consortium that conducts private- also seek comment on methods we conducts private-led efforts to trace back led efforts to trace back the origin of should use to select between or among the origin of suspected unlawful suspected unlawful robocalls. We invite any competing consortium applicants. robocalls as required by section 13 of comment on this proposal. We welcome comment on other factors the TRACED Act. We reasonably expect, 4. Third, we propose to mandate that that merit consideration in evaluating based on our experience, that no more the entity address the statutory any consortium application. than a few entities, and perhaps only requirements in such letter by: 6. Fifth, while we propose to continue one, would apply to serve as the (a) Demonstrating that the consortium to solicit interest by public notice on an consortium. Moreover, the proposals is a neutral third party competent to annual basis, in order to minimize the contained herein impose minimal manage the private-led effort to trace burdens of the registration process we registration burdens such that they will back the origin of suspected unlawful propose not to require the incumbent have no more than a de minimis robocalls; consortium to file a new application economic impact on any entity that has (b) including a copy of the each year. Rather, under our proposal, the resources to perform the private-led consortium’s written best practices our rules will require that each traceback efforts. Therefore, we certify regarding management of its traceback certification in a letter extend for the that the proposals in this NPRM, if efforts and regarding providers of voice duration of each subsequent year that adopted, will not have a significant services’ participation in the the incumbent consortium serves, economic impact on a substantial consortium’s efforts to trace back the unless the incumbent consortium number of small entities. origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, notifies the Commission otherwise in 9. The Commission will send a copy and an explanation thereof; writing on or before the date for the of this NPRM, including the Initial (c) certifying that, consistent with filing of such letters set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to section 222(d)(2) of the annual public notice. In the event of any the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Communications Act, the consortium’s delays in our annual selection process, Small Business Administration. This efforts will focus on fraudulent, abusive, we also propose to authorize the initial certification will also be or unlawful traffic; and incumbent consortium to continue its published in the Federal Register. (d) certifying that the consortium has traceback efforts during the pendency of 10. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act notified the Commission that it intends that process, until the effective date of of 1995 Analysis. This document does to conduct traceback efforts of suspected the selection of any new consortium. not contain proposed information unlawful robocalls in advance of We propose that the Bureau shall select collection(s) subject to the Paperwork registration as the single consortium. any new consortium no later than 90 Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public We invite comment on this proposal. days after the date set forth in the Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it We also invite comment on how to annual public notice. We seek comment does not contain any new or modified construe the terms used in these four on these proposals. information collection burden for small statutory criteria and whether we 7. Initial Regulatory Flexibility business concerns with fewer than 25 should adopt any specific rules to Certification. As required by the employees, pursuant to the Small ensure compliance with them. In Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, addition, we seek comment on whether 603, the Commission has prepared an Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. we should require any additional Initial Regulatory Flexibility 3506(c)(4). information or consider any other Certification reflecting its analysis that 11. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding factors. there will be no significant economic shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but- 5. Fourth, we note that the statute impact on small entities by the disclose’’ proceeding in accordance contemplates a single registrant with the implementation of the policies and rules with the Commission’s ex parte rules. Commission, and so we must select a addressed in this Notice. The Regulatory Persons making ex parte presentations single consortium if more than one Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended must file a copy of any written qualified consortium seeks to register. (RFA), requires that an initial regulatory presentation or a memorandum To do that, we propose that the flexibility analysis be prepared for summarizing any oral presentation Enforcement Bureau select the single notice-and-comment rule making within two business days after the registered consortium based on its proceedings, unless the agency certifies presentation (unless a different deadline analysis of any letter and associated that ‘‘the rule will not, if promulgated, applicable to the Sunshine period documentation submitted by an entity have a significant economic impact on applies). Persons making oral ex parte seeking to register as the single a substantial number of small entities.’’ presentations are reminded that consortium. Our judgment of The RFA generally defines the term memoranda summarizing the compliance with the TRACED Act’s ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same presentation must (1) list all persons requirements will be informed by the meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ attending or otherwise participating in work we have done with the private ‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small the meeting at which the ex parte was sector, particularly the Industry governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, made, and (2) summarize all data Traceback Group. We propose to heavily the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same presented and arguments made during weight the consortium applicant’s meaning as the term ‘‘small business the presentation. If the presentation expertise in both managing and concern’’ under the Small Business Act. consisted in whole or in part of the improving the traceback process to the A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one presentation of data or arguments benefit of interested parties, including which: (1) Is independently owned and already reflected in the presenter’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8533

written comments, memoranda, or other Authority: 47 U.S.C. 155, 225 unless to conduct traceback efforts of suspected filing in the proceeding, the presenter otherwise noted. unlawful robocalls in advance of may provide citations to such data or ■ 2. Amend section 0.111 by revising registration as the single consortium. arguments in his or her prior comments, paragraph (i) and adding paragraph (j) to (c) The entity selected to be the memoranda, or other filings (specifying read as follows: registered consortium will not be the relevant page and/or paragraph required to file the letter mandated in numbers where such data or arguments § 0.111 Functions of the Bureau. paragraph (b) of this section in can be found) in lieu of summarizing * * * * * subsequent years after the consortium’s them in the memorandum. Documents (i) Conduct the annual registration initial registration. The registered shown or given to Commission staff and selection of a single consortium to consortium’s initial certifications, during ex parte meeting are deemed to conduct private-led efforts to trace back required by paragraph (b) of this section, be written ex parte presentations and the origin of suspected unlawful will continue for the duration of each must be filed consistent with section robocalls, under section 13(d) of the subsequent year unless the registered 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In TRACED Act, 133 Stat. at 3287, and consortium notifies the Commission proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) § 64.1203 of this chapter. otherwise in writing on or before the of the Commission’s rules or for which (j) Perform such other functions as date for filing letters set forth in the the Commission has made available a may be assigned to it or referred to it by annual public notice issued pursuant to method of electronic filing, written ex the Commission. paragraph (a) of this section. parte presentations and memoranda PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES (d) The current registered consortium summarizing oral ex parte RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS shall continue its traceback efforts until presentations, and all attachments the effective date of the selection of any thereto, must be filed through the ■ 3. The authority citation for part 64 is new registered consortium. electronic comment filing system revised to read as follows: [FR Doc. 2020–03065 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] available for that proceeding, and must Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, BILLING CODE P be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 218, 220, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), .xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf). Participants 262, 287, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401– in this proceeding should familiarize 1473, unless otherwise noted. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS themselves with the Commission’s ex ■ 4. Add § 64.1203 to subpart L to read COMMISSION parte rules. as follows: 12. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it 47 CFR Part 54 § 64.1203 Consortium registration is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and process. [WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 11–42 and 09– 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 197; Report No. 3141; FRS 16467] (a) The Enforcement Bureau shall as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), issue a public notice no later than April and section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 28th annually seeking registration of a Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal in Rulemaking Proceeding single consortium that conducts private- Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public led efforts to trace back the origin of AGENCY: Federal Communications Law 116–105, 133 Stat. 3274, this suspected unlawful robocalls. Commission. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is (b) Except as provided in paragraph ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration. hereby adopted. (c) of this section, an entity that seeks 13. It is further ordered that the to register as the single consortium that SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration Commission’s Consumer and conducts private-led efforts to trace back (Petitions) have been filed in the Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference the origin of suspected unlawful Commission’s proceeding by Nicholas Information Center, SHALL SEND a robocalls must submit a letter and G. Alexander, on behalf of Telscape copy of this Notice of Proposed associated documentation in response to Communications, Inc. dba TruConnect Rulemaking, including the Initial the public notice issued pursuant to and Sage Telecom Communications, Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to paragraph (a) of this section. In the LLC, Derrick B. Owens, on behalf of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the letter, the entity must: WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband, Small Business Administration. (1) Demonstrate that the consortium is and Brita D. Strandberg, on behalf of a neutral third party competent to Sprint Corporation. List of Subjects in Parts 0 and 64 manage the private-led effort to trace DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions Authority delegations (Government back the origin of suspected unlawful must be filed on or before March 2, agencies), Telecommunications. robocalls; 2020. Replies to an opposition must be (2) Include a copy of the consortium’s Federal Communications Commission. filed on or before March 10, 2020. written best practices regarding the ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Cecilia Sigmund, management of its traceback efforts and Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Federal Register Liaison Officer. regarding providers of voice services Washington, DC 20554. Proposed Rules participation in the consortium’s efforts to trace back the origin of suspected FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the reasons discussed in the unlawful robocalls and an explanation Nicholas Page, Attorney Advisor, preamble, the Federal Communications thereof; Wireline Competition Bureau, Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR (3) Certify that, consistent with Telecommunications Access Policy parts 0 and 64 as follows: section 222(d)(2) of the Division, (202) 418–2783. Communications Act of 1934, as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a PART 0—COMMISSION amended, the consortium’s efforts will summary of the Commission’s ORGANIZATION focus on fraudulent, abusive, or document, Report No. 3141, released unlawful traffic; and January 30, 2020. The full text of the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 0 is (4) Certify that the consortium has Petitions is available for viewing and revised to read as follows: notified the Commission that it intends copying at the FCC Reference

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8534 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, designate essential fish habitat; set catch via the internet http://www.mafmc.org/ Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. limits for 2020–2022; and implement an supporting-documents. Petitions also may be accessed online annual catch limit, accountability FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: via the Commission’s Electronic measures, possession limits, permitting Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Comment Filing System at: http:// and reporting requirements, and other Analyst, 978–281–9141. apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will administrative measures for Atlantic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: not send a Congressional Review Act chub mackerel caught from Maine (CRA) submission to Congress or the through North Carolina. The purpose of Background Government Accountability Office this action is to implement measures The Mid-Atlantic Fishery pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 required by the Magnuson-Stevens Management Council developed because no rules are being adopted by Fishery Conservation and Management temporary measures to regulate Atlantic the Commission. Act to formally integrate Atlantic chub chub mackerel catch as part of Subject: Bridging the Digital Divide mackerel as a stock in the fishery under Amendment 18 to the Atlantic Mackerel for Low-Income Consumers; Lifeline and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Link Up Reform and Modernization; Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Management Plan (FMP) (August 28, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible DATES: Comments must be received on 2017; 82 FR 40721). Those measures for Universal Service Support, WC or before April 14, 2020. were intended to regulate a developing Docket Nos. 17–287, 11–42, and 09–197, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments commercial fishery for Atlantic chub Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum on this document, identified by NOAA– mackerel until the Council could Opinion and Order and Order on NMFS–2019–0109, by any of the formally integrate this species as a stock Reconsideration, and Further Notice of following methods: in the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19–111, • Electronic Submission: Submit all Butterfish Fishery Management Plan published at 84 FR 71308, December 27, electronic public comments via the (FMP) through a separate action. Those 2019. This document is being published Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to temporary measures, including an pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 www.regulations.gov/ annual landing limit, possession limit, CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g). #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019- and permitting and reporting Number of Petitions Filed: 3. 0109, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, requirements, became effective on Federal Communications Commission. complete the required fields, and enter September 27, 2017, and expire on Marlene Dortch, or attach your comments. December 31, 2020. The Council • Secretary, Office of the Secretary. Mail: Submit written comments to initiated Amendment 21 in December 2016 to implement long-term measures [FR Doc. 2020–02926 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic for Atlantic chub mackerel. The purpose BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great of this amendment is to implement Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. measures required by the Magnuson- Mark the outside of the envelope, Stevens Fishery Conservation and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ‘‘Comments on Chub Mackerel NOA.’’ Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens National Oceanic and Atmospheric Instructions: Comments sent by any Act) to manage Atlantic chub mackerel Administration other method, to any other address or as a stock in the FMP. Specifically, this individual, or received after the end of action proposes the following measures: • 50 CFR Part 648 the comment period, may not be Atlantic chub mackerel essential considered by NMFS. All comments fish habitat for all life stages; RIN 0648–BJ16 received are a part of the public record • An Atlantic chub mackerel and will generally be posted for public management unit from Maine through Magnuson-Stevens Fishery viewing on www.regulations.gov North Carolina where management Conservation and Management Act without change. All personal identifying measures would apply; Provisions; Fisheries of the information (e.g., name, address, etc.), • A yearly process to set Northeastern United States; confidential business information, or specifications that considers scientific Amendment 21 to the Atlantic otherwise sensitive information and management uncertainty, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish submitted voluntarily by the sender will chub mackerel catch from South Fishery Management Plan be publicly accessible. NMFS will Carolina–Florida, and discards; • AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 2020–2022 specifications, including Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and A’’ in the required fields if you wish to a 2,300-mt acceptable biological catch Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), remain anonymous). and optimum yield, a 2,261.7-mt annual Commerce. The Mid-Atlantic Council prepared an catch limit for both commercial and ACTION: Announcement of the environmental assessment (EA) for recreational catch after deducting an availability of a proposed fishery Amendment 21 that describes the estimate of South Carolina–Florida management plan amendment; request proposed action and provides a catch (38.2 mt), a 2,171.2-mt annual for comments. thorough analysis of the impacts of the catch target (ACT) after deducting a 4 proposed measures and other percent management uncertainty buffer, SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the alternatives considered. Copies of and a 2,040.9-mt total allowable landing Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Amendment 21, including the EA, the limit (TAL) after deducting a 6-percent Council has submitted Amendment 21 Regulatory Impact Review, and the discard estimate; to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are • Accountability measures to prevent Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to available from: Christopher Moore, the ACT from being exceeded, including the Secretary of Commerce for review Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic an 18.1-mt (40,000 lb) possession limit and approval. We are requesting Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, once 90 percent of the TAL is landed, comments from the public on this 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The a 4.5-mt (10,000-lb) possession limit amendment. This amendment would EA and associated analysis is accessible once 100 percent of the TAL is landed),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8535

and an overage adjustment if the ACT is We are soliciting public comments on disapproval decision on the exceeded; Amendment 21 to the Atlantic amendment. Comments received after • A requirement for vessels Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP the end of the comment period for the possessing Atlantic chub mackerel to be and its incorporated documents through NOA will not be considered in the issued an Atlantic mackerel, longfin the end of the comment period specified approval/disapproval decision of this in the DATES squid, Illex squid, or butterfish permit section of this notice of action. availability (NOA). We will publish a from the Greater Atlantic Regional proposed rule in the Federal Register Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Fisheries Office and comply with that would implement the amendment’s Dated: February 10, 2020. existing reporting requirements; and management measures for additional Karyl K. Brewster-Geisz, • Corrections to existing regulations public comment. All comments received Acting Director, Office of Sustainable to differentiate between Atlantic by the end of the comment period on Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. mackerel and Atlantic chub mackerel the NOA, whether specifically directed [FR Doc. 2020–02960 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] measures and ensure consistency with to the NOA or the proposed rule, will Council intent. be considered in the approval/ BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 8536

Notices Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 31

Friday, February 14, 2020

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DATES: The new fees went into effect on adjust all Schedule A fees. For each contains documents other than rules or January 1, 2020. $1,000,000, rounded down, that the proposed rules that are applicable to the operating reserve varies from the target public. Notices of hearings and investigations, ADDRESSES: Prospective customers can of 41⁄2 months, FGIS will adjust all committee meetings, agency decisions and find the fee scheduled posted on the rulings, delegations of authority, filing of Agency’s public website. Schedule A fees by 2 percent. If the operating reserve exceeds the target, all petitions and applications and agency FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Schedule A fees will be reduced. If the statements of organization and functions are Denise Ruggles, FGIS Executive Program examples of documents appearing in this operating reserve does not meet the Analyst, USDA AMS; Telephone: (816) section. target, all Schedule A fees will be 659–8406; Email: Denise.M.Ruggles@ increased. The maximum annual usda.gov. increase or decrease in fees is 5 percent DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The (7 CFR 800.71(b)(2)(i)–(ii)). United States Grain Standards Act Agricultural Marketing Service Tonnage fees for the 5-year rolling (USGSA) provides the Secretary of average tonnage were calculated on the [DOC. NO. AMS–FGIS–19–0107] Agriculture with the authority to charge previous 5 fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, and collect reasonable fees to cover the Grain Fees for Official Inspection and 2018, and 2019. Tonnage fees consist of costs of performing official services and the national tonnage fee and local Weighing Services Under the United the costs associated with managing the States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) tonnage fee and are calculated and program. The regulations require that rounded to the nearest $0.001 per metric Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, ton. The tonnage fees are calculated as annually review the national tonnage USDA. following: ACTION: Notice. fees, local tonnage fees, and fees for service. After calculating the tonnage National tonnage fee. The national SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing fees according to the regulatory formula tonnage fee is the national program Service (AMS) is announcing the 2020 in 7 CFR 800.71(b)(1), FGIS then administrative costs for the previous fee schedule for official inspection and reviews the amount of funds in the fiscal year divided by the average yearly weighing services performed under the operating reserve at the end of the fiscal tons of export grain officially inspected USGSA, as amended, in order to comply year (FY2019 in this case) to ensure that and/or weighed by delegated States and with agency regulations and the it has 41⁄2 months of operating expenses designated agencies, excluding land Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of as required by section 800.71(b)(2) of carrier shipments to Canada and 2015. This action publishes the annual the regulations. If the operating reserve Mexico, and outbound grain officially review of Schedule A fees calculation has more, or less than 41⁄2 months of inspected and/or weighed by FGIS and the resulting fees. operating expenses, then FGIS must during the previous 5 fiscal years.

Fiscal year Metric tons The national program administrative costs for the previous fiscal year divided costs for fiscal year 2019 were by the average yearly tons of outbound 2015 ...... 118,758,937 $6,836,376. The fiscal year 2020 grain officially inspected and/or 2016 ...... 122,330,979 national tonnage fee, prior to the weighed by the field office during the 2017 ...... 135,017,935 operating reserve review, is calculated previous 5 fiscal years. 2018 ...... 129,687,652 to be at $0.056 per metric ton. 2019 ...... 107,896,235 5-year Rolling Average ...... 122,738,348 Local tonnage fee. The local tonnage fee is the field office administrative

The field offices fiscal year tons for calculated 5-year rolling average are as the previous 5 fiscal years and follows:

5-year rolling Field office FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 average

New Orleans...... 65,244,517 66,077,535 70,439,862 66,996,126 57,807,378 65,313,084 League City ...... 12,474,343 12,581,236 13,307,780 8,424,216 7,939,994 10,945,514 Portland ...... 4,111,533 4,645,754 5,175,459 4,643,241 2,530,648 4,221,327

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES EN14FE20.001 EN14FE20.002 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8537

5-year rolling Field office FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 average

Toledo ...... 2,484,604 2,030,506 2,229,920 1,802,762 1,597,584 2,029,075

The local field office administrative tonnage fee, prior to the operating costs for fiscal year 2019 and the fiscal reserve review, are as follows: year 2020 calculated local field office

FY 2019 local Calculated Field office administrative FY 2020 local costs tonnage fee

New Orleans ...... $1,517,733 $0.023 League City ...... 755,374 0.069 Portland ...... 329,221 0.078 Toledo ...... 236,158 0.116

Operating reserve. In order to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE license, may be granted on Government maintain an operating reserve not less owned inventions only if notice of a than 3 and not more than 6 months, Agricultural Research Service prospective license has been published FGIS reviewed the value of the in the Federal Register or other Notices of Prospective Exclusive, Co- operating reserve at the end of FY2019 appropriate manner, providing Exclusive or Partially Exclusive to ensure that an operating reserve of opportunity for filing written objections Domestic or Foreign Licenses of 41⁄2 months is maintained. within at least a 15-day period. Government-Owned Inventions ARS provides notice that it will The program operating reserve at the publish future notices of prospective end of fiscal year 2019 was $15,543,893 AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. exclusive, co-exclusive or partially with a monthly operating expense of exclusive domestic or foreign licenses at ACTION: Notice. $3,159,182. The target of 4.5 months of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for operating reserve is $14,216,321. SUMMARY: Currently, the Agricultural Technology Transfer website (https:// Therefore, the operating reserve is Research Service (ARS) publishes www.federallabs.org/licenses-list), greater than 4.5 times the monthly notices of prospective exclusive, co- providing opportunity for filing written operating expenses by $1,327,572. For exclusive or partially exclusive objections within at least a 15-day each $1,000,000, rounded down, above domestic or foreign licenses of period. the target level, all Schedule A fees Government owned inventions of USDA Authority: 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. must be reduced by 2 percent. The (including, but not limited to, Mojdeh Baharm, operating reserve is $1.3 million above Agricultural Research Service, Forest the target level resulting in a calculated Service and Animal and Plant Health Assistant Administrator, 2 percent reduction, as required by Inspection Service) in the Federal [FR Doc. 2020–03011 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 800.71(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, for 2020, Register. BILLING CODE 3410–03–P FGIS is reducing all the 2019 Schedule DATES: ARS is announcing that starting A fees for service in Schedule A in on March 15, 2020, it will begin DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE paragraph (a)(1) by 2 percent. All publishing such notices at the Federal Schedule A fees for service are rounded Laboratory Consortium for Technology Submission for OMB Review; to the nearest $0.10, except for fees Transfer website (https:// Comment Request based on tonnage or hundredweight. www.federallabs.org/licenses-list), The fee Schedule A has been published providing opportunity for filing written February 11, 2020. The Department of Agriculture has on the agency’s public website. objections within at least a 15-day period. submitted the following information Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. collection requirement(s) to OMB for ADDRESSES: Questions related to this Dated: February 10, 2020. review and clearance under the notice may be submitted to USDA, ARS, Bruce Summers, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Public Law 104–13. Comments are Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, requested regarding: Whether the Service. Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131. collection of information is necessary [FR Doc. 2020–02948 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for the proper performance of the BILLING CODE 3410–02–P Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of functions of the agency, including Technology Transfer at the Beltsville whether the information will have address given above; telephone: 301– practical utility; the accuracy of the 504–5989. agency’s estimate of burden including SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant the validity of the methodology and to 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), an exclusive, assumptions used; ways to enhance the co-exclusive or partially exclusive quality, utility and clarity of the domestic license, and, pursuant to 37 information to be collected; and ways to CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), an exclusive, co- minimize the burden of the collection of exclusive or partially exclusive foreign information on those who are to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8538 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

respond, including through the use of Forest Service regulations Total Burden Hours: 50. appropriate automated, electronic, implementing these authorities are Ruth Brown, mechanical, or other technological found under Title 36, Code of Federal collection techniques and other forms of Regulations, Section 251, Subpart B (36 Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. information technology. CFR 251, Subpart B). Information Comments regarding this information collected include submission of [FR Doc. 2020–03024 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] collection received by March 16, 2020 applications, execution of forms, and BILLING CODE 3411–15–P will be considered. Written comments imposition of terms and conditions that should be addressed to: Desk Officer for entail information collection DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agriculture, Office of Information and requirements, such as the requirement Regulatory Affairs, Office of to submit annual financial information; Submission for OMB Review; Management and Budget (OMB), New to prepare and update an operating Comment Request Executive Office Building, 725—17th plan; to prepare and update a Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. maintenance plan; and to submit February 11, 2020. Commentors are encouraged to submit compliance reports and information The Department of Agriculture has their comments to OMB via email to: updates. submitted the following information [email protected] or fax collection requirement(s) to Office of (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental Under this request, FS seeks to amend Management and Budget (OMB) for Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail an existing form FS–2700–4i (Special review and clearance under the Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– Use Permit for Outfitting and Guiding) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 7602. Copies of the submission(s) may and create two supporting documents, Public Law 104–13. Comments are be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681. FS 2700–4i, Appendix H (Annual requested regarding: Whether the An agency may not conduct or Stewardship Act Fee Offset Agreement) and FS–2700–4i, Appendix I collection of information is necessary sponsor a collection of information for the proper performance of the unless the collection of information (Stewardship Act Fee Offset Claim Certification). The burden hours in this functions of the agency, including displays a currently valid OMB control whether the information will have notice only account for the amendment number and the agency informs practical utility; the accuracy of the to the existing form and the creation of potential persons who are to respond to agency’s estimate of burden including the two new supporting documents, and the collection of information that such the validity of the methodology and persons are not required to respond to not the overall collection. assumptions used; ways to enhance the the collection of information unless it Need and Use of the Information: The quality, utility and clarity of the displays a currently valid OMB control information collected is evaluated by information to be collected; ways to number. the FS to ensure that authorized uses of minimize the burden of the collection of Forest Service NFS lands are in the public interest and information on those who are to are compatible with the agency’s respond, including through the use of Title: Special Use Administration. mission. The information helps each appropriate automated, electronic, OMB Control Number: 0596–0082. agency identify environmental and mechanical, or other technological Summary of Collection: Several social impacts of special uses for collection techniques or other forms of statutes authorize the Forest Service purposes of compliance with the information technology. (FS) to issue and administer National Environmental Policy Act and authorizations for use and occupancy of Comments regarding this information program administration. Information is National Forest System (NFS) lands and collection received by March 16, 2020 require the collection of information collected under six categories: (1) will be considered. Written comments from the public for those purposes. The Information required from proponents should be addressed to: Desk Officer for laws for authorizing the use and and applicants to evaluate proposals Agriculture, Office of Information and managing these uses of NFS lands and applications to use or occupy NFS Regulatory Affairs, Office of include: The Organic Administration lands; (2) information required from Management and Budget (OMB), New Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551); Title V of applicants to complete special use Executive Office Building, 725 17th the Federal Land Policy and authorizations; (3) annual financial Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 information required from holders to Commenters are encouraged to submit U.S.C. 1761–1771); The Act of March 4, determine land use fees; (4) information their comments to OMB via email to: _ 1915 (16 U.S.C. 497); The National required from holders to prepare and OIRA [email protected] or Forest Ski Area Permit Act (16 U.S.C. update operating plans; (5) information fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental 497b); Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing required from holders to prepare and Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Act (30 U.S.C. 185); The National Forest update maintenance plans; and (6) Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– Roads and Trails Act (FRTA, 16 U.S.C. information required from holders to 7602. Copies of the submission(s) may 532–538); Section 7 of the Granger-Thye complete compliance reports and be obtained by calling (202) 720–8958. Act (16 U.S.C. 480d); The Act of May information updates. An agency may not conduct or 26, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6d); The Description of Respondents: sponsor a collection of information Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Individuals or households; Business or unless the collection of information Act (16 U.S.C. 6801–6814); Act of other for-profit; Not-for-profit displays a currently valid OMB control September 3, 1954 (68 Stat. 1146; 43 institutions; Farms; Federal number and the agency informs U.S.C. 931c, 931d); Archeological Government; State, Local or Tribal potential persons who are to respond to Resource Protection Act of October 31, Government. the collection of information that such 1979 (16 U.S.C.1996); The Rural persons are not required to respond to Electrification Act of 1936, as amended; Number of Respondents: 20. the collection of information unless it and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of Frequency of Responses: Reporting: displays a currently valid OMB control 1964. On occasion. number.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8539

Rural Utilities Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue Title: 7 CFR 1783, Revolving Fund Animal and Plant Health Inspection SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading Program. Service room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., OMB Control Number: 0572–0138. [Docket No. APHIS–2015–0085] Monday through Friday, except Summary of Collection: On May 13, holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799–7039 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Privacy Act of 1974; System of before coming. Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) was Records FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: signed into law as Public Law 107–171. For AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health general questions, please contact Dr. Section 6002 of the Farm Security and Inspection Service, USDA. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended ACTION: Notice of a new system of Permitting and Compliance the Consolidated Farm and Rural records. Coordination, Compliance and Development Act by adding a grant Environmental Coordination Branch, program that established the Revolving SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 150, Fund Program (RFP) to assist 1974 and Office of Management and Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2292. communities with water or wastewater Budget Circular No. A–108, the U.S. For Privacy Act questions concerning systems. Qualified private non-profit Department of Agriculture (USDA) gives this system of records notice, please organizations will receive RFP grant notice that a component agency, the contact Ms. Tonya Woods, Director, funds to establish a revolving loan fund. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Loans will be made to eligible entities Service (APHIS) proposes to add a new Staff, 4700 River Road Unit 50, to finance predevelopment costs of system of records to its inventory of Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–4076. water or wastewater projects, or short- records. The system of records being For USDA Privacy Act questions, please term small capital projects not part of proposed is the APHIS Plant Protection contact the USDA Chief Privacy Officer, the regular operation and maintenance and Quarantine’s Lacey Act Declaration Information Security Center, Office of of current water and wastewater Information Systems (LADIS), USDA/ Chief Information Officer, USDA, Jamie systems. APHIS–24. The purpose of this system L. Whitten Building, 1400 is enable businesses to file Lacey Act Independence Ave., SW, Washington, Need and Use of the Information: declarations. LADIS collects these Non-profit organizations applying for DC 20250; email: USDAPrivacy@ records as part of an effort to combat ocio.usda.gov. the RFP grant(s) must submit an illegal timber imports and to protect application package that includes an global natural resources. Under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant application form, narrative proposal Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import to the provisions of the Privacy Act of (work plan), various other forms, certain plants and plant products 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), certifications, and supplemental without an import declaration. The notice is given that the Animal and information. The Rural Development records in LADIS contain information Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) State Offices and the Rural Utilities regarding imported shipments, of the United States Department of Service National Office staff will use the description of shipments, and the name Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to add information collected to determine and address of the importer and a new system of records, titled Lacey applicant eligibility, project feasibility, consignee. Act Declaration Information Systems and the applicant’s ability to meet the (LADIS), to maintain records of DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. activities conducted by the agency grant and regulatory requirements. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice will Grant recipients will set up a revolving pursuant to its mission and become applicable upon publication, responsibilities authorized by the Lacey loan fund to provide loans to finance subject to a 30-day notice and comment predevelopment costs of water or Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). period in which to comment on the LADIS supports the mission of the wastewater projects, or short-term small routine uses described in the Lacey Act program in APHIS by capital projects not part of the regular ‘‘ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS providing to agency personnel operation and maintenance of current MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM’’ information that can be used to assist water and wastewater systems. Failure section of this system of records notice. with combatting illegal timber imports to collect proper information could Please submit any comments by March and protecting global natural resources. result in improper determinations of 16, 2020. For formal customs entries, importers eligibility, improper use of funds, or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments are required to submit a Lacey Act plant hindrances in making grant(s) by either of the following methods: declaration based on products as listed authorized by the Revolving Fund • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to: on the implementation schedule of Program. http://www.regulations.gov/ enforcement of Harmonized Tariff Description of Respondents: Not-for- #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0085. Schedule codes. The declaration profit institutions. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: information may be filed electronically Number of Respondents: 4. Send your comment to Docket No. through U.S. Customs and Border APHIS–2015–0085, Regulatory Analysis Protection’s (CBP) Automated Frequency of Responses: Reporting: and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station Commercial Environment (ACE) or On occasion. 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, through APHIS’ Lacey Act Web Total Burden Hours: 376. Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. Governance System (LAWGS) importer Supporting documents and any interface. (Using ACE or LAWGS, Ruth Brown, comments we receive on this docket APHIS can more quickly review the Departmental Information Collection may be viewed at http:// declaration information for accuracy Clearance Officer. www.regulations.gov/ and completeness to assist APHIS in [FR Doc. 2020–02982 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0085 or verifying that plants and plant products BILLING CODE 3410–15–P in our reading room, which is located in imported into the United States are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8540 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

legally harvested, sold, and the Administrator, Office of Information The U.S. Customs and Border transported.) ACE enables importers or and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Protection (CBP) Automated brokers to file their declaration Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of Commercial Environment (ACE) users information when they file their February 2020. will submit the Lacey Act declaration customs entry information and enables Kevin Shea, information using systems not them to correct erroneous data entries Administrator, Animal and Plant Health associated with APHIS. The data is then through the ACE system. LAWGS may Inspection Service. moved to LADIS by APHIS. LADIS also be used to file declaration enables the Plant Protection and information through the internet into a SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER: Quarantine (PPQ) Lacey Act Program system owned and operated by APHIS. Lacey Act Declaration Information officials to review the submitted LAWGS enables APHIS to assist System (LADIS), USDA/APHIS–24. declaration for accuracy and importers or brokers in correcting completeness. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: declaration information they filed APHIS’ Lacey Act Web Governance through a notification option in the Unclassified. System (LAWGS) generates the system. Alternatively, paper declaration SYSTEM LOCATION: declaration form containing all data forms may be submitted to APHIS by The master data for the Lacey Act collected in PDF format. The importer U.S. mail service to APHIS headquarters Declaration Information System (LADIS) can file the electronic declaration form in Riverdale, MD. are stored and maintained electronically and print it for their records. LAWGS collects declaration via the National Information Center information during a self-registration CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE (NITC) on a secure U.S. Department of process through which APHIS SYSTEM: Agriculture (USDA) owned and customers and employees may obtain All individuals granted access to the operated system at 8930 Ward Parkway, accounts as authorized users of APHIS LADIS are covered: (1) Employees and Kansas City, MO 64114. Paper services. Users will be able to securely contractors of the USDA (‘‘USDA declarations are securely maintained generate and file the declaration form, personnel’’); (2) other Government under the control of Plant Protection and save it for their records officials; and (3) business personnel. All and Quarantine at 4700 River Road, electronically via the internet for future individuals, even if they are not users of use. Riverdale, MD 20737. the LADIS, who are mentioned or The CBP ACE users will submit the SYSTEM MANAGERS: referenced in any documents entered Lacey Act declaration information using Lacey Act Program Manager, 4700 into LADIS by a user are also covered. systems that are not owned or managed River Road Unit 150, Riverdale, MD This group may include, but is not by APHIS. The users (importers or 20737–1234; IT Project Manager, 4700 limited to, plant workers, vendors, brokers) enter data required under the River Road Unit 144, Riverdale, MD agents, consignees, importers of record, Act into to a set of fields or message set 20737–1234; phone (301) 851–2021. and brokers with a CBP power of that was designed by APHIS to ensure attorney who import or aid in the all information is captured. The data is AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: importation of merchandise subject to then moved to LADIS for storage by The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. 3372 et seq. the provisions of the Lacey Act. APHIS. APHIS personnel use the information PURPOSES OF THE SYSTEM: CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: in LADIS to monitor compliance with The Animal and Plant Health LADIS collects, uses, disseminates the Lacey Act declaration requirement, Inspection Service (APHIS) Lacey Act and maintains records received from identify trends in international trade, Declaration Information Systems business personnel. They provide and alert other Federal enforcement (LADIS) is an online tool which enables declaration information regarding the agencies of unusual or suspicious the users (importers) to securely shipment details, entry information, activity. All individuals about whom generate and file the declaration form, Lacey Act compliance data, and contact information in this system is maintained and save it for their records information associated with the voluntarily submit the information for electronically via the internet for future business. the express purpose of participating in use. LADIS also enables filers to save The information includes the the program and will receive benefits commonly used declaration data in importer name, importer address, equal to or greater than any potential templates for quick and easy future importer email address, consignee impact on their privacy. submissions. Filers are able to view, name, consignee address, the shipment APHIS will share information from edit, and resubmit declarations they estimated date of arrival, entry number, the system pursuant to the requirements created. The forms, as physical harmonized tariff code number, of the Privacy Act and, in the case of its hardcopy or electronic format, are used container number, bill of lading, routine uses, when the disclosure is to obtain the information required by manufacturing identification code, and compatible with the purpose for which the Lacey Act. The declaration form description of merchandise. The the information was compiled. A full contains the estimated date of arrival, compliance data includes the value, list of routine uses is included in the shipment information, description of description of the article or component routine uses section of the document merchandise, scientific name of the of the article, plant scientific name published with this notice. plant, value, quantity of plant material, (genus and species), country of harvest, A report on the new system of the name of the country from which the quantity of plant material, unit of records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as plant was taken. The form also contains measure, and percent of recycled plant implemented by Office of Management the name and address of the importer material. and Budget (OMB) Circular A–108, was and consignee to provide contact sent to the Chairman, Committee on information for APHIS. APHIS uses this RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Homeland Security and Governmental information to verify compliance with The information source is primarily Affairs, United States Senate; the the declaration requirement and provided by the importers or customs Chairman, Committee on Oversight and examine trends associated with brokers, and Federal regulatory Reform, House of Representatives; and imported plants and plant products. agencies. For formal customs entries,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8541

importers are required to submit a Lacey litigation, and by careful review, USDA patterns, trends, or anomalies indicative Act plant declaration consisting of the determines that the records are both of fraud, waste, or abuse; and data elements on the Plant and Plant relevant and necessary to the litigation (11) To the National Archives and Product Declaration form via a paper and the use of such records by the Records Administration (NARA) or to form, or CBP’s ACE, or APHIS’ LAWGS Department of Justice is therefore other Federal government agencies importer interface. deemed by USDA to be for a purpose for pursuant to records management which USDA collected the records; activities being conducted under the ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND (5) To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) USDA or any THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF component thereof; or (b) any employee In addition to those disclosures RECORDS: of USDA in his or her official capacity; generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Electronic records are maintained on or (c) any employee of USDA in his or 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, records the LADIS server at NITC in Kansas her individual capacity where USDA maintained in the system may be City, MO; and the backup server is at St. has agreed to represent the employee; or disclosed outside USDA as a routine use Louis, MO, on magnetic hard-disk. (d) the United States Government, is a under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), as follows, to Paper records are temporarily party to litigation or has an interest in the extent that such disclosures are maintained in a secured building which such litigation, and by careful review, compatible with the purposes for which requires LincPass ID for entry. The USDA determines that the records are the information was collected: Lacey Act Program will move the paper both relevant and necessary to the (1) To other Federal enforcement records to a separate, secure USDA litigation and the use of such records is agencies, including the U.S. Fish and building, under control of PPQ therefore deemed by USDA to be for a Wildlife Service (Department of the personnel, or in a National Archives and purpose that is compatible with the Interior), U.S. Department of Justice, Records Administration-approved purpose for which USDA collected the and including CBP and Homeland records storage facility until the records records; Security Investigations within the U.S. are no longer necessary for the conduct Department of Homeland Security, who (6) To appropriate agencies, entities, of business and the records are disposed will treat the data as law enforcement and persons when: (a) USDA suspects or of in accordance with an approved sensitive primarily for the purpose of has confirmed that the security or records disposition authority. enforcing the Lacey Act or the confidentiality of information in the Convention on International Trade in system of records has been POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and compromised; (b) USDA has determined RECORDS: Flora (CITES); that as a result of the suspected or Records are retrieved by importer or (2) To other cooperating Federal, confirmed breach there is a risk of harm consignee name, entry number or State, and local government officials, to individuals, USDA (including its unique LAWGS assigned identifier, employees, or contractors, and other information systems, programs, and manufacturer identification number, parties assisting in administering the operations), the Federal Government, or container number, and bill of lading. Lacey Act program who will be bound national security; and (c) the disclosure Users of the electronic systems can by the nondisclosure provision of the made to such agencies, entities, and retrieve their own records in the Privacy Act and the Trade Secrets Act; persons is reasonably necessary to assist systems by their name, entry or (3) To appropriate law enforcement in connection with USDA’s efforts to submission date, entry number, or agencies, entities, and persons, whether respond to the suspected or confirmed unique LAWGS assigned identifier. Federal, foreign, State, Tribal, local, or compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND other public authority responsible for DISPOSAL OF RECORDS: enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting (7) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when information from APHIS records disposition authority an alleged violation or a violation of law from the National Archives and Records or charged with enforcing, this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency Administration allows for retention of implementing, or complying with a records for at least 5 years, and records statute, rule, regulation, or order issued or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) will then be disposed of in accordance pursuant thereto, when a record in this with the authority granted. system on its face, or in conjunction preventing, minimizing, or remedying with other records, indicates a violation the risk of harm to individuals, the ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL or potential violation of law, whether agency (including its information SAFEGUARDS: civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, systems, programs, and operations), the Records, both paper and electronic, and whether arising by general statute Federal Government, or national are only accessible to authorized or particular program statute, or by security; personnel. The following physical regulation, rule, or court order issued (8) To a Congressional office in security measures are in place to pursuant thereto, if the information response to an inquiry made at the prevent outsiders from entering LADIS: disclosed is relevant to any written request of the individual to The electronic records are stored on enforcement, regulatory, investigative, whom the record pertains; secure file servers. To gain access to or prosecutive responsibility of the (9) To USDA contractors and other LAWGS, all users are required to have receiving entity; parties engaged to assist in a USDA e-Authentication account. This (4) To the Department of Justice administering the program, analyzing a 2-step process where the user name when: (a) USDA, or any component data, and conducting audits. Such identifies the user and the password thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in contractors and other parties will be authenticates that the user is in fact who his or her official capacity where the bound by the nondisclosure provisions he claims to be. On the Government Department of Justice has agreed to of the Privacy Act; side, PPQ Lacey Act Program officials represent the employee; or (c) the (10) To USDA contractors, partner who have level 2 e-Authentication can United States Government, is a party to agency employees or contractors, or review, print, and analyze the data to litigation or has an interest in such private industry employed to identify meet program needs. Access to system

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8542 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

data is granted to Lacey Act Program exempt from the amendment provisions, be denied due to lack of specificity or employees, administrators, and federal as described in the section entitled lack of compliance with applicable contractors, including help desk ‘‘Exemptions promulgated for the regulations. individuals to facilitate assisting system system.’’ An individual who is the EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: users. All APHIS officials and subject of a record in this system may contractors must take the annual seek amendment of those records that None. security awareness training provided by are not exempt. A determination HISTORY: USDA. whether a record may be amended will N/A. LAWGS users are granted access to be made at the time a request is [FR Doc. 2020–03007 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] their own basic information. LAWGS received. users can use their account’s user ID BILLING CODE 3410–34–P and password and can modify basic NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking notification of personal data such as address and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE email. Users can adjust the level of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to access and permissions within their Animal and Plant Health Inspection contest its content, may submit a own organization’s account; however, Service users do not have access to modify request in writing to the Headquarters or sensitive data such as level of access component’s Freedom of Information [Docket No. APHIS–2019–0087] and permissions associated with Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at http:// Notice of Request for Revision to and another account. Also, they cannot Extension of Approval of an access the declaration information www.da.usda.gov/foia.htm under ‘‘contacts.’’ If an individual believes Information Collection; Plum Pox submitted by other users of the system. Compensation System security measures in place to more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or protect the safety and integrity of ACTION: Revision to and extension of her the individual may submit the declaration information filed in ACE, approval of an information collection; request to the Chief FOIA Officer, including access controls, is comment request. administered by CBP. Neither importers Department of Agriculture, 1400 nor brokers using ACE to file Independence Avenue SW, Washington, SUMMARY: In accordance with the declaration information have access to DC 20250. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this the data stored in the LADIS database. When seeking records about yourself notice announces the Animal and Plant Paper files are kept in a safeguarded from this system of records or any other Health Inspection Service’s intention to environment with controlled access Departmental system of records your request a revision to and extension of only by authorized personnel. All request must conform with the Privacy approval of an information collection APHIS personnel are required to go Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part associated with the regulations that through a basic security clearance and 5, you must first verify your identity, provide for the payment of are required to complete appropriate meaning that you must provide your full compensation to owners of commercial training to learn requirements for name, current address and date and stone fruit orchards and fruit tree safeguarding records maintained under place of birth. You must sign your nurseries whose trees or nursery stock the Privacy Act. request, and your signature must either were destroyed to eradicate plum pox USDA’s NITC safeguards records and be notarized or submitted under 28 virus. U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits ensures privacy requirements are met in DATES: We will consider all comments statements to be made under penalty of accordance with Federal cyber security that we receive on or before April 14, perjury as a substitute for notarization. mandates. NITC provides continuous 2020. storage management, security While no specific form is required, you administration, regular dataset backups may obtain forms for this purpose from ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the Chief FOIA Officer, Department of by either of the following methods: and contingency planning including • disaster recovery. Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to SW, Washington, DC 20250. In addition http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: you should provide the following: Detail;D=APHIS-2019-0087. • An individual who is the subject of a • An explanation of why you believe Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: record in this system may seek access to the Department would have information Send your comment to Docket No. those records that are not exempt from on you; APHIS–2019–0087, Regulatory Analysis the access provisions. Exemptions apply • Identify which component(s) of the and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station only to the extent that the information Department you believe may have the 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, in the system is subject to exemption information about you; Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), if • Specify when you believe the Supporting documents and any applicable. A determination whether a records would have been created; comments we receive on this docket record may be accessed will be made at • Provide any other information that may be viewed at http:// the time a request is received. All will help the FOIA staff determine www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= inquiries should be addressed under which USDA component agency may APHIS-2019-0087 or in our reading ‘‘Notification procedures.’’ have responsive records; and room, which is located in Room 1141 of • If your request is seeking records the USDA South Building, 14th Street CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: pertaining to another living individual, and Independence Avenue SW, Individuals seeking to contest or you must include a statement from that Washington, DC. Normal reading room amend information maintained in the individual certifying his/her agreement hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday system should direct their requests to for you to access his/her records. through Friday, except holidays. To be the address indicated in the Without this bulleted information the sure someone is there to help you, ‘‘Notification procedures’’ section, agency may not be able to conduct an please call (202) 799–7039 before below. Some information may be effective search, and your request may coming.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8543

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For supplemental indemnity claim Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of information on the regulations for plum statement. This may include providing February 2020. pox compensation, contact Ms. Lynn direct deposit information for claim Kevin Shea, Evans-Goldner, National Policy payment and applying for a data Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, universal numbering system (DUNS) Inspection Service. Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) number, if needed. Applicants must also [FR Doc. 2020–03004 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 851–2292; lynn.evans-goldner@usda. maintain or provide records verifying BILLING CODE 3410–34–P gov. For information on the information losses and destruction of stocks, and collection process, contact Mr. Joseph respond to an emergency action Moxey, APHIS Information Collection notification if issued by the Animal and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483; Plant Health Inspection Service. Forest Service [email protected]. We are asking the Office of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Management and Budget (OMB) to Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee Title: Plum Pox Compensation. approve our use of these information OMB Control Number: 0579–0159. collection activities, as described, for an AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Type of Request: Revision to and additional 3 years. ACTION: Notice of meeting. extension of approval of an information The purpose of this notice is to solicit collection. SUMMARY: comments from the public (as well as The Gallatin Resource Abstract: The Plant Protection Act affected agencies) concerning our Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes information collection. These comments Bozeman, Montana. The committee is the Secretary of Agriculture, either will help us: authorized under the Secure Rural independently or in cooperation with Schools and Community Self- the States, to carry out operations or (1) Evaluate whether the collection of Determination Act (the Act) and measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, information is necessary for the proper operates in compliance with the Federal control, prevent, or retard the spread of performance of the functions of the Advisory Committee Act. The purpose plant pests, such as plum pox virus Agency, including whether the of the committee is to improve (PPV), that are new to or not widely information will have practical utility; collaborative relationships and to distributed within the United States. (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our provide advice and recommendations to Plum pox is an extremely serious viral estimate of the burden of the collection the Forest Service concerning projects disease of plants that can affect many of information, including the validity of and funding consistent with Title II of Prunus (stone fruit) species, including the methodology and assumptions used; the Act. RAC information can be found plum, peach, apricot, almond, nectarine, (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and at the following website: https:// and sweet and tart cherry. A number of clarity of the information to be www.fs.usda.gov/main/custergallatin/ wild and ornamental Prunus species collected; and workingtogether/advisorycommittees. may also be susceptible to this disease. DATES: The meeting will be held on (4) Minimize the burden of the Infection eventually results in severely Friday, February 28, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. collection of information on those who reduced fruit production, and the fruit All RAC meetings are subject to that is produced is often misshapen and are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, cancellation. For status of the meeting blemished. PPV is transmitted under prior to attendance, please contact the natural conditions by several species of mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic person listed under FOR FURTHER aphids. The long distance spread of PPV INFORMATION CONTACT. occurs by budding and grafting with submission of responses. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at infected plant material and by farm Estimate of burden: The public the Community Room on the 3rd floor tools/equipment, and through burden for this collection of information of the Courthouse at 311 W. Main in movement of infected budwood, nursery is estimated to average 1 hour per Bozeman, MT. stock, and other plant parts. There are response. no known effective methods for treating Written comments may be submitted Respondents: Owners and affiliates of as described under SUPPLEMENTARY trees or other plant material infected stone fruit orchards and fruit tree with PPV, nor are there any known INFORMATION. All comments, including nurseries, and State plant health names and addresses when provided, effective preventive treatments. Without officials. effective treatments, the only option for are placed in the record and are preventing the spread of the disease is Estimated annual number of available for public inspection and the destruction of infected and exposed respondents: 2. copying. The public may inspect trees and other infected plant material. Estimated annual number of comments received at the Custer The regulations in ‘‘Subpart L—Plum responses per respondent: 3. Gallatin National Forest Supervisor’s Pox’’ (7 CFR 301.74–301.74–5) Office. Please call ahead at 406–587– Estimated annual number of 6701 to facilitate entry into the building. quarantine areas of the United States responses: 5. where PPV has been detected, restrict FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the interstate movement of host material Estimated total annual burden on Karen Tuscano, RAC Coordinator, by from quarantined areas, and when the respondents: 5 hours. (Due to averaging, phone at 406–932–5155 ext 115 or via Secretary of Agriculture declares an the total annual burden hours may not email at [email protected]. extraordinary emergency, provides for equal the product of the annual number Individuals who use compensation to owners of commercial of responses multiplied by the reporting telecommunication devices for the deaf stone fruit orchards and fruit tree burden per response.) (TDD) may call the Federal Information nurseries whose trees or nursery stock All responses to this notice will be Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 were destroyed to eradicate PPV. summarized and included in the request between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eligible applicants must submit an for OMB approval. All comments will Eastern Standard Time, Monday application for compensation with a also become a matter of public record. through Friday.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8544 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: The new and updated CEs will chronological order based on when they purpose of the meeting is to: be incorporated into Forest Service were enacted. 1. Approve minutes from November Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30 Because the categories and exceptions 12, 2019 meeting; March 16, 2020. are established or directed by Congress, 2. Discuss, recommend, and approve ADDRESSES: The public will be able to the Forest Service does not have the new Title II projects; and review the revised FSH on the Forest discretion to change their terms. Below 3. Discuss next meeting for the Service’s website at: https:// is the new text of FSH 1909.15, Chapter Gallatin RAC which will provide www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/nepa_ 30, Section 32.3: feedback on recreation fee proposals. The meeting is open to the public. procedures/index.shtml. The Forest 32.3—Categories and Exceptions The agenda will include time for people Service’s current procedures can also be Established by Statute viewed at that website. to make oral statements of three minutes Congress has statutorily established or less. Individuals wishing to make an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the following CEs or exceptions from oral statement should request in writing James Smalls, Assistant Director, NEPA. Excluding the exception for by Friday, February 21, 2020, to be Ecosystem Management Coordination organizational camp special use scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who via phone at 202–205–1475 or via email authorizations, all of the following items would like to bring related matters to at [email protected]. must be published to the Schedule of the attention of the committee may file Individuals who use Proposed Actions and must be entered written statements with the committee telecommunication devices for the deaf into the Planning, Appeals, and staff before or after the meeting. Written (TDD) may call the Federal Information Litigation System (PALS). Specific comments and requests for time for oral Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 requirements on public input, comments must be sent to Karen between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern collaboration, documentation, and Tuscano, RAC Coordinator, P.O. Box Standard Time, Monday through Friday. extraordinary circumstances vary by 1130, Big Timber, Montana 59011; by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Over the each category and are specified below. email to [email protected], or via past several years, Congress has The responsible official should be facsimile to 406–587–6758. established new or revised existing CEs familiar with each category, as they Meeting Accommodations: If you are or exceptions from NEPA for use by the have varying procedural requirements. a person requiring reasonable Forest Service. These actions are listed 1. Organizational Camp Special Use accommodation, please make requests in FSH 1909.15—National Authorizations. The National Forest in advance for sign language Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Organizational Camp Fee Improvement interpreting, assistive listening devices, Chapter 30—Categorical Exclusion from Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) or other reasonable accommodation. For Documentation. Section 32.3 lists established that the ministerial issuance access to the facility or proceedings, categories established by statute and or amendment of an organizational please contact the person listed in the section 32.4 lists statutory NEPA camp special use authorization is not section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION exceptions. Chapter 30 is being updated subject to NEPA. Sections 502(c) and CONTACT. All reasonable to add a new statutorily established CE 507 (16 U.S.C. 6231, 6236) provide as accommodation requests are managed for greater sage-grouse or mule deer follows: on a case by case basis. habitat. The Agriculture Improvement 502(c) Definitions. In this Act: Dated: February 10, 2020. Act of 2018 amended Title VI of HFRA (1) The term ‘‘organizational camp’’ Cikena Reid, of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) to add means a public or semipublic camp USDA Committee Management Officer. section 606. Section 606 directed that— [FR Doc. 2020–03002 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] development of a CE for specified (A) is developed on National Forest BILLING CODE 3411–15–P covered vegetation management System lands by a nonprofit activities carried out to protect, restore, organization or governmental entity; or improve habitat for greater sage- (B) provides a valuable service to the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE grouse or mule deer (HFRA, Section public by using such lands as a setting 606(b)(1)). Section 606 further provides to introduce young people or Forest Service the specific terms, actions, limitations, individuals with a disability to activities exclusions, and definitions of activities that they may not otherwise experience National Environmental Policy Act, to be included in the CE established. As and to educate them on natural resource Revised Procedures directed by this section, the Forest issues; and AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Service is to establish the CE that meets (C) does not have as its primary these same specific terms, actions, ACTION: Notice of availability. purpose raising revenue through limitations, exclusions, and definitions; commercial activities. SUMMARY: This notice announces the and to establish the CE within one year 507(a) NEPA EXCEPTION.—The establishment of a categorical exclusion of the enactment of the legislation (by ministerial issuance or amendment of (CE) for the USDA, Forest Service as December 20, 2019). an organizational camp special use directed by the amendment of the In addition to adding the section 606 authorization shall not be subject to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) CE, the Forest Service is combining National Environmental Policy Act of of 2003 by the Agriculture Improvement sections 32.3 and 32.4 of FSH 1909.15, 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Act of 2018. This establishment revises Chapter 30. The updated section 32.3 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For Forest Service policies and procedures will also incorporate updates to the purposes of subsection (a), the for compliance with the National Forest Service’s approach to ministerial issuance or amendment of Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as implementation of the section 603 CE an authorization occurs only when the amended. This CE, as well as others and incorporate several other CEs issuance or amendment of the established by Congress, as described established by Congress in recent years. authorization would not change the below, will be incorporated into the Section 32.3 has also been reordered to physical environment or the activities, Forest Service Handbook. list the categories and exceptions in facilities, or program of the operations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8545

governed by the authorization, and at shall be subject to a rebuttable and policies (e.g., Biological least one of the following apply. presumption that the use of a Assessment/Biological Evaluation, (1) The authorization is issued upon categorical exclusion under the cultural/heritage resource clearance, a change in control of the holder of an National Environmental Policy Act of etc.). existing authorization. 1969 (NEPA) would apply if the activity (4) Copies or reference to materials (2) The holder, upon expiration of an is conducted pursuant to the Mineral used to support the determination. authorization, is issued a new Leasing Act for the purpose of Cite this authority as 42 U.S.C. 15942. authorization. exploration or development of oil or gas. 4. Lake Tahoe Basin Hazardous Fuel (3) The authorization is amended— b. ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The Reduction Projects. The 2009 Omnibus (A) to effectuate administrative activities referred to in subsection (a) Appropriations Act (Public Law (Pub. changes, such as modification of the are the following: L.) 111–8) established a CE for land use fee or conversion to a new (1) Individual surface disturbances of hazardous fuels reduction projects special use authorization form; or less than 5 acres so long as the total within the Lake Tahoe Basin (B) to include nondiscretionary surface disturbance on the lease is not Management Unit. environmental standards or to conform greater than 150 acres and site-specific Within the Lake Tahoe Basin with current law. analysis in a document prepared Management Unit, projects carried out Cite this authority as 16 U.S.C. 6236. pursuant to NEPA has been previously 2. Applied Silvicultural Assessments. under this authority are limited to the completed. following size limitations: Section 404 of the Healthy Forests (2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a Restoration Act categorically excludes location or well pad site at which a proposal to authorize a hazardous applied silvicultural assessments for drilling has occurred previously within fuel reduction project, not to exceed information gathering and research 5 years prior to the date of spudding the 5,000 acres, including no more than purposes. Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 6554) well. 1,500 acres of mechanical thinning. provides as follows: (3) Drilling an oil or gas well within (Sec. 423(a)) Applied silvicultural assessment and a developed field for which an approved This CE can be used if the project: research treatments carried out under land use plan or any environmental this section on not more than 1,000 document prepared pursuant to NEPA is consistent with the Lake Tahoe acres for an assessment or treatment analyzed such drilling as a reasonably Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel may be categorically excluded from foreseeable activity, so long as such Reduction and Wildfire Prevention documentation in an environmental plan or document was approved within Strategy published in December 2007 impact statement and environmental 5 years prior to the date of spudding the and any subsequent revision to the assessment under the National well. strategy; Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (4) Placement of a pipeline in an is not conducted in any wilderness Applied silvicultural assessments approved right-of-way corridor, so long areas; and must be peer reviewed by scientific as the corridor was approved within 5 does not involve any new permanent experts including non-Federal experts. years prior to the date of placement of roads. (Sec. 423(a)) This CE is subject to the extraordinary the pipeline. circumstances provisions (sec. 31.4). For (5) Maintenance of a minor activity, A proposal using this CE shall be guidance on use of this CE, see Title IV other than any construction or major subject to: of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act renovation or a building or facility. the extraordinary circumstances 16 U.S.C. 6551–6556. Additional guidance on using these procedures ...; and Cite this authority as (16 U.S.C. CEs can be found in the June 9, 2010 an opportunity for public input. (Sec. 6554(d)). Deputy Chief’s 1950 memo to Regional 423(b)) 3. Oil and Gas Leases. Section 390 of Forester and in the Deputy Chief’s 1950 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs memo to Regional Foresters dated Document this category in a decision that certain activities shall be subject to September 1, 2011, entitled Energy memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). The a rebuttable presumption that the use of Policy Act of 2005, Adjusted Use of decision memo should include a a CE under NEPA would apply if the Section 390 Categorical Exclusions for description of the efforts taking by the activity is conducted pursuant to the Oil and Gas due to Western Energy Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. et seq., Alliance v. Salazar, No. 10–237 (D. provide an opportunity for public input. as amended) for the purpose of Wyo. August 12, 2011). Copies of these Cite this authority as Public Law 111– exploration or development of oil or gas. letters are added at Exhibit 01 at the end 8, Sec. 423. Section 390 identifies five categories of of section 32.3. Per the 2011 memo, a 5. Insect and Disease Infestation. actions that are subject to the statutory review of extraordinary circumstances is Section 8204 of the Agricultural Act of categorical exclusion. not required for use of Section 390 CEs. 2014 (Pub. L. 113–79) amended Title VI The categorical exclusions apply A decision memo is required to of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of exclusively to oil and gas exploration document: 2003 (HFRA) (16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) to and development activities conducted (1) Identification of the applicable add sections 602 and 603. Section 8407 pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act on categories. of the Agriculture Improvement Act of Federal oil and gas leases. They do not (2) A brief narrative stating the 2018 (Pub. L. 115–334) later amended apply to geothermal leases. rationale for making the determination sections 602 and 603 to add hazardous Section 390 (42 U.S.C. 15942) that use of the categorical exclusion(s) fuels reduction projects to the types of provides as follows: applies to the activity under projects that may be carried out under a. NEPA REVIEW.—Action by the consideration, specifically addressing sections 602 and 603. Projects Secretary of the Interior in managing the the applicable review criteria, including completed using the section 603 public lands, or the Secretary of extraordinary circumstances. provisions are considered categorically Agriculture in managing National Forest (3) Any additional information excluded from the requirements of System Lands, with respect to any of the required to demonstrate compliance NEPA and evaluation of extraordinary activities described in subsection (b) with all applicable laws, regulations, circumstances is not required.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8546 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Section 603 can be used for qualifying includes multiple interested persons Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et insect and disease or hazardous fuels representing diverse interests; and seq.) if— reduction projects in areas designated is transparent and nonexclusive; or (a) the issued permit or lease by the Secretary under section 602 on meets the requirements for a resource continues the current grazing National Forest System lands. advisory committee under subsections management of the allotment; and Landscape scale areas may be (c) through (f) of section 205 of the (b) the Secretary concerned— designated by the Secretary if they meet Secure Rural Schools and Community (i) has assessed and evaluated the at least one of the criteria found in Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 grazing allotment associated with the HFRA, sections 602(c)(1)(2) & (3). An U.S.C. 7125). (HFRA, Sections lease or permit; and insect and disease or hazardous fuels 603(b)(1)(A)–(C)). (ii) based on the assessment and project that may be carried out under Projects carried out under this evaluation under clause (i), has this authority is a project that is authority are subject to the following determined that the allotment— designed to reduce the risk or extent of, size limitation on the number of acres (II) with respect to National Forest or increase the resilience to, insect or treated: System land administered by the disease infestation, or to reduce Secretary of Agriculture— may not exceed 3000 acres. (HFRA, hazardous fuels in the areas (HFRA, (aa) is meeting objectives in the Section 603(c)(1)) Sections 602(d) and 603(a)). applicable land and resource Within designated landscape scale Projects carried out under this management plan; or areas, projects carried out under this authority are subject to the following (bb) is not meeting the objectives in authority are limited to areas in: limitations relating to roads: the applicable land resource the wildland-urban interface; or A project . . . shall not include the management plan due to factors other Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire establishment of permanent roads. than existing livestock grazing. Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the The Secretary may carry out The category is subject to wildland urban interface. (HFRA, necessary maintenance and repairs on extraordinary circumstances review and Sections 603(c)(2)(A) & (B)) existing permanent roads for purposes should be documented in a decision of this section. memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). Projects carried out under this The Secretary shall decommission Cite this authority as section 402(h)(1) authority may not be implemented in any temporary road constructed under a of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752). any of the following areas: project under this section not later than 7. Trailing and Crossing of Livestock. a component of the National 3 years after the date on which the The Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ Wilderness Preservation System; project is completed. (HFRA, Section McKeon National Defense Authorization any Federal land on which, by Act of 603(c)(3)) Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113– Congress or Presidential proclamation, 291) amended section 402 of the Federal the removal of vegetation is restricted or All projects and activities carried out Land Policy and Management Act prohibited; under this authority: (U.S.C. 1752) to add a trailing and a congressionally designated shall be consistent with the land and crossing categorical exclusion wilderness study area; or resource management plans. . .’’ (402(h)(2)). an area in which activities . . . would (HFRA, Section 603(e)) (2) The trailing and crossing of livestock across public land and the be inconsistent with the applicable land For projects and actions carried out implementation of trailing and crossing and resource management plan. (HFRA, under this authority: Sections 603(d)(1)–(4)) practices by the Secretary concerned The Secretary shall conduct public A project under this authority must may be categorically excluded from the notice and scoping for any project or requirement to prepare an either carry out a forest restoration action. (HFRA, Section 603(f)) treatment that: environmental assessment or an Document this category in a decision environmental impact statement under complies with the eligibility memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). The the National Environmental Policy Act requirements of the Collaborative Forest decision memo should include a of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Landscape Restoration Program under description of the efforts taken by the This category is subject to section 4003(b) of the Omnibus Public Agency to meet the collaborative extraordinary circumstances review and Land Management Act of 2009 (16 process requirements in HFRA, Section should be documented in a decision U.S.C. 7303(b)). (HFRA, Sections 603(b)(1). memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). 603(b)(2)) Cite this authority as section 603 of Cite this authority as section 402(h)(2) Or, a project under this authority HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591b). of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752). must carry out a forest restoration 6. Grazing Permits and Leases. The 8. Lake Tahoe Basin Forest treatment that: Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ Management Activities. In 2016, the maximizes the retention of old-growth McKeon National Defense Authorization Water Infrastructure Improvements for and large trees, as appropriate for the Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113– the Nation Act (WIIN) (Pub. L. 114–322) forest type, to the extent that the trees 291) amended section 402 of the Federal amended the Lake Tahoe Restoration promote stands that are resilient to Land Policy and Management Act (43 Act (Pub. L. 106–506; 114 Stat. 2353) by insects and disease; U.S.C. 1752) to add a grazing permit establishing a CE for forest management considers the best available scientific categorical exclusion (402(h)(1)). activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin information to maintain or restore the (1) In general.—The issuance of a Management Unit for the purpose of ecological integrity, including grazing permit or lease by the Secretary reducing forest fuels. maintaining or restoring structure, concerned may be categorically Within the Lake Tahoe Basin function, composition, and connectivity; excluded from the requirement to Management Unit, projects carried out and prepare an environmental assessment or under this authority can be carried out is developed and implemented an environmental impact statement using the CE if the forest management through a collaborative process that— under the National Environmental activity:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8547

notwithstanding section 423 of the that contain very high wildfire hazard A project . . . shall not include the Department of the Interior, potential. (HFRA, Sections 605(c)(2)(A) establishment of permanent roads. Environment, and Related Agencies & (B)) The Secretary may carry out Appropriations Act, 2009 (division E of Projects carried out under this necessary maintenance and repairs on Pub. L. 111–8; 123 Stat. 748), does not authority may not be implemented in existing permanent roads for purposes exceed 10,000 acres, including not more any of the following areas: of this section. than 3,000 acres of mechanical The Secretary shall decommission thinning; (Pub. L. 114–322, Sec. 3603(c)) a component of the National any temporary road constructed under a Wilderness Preservation System; Projects must be developed: project under this section not later than any Federal land on which, by Act of 3 years after the date on which the in coordination with impacted Congress or Presidential proclamation, project is completed. (HFRA, Section parties, specifically including the removal of vegetation is restricted or 605(c)(3)) representatives of local governments, prohibited; such as county supervisors or county a congressionally designated All projects and activities carried out commissioners; and in consultation wilderness study area; or under this authority: with other interested parties (Pub. L. an area in which activities . . . would shall apply the extraordinary 114–322, Sec. 3603(c)) be inconsistent with the applicable land circumstances procedures under section All projects and activities carried out and resource management plan. (HFRA, 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal under this authority must be: Sections 605(d)(1)–(4)) Regulations (or successor regulations) consistent with the Lake Tahoe Basin A project under this authority must when using the categorical exclusion Management Unit land and resource either carry out a forest restoration under this section. (HFRA, Section management plan. (Pub. L. 114–322, treatment that: 605((c)(4)) Sec. 3603(c)) shall be consistent with the land and complies with the eligibility resource management plans. . . (HFRA, This category is subject to requirements of the Collaborative Forest Section 605(e)) extraordinary circumstances review and Landscape Restoration Program under should be documented in a decision section 4003(b) of the Omnibus Public For projects and actions carried out memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). The Land Management Act of 2009 (16 under this authority: decision memo should include a U.S.C. 7303(b)). (HFRA, Sections The Secretary shall conduct public description of the efforts taken by the 605(b)(2)) notice and scoping for any project or Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to action. (HFRA, Section 605(f)) meet the coordination and consultation Or, a project under this authority Document this category in a decision requirements. must carry out a forest restoration memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). The Cite this authority as Public Law 114– treatment that: decision memo should include a 322, Sec. 3603. maximizes the retention of old-growth description of the efforts taken by the 9. Wildfire Resilience. The and large trees, as appropriate for the Agency to meet the collaborative Consolidated Appropriations Act of forest type, to the extent that the trees process requirements in HFRA, Section 2018 (Pub. L. 115–171) amended Title promote stands that are resilient to 605(b)(1). VI of the Healthy Forests Restoration insects and disease, and reduce the risk Cite this authority as Section 605 of Act of 2003 (HFRA) (16 U.S.C. 6591 et or extent of, or increase the resilience to, HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591d). seq.) to add Section 605. Section 605 wildfires; 10. Greater Sage-Grouse and Mule establishes a categorical exclusion for considers the best available scientific Deer Habitat. The Agriculture hazardous fuels reduction projects in information to maintain or restore the Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115– designated areas on National Forest ecological integrity, including 334) amended Title VI of the Healthy System lands. A hazardous fuels maintaining or restoring structure, Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) reduction project that may be function, composition, and connectivity; (16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) to add Section categorically excluded under this and 606. Section 606 establishes a authority is a project that is designed to is developed and implemented categorical exclusion for covered maximize the retention of old-growth through a collaborative process that— vegetation management activities and large trees, to the extent that the includes multiple interested persons carried out to protect, restore, or trees promote stands that are resilient to representing diverse interests; and improve habitat for greater sage-grouse insects and disease, and reduce the risk is transparent and nonexclusive; or or mule deer. (HFRA, Section 606(b)(1)) or extent of, or increase the resilience to, meets the requirements for a resource This categorical exclusion may be wildfires (HFRA, Sections 605(b)(1)(A)). advisory committee under subsections used to carry out a covered vegetation This categorical exclusion may be (c) through (f) of section 205 of the management activity on National Forest used to carry out a hazardous fuels Secure Rural Schools and Community System land that was designated under project in an insect and disease Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 HFRA section 602(b), by December 20, treatment area that was designated by U.S.C. 7125). (HFRA, Sections 2018. (HFRA, Section 606(g)(2)) the Secretary under HFRA section 605(b)(1)(A)–(C)). Projects carried out under this 602(b) by March 23, 2018. (HFRA, authority are subject to the following Section 605(c)(2)(C)) Projects carried out under this size limitation on the number of acres Within designated landscape scale authority are subject to the following treated: areas, projects carried out under this size limitation on the number of acres may not exceed 4,500 acres. (HFRA, authority are: treated: may not exceed 3000 acres. Sections 606(g)(1)) Prioritized in the wildland-urban (HFRA, Section 605(c)(1)) interface; or Covered vegetation management If located outside the wildland-urban Projects carried out under this activities under this authority include: interface, limited to Condition Classes 2 authority are subject to the following manual cutting and removal of or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III limitations relating to roads: juniper trees, pinyon pine trees, other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8548 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

associated conifers, or other nonnative the natural state of the treated area; any activity conducted in an or invasive vegetation; outstanding opportunities for inventoried roadless area. (HFRA, mechanical mastication, cutting, or solitude; Sections 606(a)(1)(C)) mowing, mechanical piling and burning, outstanding opportunities for This categorical exclusion shall: chaining, broadcast burning, or yarding; primitive, unconfined recreation; removal of cheat grass, medusa head economic opportunities consistent comply with the National rye, or other nonnative, invasive with multiple-use management; or Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 vegetation; the identified values of a unit of the U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); apply the extraordinary collection and seeding or planting of National Landscape Conservation circumstances procedures under section native vegetation using a manual, System; 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal mechanical, or aerial method; restores native vegetation following a Regulations (or successor regulations), seeding of nonnative, noninvasive, natural disturbance; prevents the in determining whether to use the ruderal vegetation only for the purpose expansion into greater sage-grouse or categorical exclusion; and of emergency stabilization; mule deer habitat of juniper, pinyon consider the relative efficacy of targeted use of an herbicide, subject to pine, or other associated conifers; or landscape-scale habitat projects; the the condition that the use shall be in nonnative or invasive vegetation; likelihood of continued declines in the accordance with applicable legal reduces the risk of loss of greater sage- populations of greater sage-grouse and requirements, Federal agency grouse or mule deer habitat from mule deer in the absence of landscape- procedures, and land use plans; wildfire or any other natural scale vegetation management; and the targeted livestock grazing to mitigate disturbance; or provides emergency need for habitat restoration activities hazardous fuels and control noxious stabilization of soil resources after a after wildfire or other natural and invasive weeds; natural disturbance; and provides for disturbances. (HFRA, Sections 606(b)) temporary removal of wild horses or the conduct of restoration treatments If the categorical exclusion . . . is burros in the area in which the activity that— used to implement a covered vegetative is being carried out to ensure treatment maximize the retention of old-growth management activity in an area within objectives are met; and large trees, as appropriate for the the range of both greater sage-grouse in coordination with the affected forest type; and mule deer, the covered vegetative permit holder, modification or consider the best available scientific management activity shall protect, adjustment of permissible usage under information to maintain or restore the restore, or improve habitat concurrently an annual plan of use of a grazing ecological integrity, including for both greater sage-grouse and mule permit issued by the Secretary . . . to maintaining or restoring structure, deer. (HFRA, Sections 606(c)) achieve restoration treatment objectives; function, composition, and connectivity; installation of new, or modification of are developed and implemented In regards to the disposal of existing, fencing or water sources through a collaborative process that— vegetation material under this authority: intended to control use or improve includes multiple interested persons Subject to applicable local wildlife habitat; or representing diverse interests; and is restrictions, any vegetative material necessary maintenance of, repairs to, transparent and nonexclusive; or resulting from a covered vegetation rehabilitation of, or reconstruction of an meets the requirements for a resource management activity under this existing permanent road or construction advisory committee under subsections authority may be used for fuel wood; or of temporary roads to accomplish the (c) through (f) of section 205 of the other products; or piled or burned, or activities described in this Secure Rural Schools and Community both. (HFRA, Sections 606(e)) subparagraph. (HFRA, Sections Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 Any temporary road constructed in 606(a)(1)(B)) U.S.C. 7125); and carrying out a covered vegetation may include the implementation of a management activity under this A covered vegetation management proposal that complies with the authority: activity that may be categorically eligibility requirements of the excluded under this authority is a Collaborative Forest Landscape shall be used . . . for not more than project that: Restoration Program under section 2 years; and is carried out on National Forest 4003(b) of the Omnibus Public Land shall be decommissioned . . . not System land administered by the Forest Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. later than 3 years after the earlier of the Service; conforms to an applicable 7303(b)). (HFRA, Sections 606(a)(1)(A)) date on which— the temporary road is no longer forest plan; Covered vegetation management protects, restores, or improves greater needed; and activities under this authority do not the project is completed; sage-grouse or mule deer habitat in a include: shall include reestablishing native sagebrush steppe ecosystem as vegetative cover as soon as practicable; described in— any activity conducted in a wilderness but not later than 10 years after the date Circular 1416 of the United States area or wilderness study area; of completion of the applicable covered Geological Survey entitled ‘Restoration any activity for the construction of a vegetation management activity. (HFRA, Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe permanent road or permanent trail; Sections 606(f)) Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater any activity conducted on Federal Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 1. Concepts land on which, by Act of Congress or Under this authority, a temporary for Understanding and Applying Presidential proclamation, the removal road means a road that is: Restoration’ (2015); or of vegetation is restricted or prohibited; authorized by a contract, permit, the habitat guidelines for mule deer any activity conducted in an area in lease, other written authorization; or published by the Mule Deer Working which activities under subparagraph (B) pursuant to an emergency operation; Group of the Western Association of would be inconsistent with the not intended to be part of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies; applicable land and resource permanent transportation system of a will not permanently impair— management plan; or Federal department or agency;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8549

not necessary for long-term resource All applicants are responsible for any measurable results in helping management; expenses incurred in developing their communities build robust and designed in accordance with applications. sustainable economies. An Opportunity standards appropriate for the intended DATES: The deadline for completed Zone is an economically-distressed use of the applications to be received in the community where new investments, road, taking into consideration safety; United States Department of Agriculture under certain conditions, may be the cost of transportation; and impacts (USDA) Rural Development State Office eligible for preferential tax treatment. to is no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on Localities qualify as Opportunity Zones land and resources; and if they have been nominated for that managed to minimize erosion; and May 14, 2020, to be eligible for FY 2020 grant funding. Applications received designation by the State and that the introduction or spread of invasive nomination has been certified by the species. (HFRA, Sections 606(a)(3)) after the deadline will be ineligible for funding. Secretary of the U.S. Treasury via his Document this category in a decision delegation of authority to the Internal ADDRESSES: Applications must be memo (FSH 1909.15, 33.2–33.3). The Revenue Service. submitted to the USDA Rural decision memo should include a To combat a key threat to economic Development State Office where the description of the efforts taken by the prosperity, rural workforce, and quality Project is located. A list of the USDA Agency to meet the collaborative of life, the Agency encourages Rural Development State Office contacts process requirements in HFRA, Section applications that will support the can be found at: http:// 606(a)(1)(A)(vii)(III). Administration’s goal to reduce the Cite this authority as Section 606 of www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state- morbidity and mortality associated with HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591e). offices. Substance Use Disorder (including Dated: January 16, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: opioid misuse) in high-risk rural Allen Rowley, Cindy Mason at (202) 690–1433, communities by strengthening the [email protected] or Sami capacity to address prevention, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. Zarour at (202) 720–9549, sami.zarour@ treatment, and/or recovery at the wdc.usda.gov, Specialty Programs community, county, State, and/or [FR Doc. 2020–03009 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Division, Business Programs, Rural regional levels. See https:// BILLING CODE 3411–15–P Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. www.cdc.gov/pwid/vulnerable-counties- Department of Agriculture, 1400 data.html. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Independence Avenue SW, MS 3226, Key strategies include: Room 4204-South, Washington, DC • Prevention: Reducing the Rural Business-Cooperative Service 20250–3226, or call 202–720–1400. For occurrence of Substance Use Disorder further information on this notice, (including opioid misuse) and fatal Notice of Solicitation of Applications please contact the USDA Rural substance-related overdoses through for Inviting Applications for the Rural Development State Office in the State in community and provider education and Business Development Grant Program which the applicant’s headquarters is harm reduction measures such as the To Provide Technical Assistance for located. A list of Rural Development strategic placement of overdose Rural Transportation Systems State Office contacts is provided at the reversing devices, such as naloxone; following link: http://www.rd.usda.gov/ • Treatment: Implementing or AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative contact-us/state-offices. expanding access to evidence-based Service, USDA. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: treatment practices for Substance Use ACTION: Notice. Disorder (including opioid misuse) such Priority Language for Funding as medication-assisted treatment (MAT); SUMMARY: This notice is to invite Opportunities and applications for grants to provide • Recovery: Expanding peer recovery Technical Assistance for Rural The Agency encourages applications that will help improve life in rural and treatment options that help people Transportation (RT) systems under the start and stay in recovery. Rural Business Development Grant America. See information on the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture To focus investments to areas for the (RBDG) to provide Technical Assistance largest opportunity for growth in for RT systems and for RT systems to and Rural Prosperity found at: www.usda.gov/ruralprosperity. prosperity, the Agency encourages Federally Recognized Native American applications that serve the smallest Tribes’ (FRNAT) (collectively Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results communities with the lowest incomes, ‘‘Programs’’) and the terms provided in with an emphasis on areas where at such funding. This notice is being in helping rural communities build robust and sustainable economies least 20 percent of the population is issued in order to allow applicants living in poverty, according to the sufficient time to leverage financing, through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships, and American Community Survey data by prepare, and submit their applications census tracts. and give the Agency time to process innovation. applications within fiscal year (FY) Key strategies include: Overview • 2020. Successful applications will be Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural Solicitation Opportunity Title: Rural selected by the Agency for funding and America Business Development Grants. • subsequently awarded to the extent that Developing the Rural Economy Announcement Type: Initial • funding may ultimately be made Harnessing Technological Innovation Announcement. available through appropriations. An • Supporting a Rural Workforce Catalog of Federal Domestic • announcement on the website at: Improving Quality of Life Assistance Number: 10.351. https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/ To leverage investments in rural Dates: The deadline for completed fy2020-appropriated-funding will property, the Agency also encourages applications must be received in the identify the amount received in the projects located in rural Opportunity USDA Rural Development State Office appropriations. Zones where projects should provide no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8550 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

May 14, 2020, to be eligible for FY 2020 communities nationwide for the Renewal or Supplemental Awards: grant funding. purpose of improving passenger None. transportation services or facilities. To A. Program Description C. Eligibility Information be considered ‘‘national,’’ RBS requires 1. Purpose of the Program. The a qualified organization to provide 1. Eligible Applicants. purpose of this program is to improve evidence that it can operate RT To be considered eligible, an entity the economic conditions of Rural Areas. assistance programming nation-wide. must be a qualified national 2. Statutory Authority. This program An entity can qualify if they can work organization serving Rural Areas as is authorized under section 310B(c) of in partnership with other entities to evidenced in its organizational the Consolidated Farm and Rural fulfill the national requirement as long documents and demonstrated Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). as the applicant will have ultimate experience, per 7 CFR part 4280, Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part control of the grant administration. For subpart E. Grants will be competitively 4280, subpart E. The program is the funding for RT systems to FRNATs, awarded to qualified national administered on behalf of Rural an entity can qualify if they can work in organizations. Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) at partnership with other entities to The Agency requires the following the State level by the USDA Rural support all federally recognized tribes in Development State Offices. Assistance information to make an eligibility all States, as long as the applicant will determination that an applicant is a provided to Rural Areas under the have ultimate control of the grant program has historically included the national organization. These administration. There is not a applications must include, but are not provision of on-site Technical requirement to use the grant funds in a Assistance to tribal, local and regional limited to, the following: multi-State area. Grants will be made to (a) An original and one copy of SF governments, public transit agencies, qualified national organizations for the and related nonprofit and for-profit 424, ‘‘Application for Federal provision of Technical Assistance and organizations in Rural Areas; the Assistance (for non-construction);’’ training to Rural communities for the development of training materials; and (b) Copies of applicant’s purpose of improving passenger the provision of necessary training organizational documents showing the transportation services or facilities. assistance to local officials and agencies applicant’s legal existence and authority 3. Definition of Terms. The definitions in Rural Areas. to perform the activities under the grant; applicable to this notice are published Awards under the RBDG passenger (c) A proposed scope of work, at 7 CFR 4280.403. transportation program will be made on including a description of the proposed a competitive basis using specific 4. Application Awards. The Agency Project, details of the proposed activities selection criteria contained in 7 CFR will review, evaluate, and score to be accomplished and timeframes for part 4280, subpart E, and in accordance applications received in response to this completion of each task, the number of with section 310B(c) of the Consolidated notice based on the provisions in 7 CFR months for the duration of the Project, Farm and Rural Development Act (7 4280, subpart E and as indicated in this and the estimated time it will take from U.S.C. 1932(c)). Information required to notice. However, the Agency advises all grant approval to beginning of Project be in the application package includes interested parties that the applicant implementation; bears the burden in preparing and Standard Form (SF) 424, ‘‘Application (d) A written narrative that includes, submitting a complete application in for Federal Assistance;’’ environmental at a minimum, the following items: response to this notice. documentation in accordance with 7 (1) An explanation of why the Project CFR part 1970, ‘‘Environmental Policies B. Federal Award Information is needed, the benefits of the proposed and Procedures;’’ Scope of Work Type of Award: Grants. Project, and how the Project meets the Narrative; Income Statement; Balance grant eligible purposes; Sheet or Audit for previous 3 years; AD– Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2020 (amount (2) Area to be served, identifying each 1047, ‘‘Debarment/Suspension to be determined). governmental unit, i.e., tribe, town, Certification;’’ AD–1048, ‘‘Certification Available Funds: Anyone interested county, etc., to be affected by the Regarding Debarment, Suspension, in submitting an application for funding Project; Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;’’ under this program is encouraged to AD–1049, ‘‘Certification Regarding consult the Rural Development Web (3) Description of how the Project will Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;’’ Newsroom website at: http:// coordinate Economic Development SF LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices- activities with other Economic Activities;’’ RD 400–1, ‘‘Equal solicitation-applications-nosas. Development activities within the Opportunity Agreement;’’ RD 400–4, Approximate Number of Awards: To Project area; ‘‘Assurance Agreement;’’ and a letter be determined based on the number of (4) Businesses to be assisted, if providing Board authorization to obtain qualified applications received. appropriate, and economic development assistance. For the FRNAT grant, which Historically two awards have been to be accomplished; must benefit FRNATs, at least 75 made. (5) An explanation of how the percent of the benefits of the Project Maximum Awards: Will be proposed Project will result in newly must be received by members of determined by the specific funding created, increased, or supported jobs in FRNATs. The Project that scores the provided for the program in the FY 2020 the area and the number of projected greatest number of points based on the Appropriations Act. The Agency will new and supported jobs within the next RBDG selection criteria and the publish any maximum award amount 3 years; discretionary points will be selected for on its website at: https:// (6) A description of the applicant’s each grant. www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices- demonstrated capability and experience For the funding for Technical solicitation-applications-nosas. in providing the proposed Project Assistance for RT systems, applicants Award Date: Prior to September 30, assistance, including experience of key must be qualified national organizations 2020. staff members and persons who will be with experience in providing Technical Performance Period: October 1, 2020, providing the proposed Project activities Assistance and training to rural through September 30, 2021. and managing the Project;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8551

(7) The method and rationale used to cooperative agreement with, make a Grants.gov. Your application must select the areas and businesses that will grant to, or provide a loan or loan contain all required information using receive the service; guarantee to, any corporation that was only one of the submission methods. If (8) A brief description of how the convicted of a felony criminal violation you submit in paper form, any forms work will be performed, including under any Federal law within the requiring signatures must include an whether organizational staff or preceding 24 months, where the original signature. consultants or contractors will be used; awarding agency is aware of the To apply electronically, you must and conviction, unless a Federal agency has follow the instructions for this funding (9) Other information the Agency may considered suspension or debarment of announcement at: http:// request to assist it in making a grant the corporation and has made a www.grants.gov. Please note that we award determination. determination that this further action is cannot accept emailed or faxed (e) The latest 3 years of financial not necessary to protect the interests of applications. information to show the applicant’s the Government. You can locate the Grants.gov financial capacity to carry out the 4. Completeness Eligibility. downloadable application package for proposed work. If the applicant is less Applications will not be considered this program by using a keyword, the than 3 years old, at a minimum, the for funding if they do not provide program name, or the Catalog of Federal information should include all balance sufficient information to determine Domestic Assistance number for this sheet(s), income statement(s), and cash eligibility or are missing required program. flow statement(s). A current audited elements. When you enter the Grants.gov report is required if available; website, you will find information about (f) Documentation regarding the D. Application and Submission applying electronically through the site, availability and amount of other funds Information as well as the hours of operation. to be used in conjunction with the funds 1. Address to Request Application To use Grants.gov, you must already from RBDG; Package. have a Dun and Bradstreet Universal (g) A budget which includes salaries, For further information, entities Numbering System (DUNS) number and fringe benefits, consultant costs, indirect wishing to apply for assistance should you must also be registered and costs, and other appropriate direct costs contact the USDA Rural Development maintain registration in the System for the Project. State Office provided in the ADDRESSES Awards Management (SAM). We 2. Cost Sharing or Matching. Matching section of this notice to obtain copies of strongly recommend that you do not funds are not required. the application package. wait until the application deadline date 3. Other. Prior to official submission of grant to begin the application process through Applications will only be accepted applications, applicants may request Grants.gov. from qualified national organizations to technical assistance or other application Documents submitted electronically provide Technical Assistance for RT. guidance from the Agency, as long as through Grants.gov must include There are no ‘‘responsiveness’’ or such requests are made prior to April 6, electronic signatures. Original ‘‘threshold’’ eligibility criteria for these 2020 Technical Assistance is not meant signatures may be required if funds are grants. There is no limit on the number to be an analysis or assessment of the awarded. of applications an applicant may submit quality of the materials submitted, a After applying electronically through under this announcement. In addition to substitute for Agency review of Grants.gov, you will receive an the forms listed under Program completed applications, nor a automatic acknowledgement from Description, Form AD–3030 determination of eligibility, if such Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov ‘‘Representations Regarding Felony determination requires in-depth tracking number. Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status analysis. The Agency will not solicit or If you want to submit a paper for Corporate Applicants,’’ must be consider scoring or eligibility application, send it to the State Office completed in the affirmative. information that is submitted after the located in the State where the Project None of the funds made available may application deadline. The Agency will primarily take place. You can find be used to enter into a contract, reserves the right to contact applicants State Office contact information at: memorandum of understanding, or to seek clarification information on http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/ cooperative agreement with, make a materials contained in the submitted state-offices. grant to, or provide a loan or loan application. The organization submitting the guarantee to, any corporation that has Applications must be submitted in application will be considered the lead any unpaid Federal tax liability that has paper format or electronic submission. If entity. The Contact/Program Manager been assessed, for which all judicial and you want to submit an electronic must be associated with the lead entity administrative remedies have been application, follow the instructions for submitting the application. exhausted or have lapsed, and that is the RBDG funding announcement An application must contain all of the not being paid in a timely manner located at: http://www.grants.gov. Please required elements. Each application pursuant to an agreement with the review the Grants.gov website for received in a USDA Rural Development authority responsible for collecting the instructions on the process of registering State Office will be reviewed to tax liability, where the awarding agency your organization as soon as possible to determine if it is consistent with the is aware of the unpaid tax liability, ensure you can meet the electronic eligible purposes contained in section unless a Federal agency has considered application deadline. Applications 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and suspension or debarment of the submitted to a USDA Rural Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. corporation and has made a Development State Office must be 1932(c)). Each selection priority determination that this further action is received by the closing date and local criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.435 not necessary to protect the interests of time. must be addressed in the application. the Government. 2. Content and Form of Application Failure to address any of the criterion None of the funds made available may Submission. will result in a zero-point score for that be used to enter into a contract, You may submit your application in criterion and will impact the overall memorandum of understanding, or paper form or electronically through evaluation of the application. Copies of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8552 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, will be receive a Federal award and use that E. Application Review Information provided to any interested applicant determination as a basis for making a 1. Criteria. making a request to a USDA Rural Federal award to another applicant. All eligible and complete applications Development State Office. 4. Submission Dates and Times. will be evaluated and scored based on All Projects to receive Technical (a) Application Deadline Date: No the selection criteria and weights Assistance through these passenger later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on May contained in 7 CFR 4280.435 and will transportation grant funds are to be 14, 2020. Electronic applications must select grantees subject to the grantees’ identified when the applications are be submitted via grants.gov no later satisfactory submission of the additional submitted to the USDA Rural than midnight eastern time on May 14, items required by 7 CFR part 4280, Development State Office. Multiple 2020. subpart E and the USDA Rural Project applications must identify each Explanation of Deadlines: Development Letter of Conditions. individual Project, indicate the amount Applications must be in the USDA of funding requested for each individual Failure to address any one of the criteria Rural Development State Office by the in 7 CFR 4280.435 by the application Project, and address the criteria as local deadline date and time as stated above for each individual Project. deadline will result in the application indicated above. If the due date falls on being determined ineligible, and the For multiple-Project applications, the a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, average of the individual Project scores application will not be considered for the application is due the next business funding. The amount of an RT grant will be the score for that application. day. The applicant documentation and may be adjusted, at the Agency’s (b) The deadline date means that the forms needed for a complete application discretion, to enable the Agency to completed application package must be are located in the Program Description award RT grants to the applications received in the USDA Rural section of this notice, and 7 CFR part with the highest priority scores in each Development State Office by the 4280, subpart E. category. (a) There are no specific formats, deadline date established above. All 2. Review and Selection Process. specific limitations on number of pages, application documents identified in this The State Offices will review font size and type face, margins, paper notice are required. applications to determine if they are size, number of copies, and the (c) If complete applications are not eligible for assistance based on sequence or assembly requirements. received by the deadline established requirements contained in 7 CFR (b) The component pieces of this above, the application will neither be 4280.416 and 4280.417. If determined application should contain original reviewed nor considered under any eligible, your application will be signatures on the original application. circumstances. submitted to the National Office. (c) Since these grants are for (d) The Agency will determine the Funding of Projects is subject to the Technical Assistance for transportation application receipt date based on the applicant’s satisfactory submission of purposes, no additional information actual date postmarked. the additional items required by that requirements other than those described (e) This notice is for RT Technical subpart and the USDA Rural in this notice and 7 CFR part 4280, Assistance grants only and therefore, Development Letter of Conditions. The subpart E are required. intergovernmental reviews are not Agency reserves the right to award 3. Unique entity identifier and System required. additional discretionary points under 7 for Award Management. (f) These grants are for RT Technical CFR 4280.435(k). All applicants must have a DUNS Assistance grants only, no construction In awarding discretionary points, the number which can be obtained at no or equipment purchases are permitted. Agency scoring criteria regularly assigns cost via a toll-free request line at (866) If the grantee has a previously approved points to applications that direct loans 705–5711 or at: http://fedgov.dnb.com/ indirect cost rate, it is permissible, or grants to Projects based in or serving webform. Each applicant (unless the otherwise, the applicant may elect to census tracts with poverty rates greater applicant is an individual or Federal charge the 10 percent indirect cost than or equal to 20 percent. This awarding agency that is excepted from permitted under 2 CFR 200.414(f) or emphasis will support Rural the requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) request a determination of its Indirect Development’s mission of improving the or (c) or has an exception approved by Cost Rate. Due to the time required to quality of life for Rural Americans and the Federal awarding agency under 2 evaluate Indirect Cost Rates, it is likely commitment to directing resources to CFR 25.110(d)) is required to: (i) Be that all funds will be awarded by the those who most need them. registered in SAMS before submitting its time the Indirect Cost Rate is application; (ii) provide a valid unique determined. No foreign travel is F. Federal Award Administration entity identifier in its application; and permitted. Pre-Federal award costs will Information (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM only be permitted with prior written 1. Federal Award Notices. registration with current information at approval by the Agency. Successful applicants will receive all times during which it has an active (g) Applicants must submit notification for funding from their Federal award or an application or plan applications in paper copy format or an USDA Rural Development State Office. under consideration by a Federal electronic submission as previously Applicants must comply with all awarding agency. The Federal awarding indicated in the Application and applicable statutes and regulations agency may not make a Federal award Submission Information section of this before the grant award will be approved. to an applicant until the applicant has notice. If the applicant wishes to hand Unsuccessful applications will receive complied with all applicable unique deliver its application, the addresses for notification by mail. entity identifier and SAM requirements these deliveries can be located in the 2. Administrative and National Policy and, if an applicant has not fully ADDRESSES section of this notice. Requirements. complied with the requirements by the (h) If you require alternative means of Additional requirements that apply to time the Federal awarding agency is communication for program information grantees selected for this program can be ready to make a Federal award, the (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) found in 7 CFR 4280.408, 4280.410, and Federal awarding agency may determine please contact USDA’s TARGET Center 4280.439. Awards are subject to USDA that the applicant is not qualified to at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). Departmental Grant Regulations at 2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8553

CFR Chapter IV which incorporates the compliance with Title VI of the Civil must include, but not be limited to, the new Office of Management and Budget Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15, and following: (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR part 200. other Agency regulations. That no (1) A comparison of actual All successful applicants will be person will be discriminated against accomplishments to the objectives notified by letter, which will include a based on race, color, or national origin, established for that period; Letter of Conditions, and a Letter of in regard to any program or activity for (2) Problems, delays, or adverse Intent to Meet Conditions. This letter is which the recipient receives Federal conditions, if any, which have affected not an authorization to begin financial assistance. That or will affect attainment of overall performance. If the applicant wishes to nondiscrimination statements are in Project objectives, prevent meeting time consider beginning performance prior to advertisements and brochures. schedules or objectives, or preclude the the grant being officially closed, all pre- Collect and maintain data provided by attainment of particular Project work award costs must be approved in recipients on race, sex, and national elements during established time writing and in advance by the Agency. origin and ensure recipients collect and periods. This disclosure shall be The grant will be considered officially maintain this data. Race and ethnicity accompanied by a statement of the awarded when all conditions in the data will be collected in accordance action taken or planned to resolve the Letter of Conditions have been met and with OMB Federal Register notice, situation; the Agency obligates the funding for the ‘‘Revisions to the Standards for the (3) Objectives and timetable Project. Classification of Federal Data on Race established for the next reporting Additional requirements that apply to and Ethnicity,’’ (62 FR 58782), October period; grantees selected for this program can be 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in (4) Any special reporting found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E; the accordance with Title IX of the requirements, such as jobs supported Grants and Agreements regulations of Education Amendments of 1972. These and created, businesses assisted, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture items should not be submitted with the Economic Development which results in codified in 2 CFR Chapter IV, and application but should be available improvements in median household successor regulations. upon request by the Agency. incomes, and any other specific In addition, all recipients of Federal The applicant and the ultimate requirements, should be placed in the financial assistance are required to recipient must comply with Title VI of reporting section in the Letter of report information about first-tier sub- the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of Conditions; and awards and executive compensation the Education Amendments of 1972, (5) Within 90 days after the (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), conclusion of the Project, the grantee required to have the necessary processes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of will provide a final Project evaluation and systems in place to comply with the 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, report. The last quarterly payment will Federal Funding Accountability and Executive Order 12250, Executive Order be withheld until the final report is Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109– 13166 Limited English Proficiency received and approved by the Agency. 282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E. Even though the grantee may request 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under (j) SF LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying reimbursement on a monthly basis, the 2 CFR 170.110(b)). Activities,’’ if applicable. last 3 months of reimbursements will be The following additional (k) Form SF 270, ‘‘Request for withheld until a final Project, Project requirements apply to grantees selected Advance or Reimbursement.’’ performance, and financial status report for this program: 3. Reporting. are received and approved by the (a) Form RD 4280–2 ‘‘Rural Business- (a) A Financial Status Report and a Agency. Cooperative Service Financial Project performance activity report will Assistance Agreement.’’ G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) be required of all grantees on a quarterly (b) Letter of Conditions. For general questions about this (c) Form RD 1940–1, ‘‘Request for basis until initial funds are expended and yearly thereafter, if applicable, announcement, please contact your Obligation of Funds.’’ USDA Rural Development State Office (d) Form RD 1942–46, ‘‘Letter of based on the Federal fiscal year. The grantee will complete the Project within provided in the ADDRESSES section of Intent to Meet Conditions.’’ this notice. (e) Form AD–1047, ‘‘Certification the total time available to it in Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and accordance with the Scope of Work and H. Civil Rights Requirements Other Responsibility Matters-Primary any necessary modifications thereof prepared by the grantee and approved All grants made under this notice are Covered Transactions.’’ subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (f) Form AD–1048, ‘‘Certification by the Agency. A final Project performance report will be required of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR Regarding Debarment, Suspension, part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion- with the final Financial Status Report. The final report may serve as the last the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VIII Lower Tier Covered Transactions.’’ of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX, (g) Form AD–1049, ‘‘Certification quarterly report. The final report must Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace provide complete information regarding Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, Requirement (Grants).’’ the jobs created and supported as a and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of (h) Form AD–3031, ‘‘Assurance result of the grant if applicable. Grantees 1974. Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax must continuously monitor performance Delinquent Status for Corporate to ensure that time schedules are being I. Other Information Applicants.’’ Must be signed by met, projected work by time periods is Paperwork Reduction Act corporate applicants who receive an being accomplished, and other award under this notice. performance objectives are being In accordance with the Paperwork (i) Form RD 400–4, ‘‘Assurance achieved. Grantees must submit an Reduction Act of 1995, the information Agreement.’’ Each prospective recipient original of each report to the Agency no collection requirement contained in this must sign Form RD 400–4 which assures later than 30 days after the end of the notice is approved by OMB under OMB USDA that the recipient is in quarter. The Project performance reports Control Number 0570–0070.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8554 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Federal Funding Accountability and (2) Fax: (202) 690–7442; or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RUS, the Transparency Act (3) Email: [email protected]. lead Federal agency, has approved the All applicants, in accordance with 2 USDA is an equal opportunity C–HC Project to proceed to the RUS CFR part 25, must have a DUNS provider, employer, and lender. loan review and engineering review processes for Dairyland Power number, which can be obtained at no Mark Brodziski, cost via a toll-free request line at (866) Cooperative’s (Dairyland’s) share in the Acting Administrator, Rural Business- construction of the C–HC Project. The 705–5711, or online at: http:// Cooperative Service. fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Similarly, all USFWS has received an application [FR Doc. 2020–02949 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] package from ITC Midwest LLC (ITC applicants must be registered in SAM BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P Midwest) and Dairyland for a right-of- prior to submitting an application. way (ROW) permit to cross the Upper Applicants may register for the SAM at: Mississippi River National Wildlife and http://www.sam.gov/SAM. All DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Fish Refuge (Refuge). The USFWS is recipients of Federal financial assistance obligated to review the right-of-way are required to report information about Rural Utilities Service application package, complete an first-tier sub-awards and executive total associated National Environmental compensation in accordance with 2 CFR Cardinal-Hickory Creek 345-kV Policy Act (NEPA) process, identify a part 170. Transmission Line Project preferred alternative, and decide Nondiscrimination Statement AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. whether or not to issue a right-of-way In accordance with Federal civil ACTION: Notice of availability of a permit. Before a right-of-way permit can be issued, the USFWS must determine rights law and U.S. Department of Record of Decision. that the proposed use (a transmission Agriculture (USDA) civil rights line across the Refuge) is compatible regulations and policies, the USDA, its SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of with the purpose for which the Refuge Agencies, offices, and employees, and Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities was established. The USFWS has found institutions participating in or Service (RUS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife the proposed transmission line ROW administering USDA programs are Service (USFWS), and U.S. Army Corps across the Refuge as presented in prohibited from discriminating based on of Engineers (USACE) have issued a Alternative 6 and described in the right- race, color, national origin, religion, sex, single Record of Decision (ROD) to of-way application from ITC Midwest gender identity (including gender approve the Final Environmental Impact and Dairyland to be compatible. As a expression), sexual orientation, Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Cardinal-Hickory Creek 345-kilovolt cooperating agency, the USFWS agrees disability, age, marital status, family/ that the NEPA process is complete and parental status, income derived from a (kV) Transmission Line Project (C–HC Project). The C–HC Project will connect the FEIS adequately describes impacts public assistance program, political to the human environment. The FEIS beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior the Cardinal Substation in Dane County, Wisconsin with the Hickory Creek will be used to inform USFWS decision civil rights activity, in any program or makers on the impacts of allowing a activity conducted or funded by USDA Substation in Dubuque County, Iowa. The C–HC Project also includes a new transmission line ROW across the (not all bases apply to all programs). Refuge. The USACE will approve the Remedies and complaint filing intermediate 345-/138-kV substation near the village of Montfort in Grant ROW request and will issue permit deadlines vary by program or incident. applications required by Section 10 and Persons with disabilities who require County, Wisconsin. The total length of the 345-kV transmission lines associated Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors alternative means of communication for Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water program information (e.g., Braille, large with the proposed project will be approximately 100 miles. Act. print, audiotape, American Sign The ROD has been signed by the Language, etc.) should contact the ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the ROD Administrator for the Rural Utilities responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET or for further information, contact: Service, Regional Director for the Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and Dennis Rankin, Environmental USFWS in Unified Region 3, and TTY) or contact USDA through the Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Colonel Steven M. Sattinger, Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Commander and District Engineer for Additionally, program information may Avenue SW, Room 2244, Stop 1571, USACE, which was effective upon be made available in languages other Washington, DC 20250–1571, by signing on January 17, 2020. than English. telephone at (202) 720–1414, or email The RUS is the lead agency for the To file a program discrimination [email protected]. The ROD and Federal environmental review, with complaint, complete the USDA Program Final Environmental Impact Statement USFWS, USACE, and the U.S. Discrimination Complaint Form, AD are available online at https:// Environmental Protection Agency 3027, found online at: http:// www.rd.usda.gov/publications/ (USEPA) serving as cooperating www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_ environmental-studies/impact- agencies, and the National Park Service cust.html and at any USDA office, or statements/cardinal-%E2%80%93- (NPS) as a participating agency. The write a letter addressed to USDA and hickory-creek-transmission-line. FEIS was prepared pursuant to NEPA provide in the letter all of the For information about the Upper (United States Code [U.S.C.] 4231 et information requested in the form. To Mississippi River National Wildlife and seq.) and in accordance with Council on request a copy of the complaint form, Fish Refuge and the U.S. Fish and Environmental Quality regulations for call (866) 632–9992. Submit your Wildlife Service, contact: Tim Yager, implementing the procedural provisions completed form or letter to USDA by: Deputy Refuge Manager, Upper of NEPA (40 Code of Federal (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Mississippi River National Wildlife and Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), RUS Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Fish Refuge, 51 E 4th Street, Winona, Environmental Policies and Procedures Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 MN 55987, by telephone at (507) 494– (7 CFR 1970), USFWS Environmental Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 6219, or email at timothy_yager@ Policies and Procedures (43 CFR 46.10– DC 20250–9410; fws.gov. 46.50 and 560 DM 8), and the USACE’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8555

NEPA implementing procedures (33 Substation near the village of Montfort, USFWS has found the transmission line CFR 230.9). As the lead Federal agency, Wisconsin: A rebuild of approximately route which crosses the Refuge as and as part of its broad environmental 1 mile of the Hill Valley to Eden 138- described in the preferred alternative to review process, RUS must take into kV transmission line; be compatible. The USFWS will account the effect of the C–HC Project • At the existing Wyoming Valley continue to review a right-of-way permit on historic properties in accordance Substation near Wyoming, Wisconsin: application from ITC Midwest and with Section 106 of the National Installation of nine 16-foot ground rods Dairyland and will make a decision on Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. to mitigate potential fault current granting a right-of-way permit within 470f) and its implementing regulation contributions from the proposed project; 270 days of signature of the ROD. ‘‘Protection of Historic Properties’’ (36 • Between the existing Cardinal Subsequent special use permits CFR 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR Substation and the proposed Hill Valley authorizing construction of the 800.2(d)(3), RUS used its procedures for Substation: A new 53-mile 345-kV transmission line would be evaluated public involvement under NEPA, in transmission line; and issued after the right-of-way permit part, to meet its responsibilities to • Between the proposed Hill Valley is granted. solicit and consider the views of the Substation and existing Hickory Creek • The USACE will issue a permit for public and other interested parties Substation: A new 49-mile 345-kV the C–HC Project under Sections 10 and during the Section 106 review process. transmission line; 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, for the Accordingly, comments submitted in • At the Mississippi River in crossing of the Mississippi River at the the EIS process also informed RUS’s Cassville, Wisconsin: A relocation of the selected alternative. The USACE will decision making in the Section 106 existing Mississippi River transmission also issue permits under Section 404 of review process. Dairyland is line crossing to accommodate the new the Clean Water Act, for activities that participating in the proposed project 345-kV transmission line and discharge fill into waters of the U.S., with two other utilities: American Dairyland’s 161-kV transmission line, including wetlands. The USACE will Transmission Company LLC and ITC which would be capable of operating at also grant a ROW authorization to issue Midwest (altogether referred to as ‘‘the 345-/345-kV but would initially be an easement across USACE-managed/ Utilities’’). The purpose of the proposed operated at 345-/161-kV; owned lands for the selected alternative. project is to: (1) Address reliability • a new 161-kV terminal and RUS published its Notice of issues on the regional bulk transmission transmission line protective Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS system, (2) alleviate congestion that relaying upgrades within the (DEIS) in the Federal Register, 83 FR occurs in certain parts of the existing Nelson Dewey Substation 235 (December 7, 2018), and in transmission system and remove in Cassville, Wisconsin; newspapers of general circulation constraints that limit the delivery of • replacement or reinforcement of an within the proposed project’s area of power, (3) expand the access of the existing transmission line structure environmental impact. The USEPA transmission system to additional within the Stoneman Substation in published its notice of receipt of the resources, (4) increase the transfer Cassville, Wisconsin; DEIS in the Federal Register 83 FR 235 capability of the electrical system • Multiple, partial, or complete (December 7, 2018). The comment between Iowa and Wisconsin, (5) reduce rebuilds of existing 69-kV, 138-kV, and period for the DEIS was extended from the losses in transferring power and 161-kV transmission lines in Wisconsin February 5, 2019, to April 1, 2019, due increase the efficiency of the that would be collocated with the new to a partial lapse in Federal government transmission system, and (6) respond to 345-kV line; funding. public policy objectives aimed at • At the existing Turkey River Public meetings to receive comments enhancing the nation’s transmission Substation in Clayton County, Iowa: on the DEIS were held from March 13 system and to support the changing One new 161-/69-kV transformer, three to 20, 2018, in Dodgeville, Barneveld, generation mix. new 161-kV circuit breakers, and four Cassville, and Middleton, Wisconsin, The C–HC Project includes the new 69-kV circuit breakers; and and Guttenberg and Peosta, Iowa. All construction and operation of the 345- • At the existing Hickory Creek comments received on the DEIS were kV transmission line and its associated Substation in Dubuque County, Iowa: A addressed in the FEIS. The RUS infrastructure, including the following new 345-kV terminal within the existing published its NOA of the FEIS in the facilities: Hickory Creek Substation. Federal Register 84 FR 205 (October 23, • At the existing Cardinal Substation The decisions documented in the 2019) and in newspapers of general in Dane County, Wisconsin: A new 345- ROD are as follows: circulation within the proposed kV terminal within the substation; • The RUS agrees to consider, subject project’s area of environmental impact. • At the proposed Hill Valley to loan approval, financing Dairyland’s The USEPA published its notice receipt Substation near the village of Montfort, share in the proposal. Details regarding of the FEIS in the Federal Register 84 Wisconsin: An approximately 22-acre RUS’s regulatory authority, rationale for FR 2017 (October 25, 2019). The 30-day facility with five 345-kV circuit the decision, and compliance with comment period ended on November breakers, one 345-kV shunt reactor, one applicable regulations are included in 25, 2019. Comments received on the 345-/138-kV autotransformer, and three the ROD. FEIS were addressed in the ROD. 138-kV circuit breakers; • The USFWS has determined that The FEIS considered six action • At the existing Eden Substation the NEPA review is complete and the alternatives to meet the project need. near the village of Montfort, Wisconsin: FEIS adequately evaluates and describes These alternatives were evaluated in Transmission line protective relaying impacts on the human environment. terms of ability to meet the purpose and upgrades to be compatible with the new The USFWS agrees that the preferred need, technical feasibility, and protective relays installed at the new alternative most effectively avoids, environmental impacts (e.g., geology Hill Valley Substation and replacement minimizes, and mitigates impacts to the and soils; vegetation, including of conductors and switches to meet the Refuge. The USFWS also agrees that wetlands and special status plants; Utilities’ operating limits; consultation under the Endangered wildlife, including special status • Between the existing Eden Species Act is complete with the species; water resources and quality; air Substation and the proposed Hill Valley issuance of the biological opinion. The quality and climate change; noise;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8556 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

transportation; cultural and historic DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE provides for the collection of resources; land use, including preliminary and supplementary agriculture and recreation; visual Census Bureau statistics as related to the main topic of quality and aesthetics; socioeconomics the census. The Census of Governments and environmental justice; public health Proposed Information Collection; publishes unit counts and legal and safety; Upper Mississippi River Comment Request; 2021 Government descriptions as well as employment and National Wildlife and Fish Refuge; and Units Survey finance data for all county, municipal, cumulative effects). AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, township, school district, and special district governments in the United The RUS selected Alternative 6. See Commerce. States. Prior to conducting the Census of ROD Section 2.6.1 ‘‘Selected Alternative ACTION: Notice. Governments, it is necessary to ensure and Agency Rationale’’ for the rationale that the universe of all governments is for selecting Alternative 6. The SUMMARY: The Department of as accurate and up to date as possible. resources or environmental impacts that Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and The Government Units Survey (GUS) is could be affected by the C–HC Project conducted the year prior to the full selected alternative are summarized in respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to Census of Governments collection the ROD Section 2.7 ‘‘Summary of operation and is used to evaluate and Environmental Consequences.’’ take this opportunity to comment on a proposed reinstatement of the update the universe of all local and Based on an evaluation of the Government Units Survey, as required special district governments. Public information and impact analyses by the Paperwork Reduction Act of sector surveys draw their sampling presented in the FEIS, including the 1995. frames from this universe. evaluation of all alternatives, and in The 2021 GUS will target townships, consideration of RUS’s NEPA DATES: To ensure consideration, written special districts, independent school implementing regulations, comments must be submitted on or districts, and educational service Environmental Policies and Procedures, before April 14, 2020. authorities (ESA). The GUS is as amended (7 CFR part 1970), RUS ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments particularly beneficial for identifying finds the evaluation of reasonable to Thomas Smith, PRA Liaison, U.S. smaller units that have not been alternatives is consistent with NEPA. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, included in surveys in-between census Room 7K250A, Washington, DC 20233 years and identifying changes to the Because the proposed project may (or via the internet at PRAcomments@ universe of special district governments involve action in floodplains or doc.gov). You may also submit that experience substantial change in a wetlands, this NOA also serves as a final comments, identified by Docket Number five-year period. The GUS contributes to notice of action in floodplains and USBC–2020–0002, to the Federal e- the quality and timely releases of the wetlands (in accordance with Executive Rulemaking Portal: http:// other components of the Census of Orders 11988 and 11990). www.regulations.gov. All comments Governments. The ROD is not a decision on received are part of the public record. The 2021 GUS consists of yes/no type Dairyland’s loan application and No comments will be posted to http:// questions and checkbox selection therefore not an approval of the www.regulations.gov for public viewing questions designed to determine expenditure of Federal funds. This until after the comment period has whether a government unit is in notice of the ROD concludes RUS’s closed. Comments will generally be operation and verify contact environmental review process in posted without change. All Personally information. Other questions collect accordance with NEPA and RUS’s Identifiable Information (for example, information about a unit’s function, Environmental Policies and Procedures name and address) voluntarily legal organization, and other (7 CFR 1970). The ultimate decision as submitted by the commenter may be characteristics. The 2021 GUS estimated to loan approval depends upon the publicly accessible. Do not submit time to respond is 15 minutes which is conclusion of this environmental review Confidential Business Information or the same as the 2016 GUS. The 2021 process plus financial and engineering otherwise sensitive or protected GUS is designed to diminish analyses. Issuance of the ROD will allow information. You may submit unnecessary burden, and to collect these reviews to proceed. attachments to electronic comments in information essential for maintaining the government universe. The ROD is not a decision on the Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats. The scope for 2021 GUS collections is ROW permit application the USFWS scaled back in comparison to the 2016 has received from Dairyland and ITC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GUS collection operation. For greater Midwest, and therefore not an approval Requests for additional information or efficiency, the 2021 GUS intends to for crossing the Refuge. This notice copies of the information collection collect information only from concludes USFWS’s environmental instrument(s) and instructions should government units for which this review process in accordance with be directed to Joy P. Pierson by phone information is difficult to obtain via NEPA and USFWS Environmental at 301–763–7196 or by email at other methods, such as internet Policies and Procedures (43 CFR 46.10– [email protected] and Amber research. There are a number of 46.450 and 516 DM 8). Processing, Hennessy at Amber.L.Hennessy@ governments, particularly special review, and further evaluation of the census.gov. district governments, for which ROW permit application received from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information has not been collected since Dairyland Power and ITC can proceed the 2017 Census of Governments. It is with issuance of the ROD. I. Abstract necessary to determine if these Title 13, Section 161 of the United governments still exist. The GUS Chad Rupe, States Code requires the Secretary of obtains information that can be difficult Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. Commerce to conduct a Census of to verify conclusively through regular [FR Doc. 2020–02946 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Governments every five years, in years internet research, as many states do not BILLING CODE 3410–15–P ending in ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘7’’. Section 193 provide this information for free via

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8557

online tools. It is necessary to verify and respondents may incur for such things DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE update this information prior to mailing as purchases of specialized software or the Employment and Finance hardware needed to report, or Office of the Secretary components of the 2022 Census of expenditures for accounting or records Governments. GUS information also maintenance services required Estimates of the Voting Age assists the Census Bureau with specifically by the collection.). Population for 2019 maintaining accurate classification of all Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. AGENCY: local and special district governments. Office of the Secretary, Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Commerce. II. Method of Collection Sections 161 and 193. ACTION: General notice announcing Respondents will receive emails and IV. Request for Comments population estimates. letters about completing the GUS via the Comments are invited on: (a) Whether internet. The GUS collection instrument SUMMARY: This notice announces the the proposed collection of information will be available online to respondents voting age population estimates as of is necessary for the proper performance in February 2021. The website is secure, July 1, 2019, for each state and the of the functions of the agency, including and respondents will receive a unique District of Columbia. We are providing whether the information shall have user identification and password for this notice in accordance with the 1976 practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the login. A toll-free number will be amendment to the Federal Election agency’s estimate of the burden provided to respondents, which they Campaign Act. In addition, the data (including hours and cost) of the may call to obtain assistance. have been available online at the U.S. proposed collection of information; (c) Census Bureau’s website since III. Data ways to enhance the quality, utility, and December 30, 2019 at: https:// clarity of the information to be OMB Control Number: 0607–0930. www.census.gov/data/tables/time- collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Form Number(s): The GUS will utilize series/demo/popest/2010s-state- burden of the collection of information an electronic collection instrument and detail.html. have four paths based on the type of on respondents, including through the respondent. use of automated collection techniques FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Type of Review: Regular submission. or other forms of information Karen Battle, Chief, Population Affected Public: Public sector entities technology. Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room consisting of townships; special Comments submitted in response to HQ–6H174, Washington, DC 20233, at districts; independent school districts; this notice will be summarized and/or 301–763–2071, or at karen.battle@ and educational service authorities in included in the request for OMB census.gov. the U.S. approval of this information collection; Estimated Number of Respondents: they also will become a matter of public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 43,454. record. requirements of the 1976 amendment to Estimated Time per Response: 15 the Federal Election Campaign Act, minutes. Sheleen Dumas, Title 52, United States Code, Section Estimated Total Annual Burden Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 30116(e), I hereby give notice that the Hours: 10,864. the Chief Information Officer, Commerce estimates of the voting age population Estimated Total Annual Cost to Department. for July 1, 2019 for each state and the Public: $0. (This is not the cost of [FR Doc. 2020–02660 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] District of Columbia are as shown in the respondents’ time, but the indirect costs BILLING CODE 3510–07–P following table.

ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF VOTING AGE FOR EACH STATE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: JULY 1, 2019

Population 18 Population 18 Area and over Area and over

United States ...... 255,200,373 Alabama ...... 3,814,879 Missouri ...... 4,766,843 Alaska ...... 551,562 Montana ...... 840,190 Arizona ...... 5,638,481 Nebraska ...... 1,458,334 Arkansas ...... 2,317,649 Nevada ...... 2,387,517 California ...... 30,617,582 New Hampshire...... 1,104,458 Colorado ...... 4,499,217 New Jersey...... 6,943,612 Connecticut ...... 2,837,847 New Mexico...... 1,620,991 Delaware ...... 770,192 New York...... 15,425,262 District of Columbia ...... 577,581 North Carolina ...... 8,187,369 Florida ...... 17,247,808 North Dakota...... 581,891 Georgia ...... 8,113,542 Ohio ...... 9,111,081 Hawaii ...... 1,116,004 Oklahoma ...... 3,004,733 Idaho ...... 1,338,864 Oregon ...... 3,351,175 Illinois ...... 9,853,946 Pennsylvania ...... 10,167,376 Indiana ...... 5,164,245 Rhode Island...... 854,866 Iowa ...... 2,428,229 South Carolina...... 4,037,531 Kansas ...... 2,213,064 South Dakota...... 667,558 Kentucky ...... 3,464,802 Tennessee ...... 5,319,123 Louisiana ...... 3,561,164 Texas ...... 21,596,071 Maine ...... 1,095,370 Utah ...... 2,274,774 Maryland ...... 4,710,993 Vermont ...... 509,984 Massachusetts ...... 5,539,703 Virginia ...... 6,674,671 Michigan ...... 7,842,924 Washington ...... 5,951,832

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8558 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF VOTING AGE FOR EACH STATE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: JULY 1, 2019— Continued

Population 18 Population 18 Area and over Area and over

Minnesota ...... 4,336,475 West Virginia...... 1,432,580 Mississippi ...... 2,277,566 Wisconsin ...... 4,555,837 Wyoming ...... 445,025 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Vintage 2019 Population Estimates.

I have certified these estimates for the on August 5, 2019.1 On December 3, coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested Federal Election Commission. 2019, Commerce postponed the party commented on the scope of the preliminary determination of this investigation as it appeared in the Wilbur Ross, investigation; the revised deadline is Initiation Notice. Commerce is not Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce. now February 4, 2019. 2 For a complete preliminarily modifying the scope [FR Doc. 2020–03000 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] description of the events that followed language as it appeared in the Initiation BILLING CODE 3510–07–P the initiation of this investigation, see Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to the Preliminary Decision this notice. Memorandum.3 A list of topics included Methodology DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in the Preliminary Decision Commerce is conducting this International Trade Administration Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary investigation in accordance with section Decision Memorandum is a public 731 of the Act. Constructed export [A–560–833] document and is on file electronically prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Utility Scale Wind Towers From via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative accordance with section 773 of the Act. Determination of Sales at Less Than Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to For a full description of the Fair Value, Preliminary Negative methodology underlying the Determination of Critical registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the preliminary determination, see the Circumstances, Postponement of Final Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Determination, and Extension of Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the Provisional Measures main Commerce building. In addition, a Preliminary Negative Determination of complete version of the Preliminary Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ In accordance with section 733(e) of International Trade Administration, the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce Department of Commerce. frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision preliminarily finds that critical SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Memorandum are identical in content. circumstances do not exist for PT (Commerce) preliminarily determines Kenertec Power System (Kenertec) or for that utility scale wind towers (wind Scope of the Investigation all other producers or exporters. For a towers) from Indonesia are being, or are The product covered by this full description of the methodology and likely to be, sold in the United States at investigation is wind towers from results of Commerce’s critical less than fair value (LTFV). The period Indonesia. For a complete description of circumstances analysis, see the of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2018 the scope of this investigation, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. through June 30, 2019. Interested parties Appendix I. All-Others Rate are invited to comment on this Scope Comments preliminary determination. Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) In accordance with the preamble to of the Act provide that in the DATES: Applicable February 14, 2020. Commerce’s regulations,4 the Initiation preliminary determination Commerce FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Notice set aside a period of time for shall determine an estimated all-others Benjamin Luberda or Brittany Bauer, parties to raise issues regarding product rate for all exporters and producers not AD/CVD Operations, Office II, individually examined. This rate shall Enforcement and Compliance, 1 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, be an amount equal to the weighted International Trade Administration, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist average of the estimated weighted- Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- average dumping margins established U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Value Investigations, 84 FR 37992 (August 5, 2019) Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, (Initiation Notice). for exporters and producers DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2185 or 2 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, individually investigated, excluding any (202) 482–3860, respectively. Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist zero and de minimis margins, and any Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary margins determined entirely under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 84 FR 66151 (December 3, 2019). section 776 of the Act. Background 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Commerce calculated an individual the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- estimated weighted-average dumping This preliminary determination is Fair-Value Investigation of Utility Scale Wind margin for Kenertec, the only made in accordance with section 733(b) Towers from Indonesia,’’ dated concurrently with, individually examined exporter/ of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). producer in this investigation. Because (the Act). Commerce published the 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, notice of initiation of this investigation Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8559

the only individually calculated calculated for Kenertec is the margin Preliminary Determination dumping margin is not zero, de assigned to all other producers and minimis, or based entirely on facts exporters, pursuant to section Commerce preliminarily determines otherwise available, the estimated 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. that the following estimated weighted- weighted-average dumping margin average dumping margins exist:

Estimated weighted- Cash deposit average rate Exporter/producer dumping (adjusted for margin subsidy offset) 6 (percent) (percent)

PT Kenertec Power System ...... 6.38 6.35 All Others ...... 6.38 6.35

Suspension of Liquidation in the Preliminary Determination (2) a brief summary of the argument; section above. and (3) a table of authorities. In accordance with section 733(d)(2) Should provisional measures in the Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. companion CVD investigation expire interested parties who wish to request a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to prior to the expiration of provisional hearing, limited to issues raised in the suspend liquidation of entries of subject measures in this LTFV investigation, case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a merchandise, as described in Appendix Commerce will direct CBP to begin written request to the Assistant I, entered, or withdrawn from collecting estimated antidumping duty Secretary for Enforcement and warehouse, for consumption on or after cash deposits unadjusted for Compliance, U.S. Department of the date of publication of this notice in countervailed export subsidies at the Commerce, within 30 days after the date the Federal Register. Further, pursuant time that the provisional CVD measures of publication of this notice. Requests to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 expire. These suspension of liquidation should contain the party’s name, CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct instructions will remain in effect until address, and telephone number, the CBP to require a cash deposit equal to further notice. number of participants, whether any the estimated weighted-average participant is a foreign national, and a Disclosure dumping margin, as follows: (1) The list of the issues to be discussed. If a cash deposit rate for the respondent Commerce intends to disclose its request for a hearing is made, Commerce listed above will be equal to the calculations and analysis performed to intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. company-specific estimated weighted- interested parties in this preliminary Department of Commerce, 1401 average dumping margin determined in determination within five days of the Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, this preliminary determination; (2) if the date of publication of this notice, in DC 20230, at a time and date to be exporter is not a respondent identified accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). determined. Parties should confirm by above, but the producer is, then the cash telephone the date, time, and location of Verification deposit rate will be equal to the the hearing two days before the company-specific estimated weighted- As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the scheduled date. average dumping margin established for Act, Commerce intends to verify the Postponement of Final Determination that producer of the subject information relied upon in making its and Extension of Provisional Measures merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit final determination. rate for all other producers and Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides Public Comment exporters will be equal to the all-others that a final determination may be estimated weighted-average dumping Case briefs or other written comments postponed until not later than 135 days margin. may be submitted to the Assistant after the date of the publication of the Commerce normally adjusts cash Secretary for Enforcement and preliminary determination if, in the deposits for estimated antidumping Compliance no later than seven days event of an affirmative preliminary duties by the amount of export subsidies after the date on which the last determination, a request for such countervailed in a companion CVD verification report is issued in this postponement is made by exporters who proceeding, when CVD provisional investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to account for a significant proportion of measures are in effect. Accordingly, issues raised in case briefs, may be exports of the subject merchandise, or in where Commerce preliminarily made an submitted no later than five days after the event of a negative preliminary affirmative determination for the deadline date for case briefs.7 determination, a request for such countervailable export subsidies, Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and postponement is made by the petitioner. Commerce has offset the estimated (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s weighted-average dumping margin by rebuttal briefs in this investigation are regulations requires that a request by the appropriate CVD rate. Any such encouraged to submit with each exporters for postponement of the final adjusted cash deposit rate may be found argument: (1) A statement of the issue; determination be accompanied by a

6 In the companion countervailing duty (CVD) Alignment of Final Determination with Final export subsidy rate for Kenertec and the export investigation, Commerce calculated a 0.03 percent Antidumping Duty Determination, 84 FR 68109 subsidy rate for all other producers and exporters export subsidy rate for Kenertec and for all other (December 13, 2019) and accompanying in the CVD preliminary determination (i.e., 0.03 producers and exporters under the program Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 21–23. percent). ‘‘Exemption from Import Income Tax Withholding Because we determined the LTFV all-others rate 7 for Companies in Bonded Zones.’’ See Utility Scale based on Kenertec’s estimated weighted-average See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 Wind Towers from Indonesia: Preliminary dumping margin, the export subsidy offset for all (for general filing requirements). Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and other producers and exporters is the lesser of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8560 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

request for extension of provisional capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE measures from a four-month period to a a minimum height of 50 meters measured period not more than six months in from the base of the tower to the bottom of International Trade Administration the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower duration. [A–580–902] On January 17 and 30, 2020, pursuant and nacelle are joined) when fully to 19 CFR 351.210(e), the petitioner and assembled. Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Kenertec, respectively, requested that A wind tower section consists of, at a Republic of Korea: Preliminary minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into Commerce postpone the final Affirmative Determination of Sales at determination, and Kenertec consented cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary to the extension of provisional measures Affirmative Determination of Critical 8 steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, for a period not to exceed six months. painting, treatment, or method of Circumstances In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) manufacture, and with or without flanges, AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), doors, or internal or external components because: (1) The preliminary International Trade Administration, (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, Department of Commerce. determination is affirmative; (2) the electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling, SUMMARY: requesting exporter accounts for a conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, The Department of Commerce significant proportion of exports of the interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) (Commerce) preliminarily determines subject merchandise; and (3) no attached to the wind tower section. Several that utility scale wind towers (wind compelling reasons for denial exist, wind tower sections are normally required to towers) from the Republic of Korea Commerce is postponing the final form a completed wind tower. (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, determination and extending the Wind towers and sections thereof are sold in the United States at less than fair provisional measures from a four-month included within the scope whether or not value (LTFV). The period of period to a period not greater than six they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, investigation (POI) is July 1, 2018 months. Accordingly, Commerce will such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether through June 30, 2019. Interested parties make its final determination no later or not they have internal or external are invited to comment on this than 135 days after the date of components attached to the subject preliminary determination. publication of this preliminary merchandise. DATES: Applicable February 14, 2020. Specifically excluded from the scope are determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of Rebecca M. Janz or Adam Simons, AD/ International Trade Commission whether they are attached to the wind tower. CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement Notification Also excluded are any internal or external and Compliance, International Trade In accordance with section 733(f) of components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those Administration, U.S. Department of the Act, Commerce will notify the components are shipped with the tower Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue International Trade Commission (ITC) of sections. NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: its preliminary determination. If the Merchandise covered by this investigation (202) 482–2972 or (202) 482–6172, final determination is affirmative, the is currently classified in the Harmonized respectively. ITC will determine before the later of Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 120 days after the date of this under subheading 7308.20.0020 or preliminary determination or 45 days 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel Background after the final determination whether are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 This preliminary determination is these imports are materially injuring, or when imported separately as a tower or tower made in accordance with section 733(b) threaten material injury to, the U.S. section(s). Wind towers may be classified of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended industry. under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported (the Act). Commerce published the as combination goods with a wind turbine Notification to Interested Parties notice of initiation of this investigation (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor on August 5, 2019.1 On December 3, This determination is issued and blades). While the HTSUS subheadings are 2019, Commerce postponed the published in accordance with sections provided for convenience and customs preliminary determination of this 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 purposes, the written description of the investigation, and the revised deadline CFR 351.205(c). scope of the investigation is dispositive. is now February 4, 2020.2 For a Dated: February 4, 2020. Appendix II complete description of the events that Jeffrey I. Kessler, List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary followed the initiation of this Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Decision Memorandum investigation, see the Preliminary Compliance. Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics I. Summary included in the Preliminary Decision Appendix I II. Background III. Period of Investigation Scope of the Investigation 1 IV. Scope Comments See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist The merchandise covered by this V. Scope of the Investigation investigation consists of certain wind towers, Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- VI. Negative Preliminary Determination of whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Value Investigations, 84 FR 37992 (August 5, 2019) Critical Circumstances (Initiation Notice). Certain wind towers support the nacelle and VII. Discussion of the Methodology 2 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, rotor blades in a wind turbine with a Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist minimum rated electrical power generation VIII. Date of Sale IX. Product Comparisons Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value 8 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind X. Constructed Export Price Investigations, 84 FR 66151 (December 3, 2019). Towers from Canada, Indonesia, Republic of Korea XI. Normal Value 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for and Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request to XII. Currency Conversion the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Postpone Final Determination,’’ dated January 17, XIII. Recommendation Fair-Value Investigation of Utility Scale Wind 2020; see also Kenertec’s Letter, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated Towers from Indonesia: Request to Postpone Final [FR Doc. 2020–02963 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this Determination,’’ dated January 30, 2020. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8561

Memorandum is included as Appendix All-Others Rate company-specific estimated weighted- II to this notice. The Preliminary Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) average dumping margin established for Decision Memorandum is a public of the Act provide that in the that producer of the subject document and is on file electronically preliminary determination, Commerce merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit via Enforcement and Compliance’s shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all other producers and Antidumping and Countervailing Duty rate for all exporters and producers not exporters will be equal to the all-others Centralized Electronic Service System individually examined. This rate shall estimated weighted-average dumping (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to be an amount equal to the weighted margin. registered users at https:// average of the estimated weighted- Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the average dumping margins established that, given an affirmative determination Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the for exporters and producers of critical circumstances, any main Commerce building. In addition, a individually investigated, excluding any suspension of liquidation shall apply to complete version of the Preliminary zero and de minimis margins, and any unliquidated entries of subject Decision Memorandum can be accessed margins determined entirely under merchandise entered, or withdrawn directly at https:// section 776 of the Act. from warehouse, for consumption on or enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/ Commerce calculated an individual after the later of (a) the date which is 90 korea-south/korea-south-fr.htm. The estimated weighted-average dumping days before the date on which the signed and electronic versions of the margin for Dongkuk, the only suspension of liquidation was first Preliminary Decision Memorandum are individually examined exporter/ ordered, or (b) the date on which notice identical in content. producer in this investigation. Because of initiation of the investigation was Scope of the Investigation the only individually calculated published. Commerce preliminarily dumping margin is not zero, de finds that critical circumstances exist The product covered by this for imports of subject merchandise investigation is wind towers from Korea. minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated produced or exported by Dongkuk and For a complete description of the scope the companies covered by the all-others of this investigation, see Appendix I. weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Dongkuk is the margin rate. In accordance with section Scope Comments assigned to all other producers and 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to In accordance with the preamble to exporters, pursuant to section Commerce’s regulations,4 the Initiation 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. unliquidated entries of shipments of Notice set aside a period of time for subject merchandise from the producers Preliminary Determination parties to raise issues regarding product or exporters identified in this paragraph coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested Commerce preliminarily determines that were entered, or withdrawn from party commented on the scope of the that the following estimated weighted- warehouse, for consumption on or after investigation as it appeared in the average dumping margins exist: the date which is 90 days before the Initiation Notice. Therefore, Commerce publication of this notice. is not preliminarily modifying the scope Estimated Disclosure language as it appeared in the Initiation weighted- average Commerce intends to disclose its Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to Exporter/producer dumping calculations and analysis performed to this notice. margin (percent) interested parties in this preliminary Methodology determination within five days of any Commerce is conducting this Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd ...... 5.98 public announcement or, if there is no investigation in accordance with section All Others ...... 5.98 public announcement, within five days 731 of the Act. Commerce has of the date of publication of this notice calculated export price in accordance Suspension of Liquidation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal In accordance with section 733(d)(2) Verification value is calculated in accordance with of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. section 773 of the Act. For a full As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to Act, Commerce intends to verify the description of the methodology suspend liquidation of entries of subject underlying the preliminary information relied upon in making its merchandise, as described in Appendix final determination. determination, see the Preliminary I, entered, or withdrawn from Decision Memorandum. warehouse, for consumption on or after Public Comment Preliminary Affirmative Determination the date of publication of this notice in Case briefs or other written comments of Critical Circumstances the Federal Register. Further, pursuant may be submitted to the Assistant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 In accordance with section 733(e) of Secretary for Enforcement and CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct Compliance no later than seven days the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce CBP to require a cash deposit equal to preliminarily finds that critical after the date on which the last the estimated weighted-average verification report is issued in this circumstances exist for Dongkuk S&C dumping margin or the estimated all- Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk) and the companies investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to others rate, as follows: (1) The cash issues raised in case briefs, may be covered by the all-others rate. For a full deposit rate for the respondent listed description of the methodology and submitted no later than five days after above will be equal to the company- 6 results of Commerce’s critical the deadline date for case briefs. specific estimated weighted-average circumstances analysis, see the Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and dumping margin determined in this Preliminary Decision Memorandum. (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or preliminary determination; (2) if the rebuttal briefs in this investigation are 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, exporter is not the respondent identified Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). above, but the producer is, then the cash 6 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 5 See Initiation Notice, 84 FR at 37993. deposit rate will be equal to the (for general filing requirements).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8562 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

encouraged to submit with each postponing the final determination and whether they are attached to the wind tower. argument: (1) A statement of the issue; extending the provisional measures Also excluded are any internal or external (2) a brief summary of the argument; from a four-month period to a period components which are not attached to the and (3) a table of authorities. not greater than six months. wind towers or sections thereof, unless those components are shipped with the tower Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), Accordingly, Commerce will make its sections. interested parties who wish to request a final determination by no later than 135 Merchandise covered by this investigation hearing, limited to issues raised in the days after the date of publication of this is currently classified in the Harmonized case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a preliminary determination. Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) written request to the Assistant under subheading 7308.20.0020 or International Trade Commission Secretary for Enforcement and 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel Notification Compliance, U.S. Department of are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 Commerce, within 30 days after the date In accordance with section 733(f) of when imported separately as a tower or tower of publication of this notice. Requests the Act, Commerce will notify the section(s). Wind towers may be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported should contain the party’s name, International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the as combination goods with a wind turbine address, and telephone number, the (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor number of participants, whether any final determination is affirmative, the blades). While the HTSUS subheadings are participant is a foreign national, and a ITC will determine before the later of provided for convenience and customs list of the issues to be discussed. If a 120 days after the date of this purposes, the written description of the request for a hearing is made, Commerce preliminary determination or 45 days scope of the investigation is dispositive. after the final determination whether intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Appendix II Department of Commerce, 1401 these imports are materially injuring, or Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, threaten material injury to, the U.S. List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary DC 20230, at a time and date to be industry. Decision Memorandum determined. Parties should confirm by Notification to Interested Parties I. Summary telephone the date, time, and location of II. Background the hearing two days before the This determination is issued and III. Period of Investigation scheduled date. published in accordance with sections IV. Scope Comments 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 V. Scope of the Investigation Postponement of Final Determination CFR 351.205(c). VI. Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides Dated: February 4, 2020. VII. Discussion of the Methodology that a final determination may be Jeffrey I. Kessler, VIII. Date of Sale postponed until not later than 135 days Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and IX. Product Comparisons after the date of the publication of the Compliance. X. Export Price preliminary determination if, in the XI. Normal Value event of an affirmative preliminary Appendix I XII. Currency Conversion determination, a request for such Scope of the Investigation XIII. Recommendation postponement is made by exporters who The merchandise covered by this [FR Doc. 2020–02715 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] account for a significant proportion of investigation consists of certain wind towers, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P exports of the subject merchandise, or in whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. the event of a negative preliminary Certain wind towers support the nacelle and determination, a request for such rotor blades in a wind turbine with a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE postponement is made by the petitioner. minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with International Trade Administration Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s a minimum height of 50 meters measured regulations requires that a request by from the base of the tower to the bottom of [A–122–867] exporters for postponement of the final the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower determination be accompanied by a and nacelle are joined) when fully Utility Scale Wind Towers From request for extension of provisional assembled. Canada: Preliminary Affirmative measures from a four-month period to a A wind tower section consists of, at a Determination of Sales at Less-Than- minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into period not more than six months in Fair-Value, Preliminary Negative duration. cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a Determination of Critical On January 27, 2020, pursuant to 19 steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, Circumstances, and Postponement of CFR 351.210(e), Dongkuk requested that painting, treatment, or method of Final Determination and Extension of Commerce postpone the final manufacture, and with or without flanges, Provisional Measures determination and that provisional doors, or internal or external components measures be extended to a period not to (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, exceed six months.7 In accordance with electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling, International Trade Administration, section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, Department of Commerce. interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The SUMMARY: attached to the wind tower section. Several The Department of Commerce preliminary determination is wind tower sections are normally required to (Commerce) preliminarily determines affirmative; and (2) the requesting form a completed wind tower. that utility scale wind towers (wind exporter accounts for a significant Wind towers and sections thereof are towers) from Canada are being sold, or proportion of exports of the subject included within the scope whether or not are likely to be sold, in the United States merchandise; and (3) no compelling they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). The reasons for denial exist, Commerce is such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether period of investigation (POI) is July 1, or not they have internal or external 2018 through June 30, 2019. Interested components attached to the subject 7 See Dongkuk’s Letter, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind parties are invited to comment on this Towers from the Republic of Korea: Request to merchandise. Extend the Deadline for the Final Determination,’’ Specifically excluded from the scope are preliminary determination. dated January 27, 2020. nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of DATES: Applicable February 14, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8563

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: versions of the Preliminary Decision circumstances do not exist for the Mike Heaney or Paul Walker, AD/CVD Memorandum are identical in content. Marmen Group and the non-selected Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and companies receiving the all-others rate. Scope of the Investigation Compliance, International Trade For a full description of the Administration, U.S. Department of The product covered by this methodology and results of Commerce’s Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue investigation is wind towers from critical circumstances analysis, see the NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: Canada. For a complete description of Preliminary Decision Memorandum. (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–0413, the scope of this investigation, see respectively. Appendix I. All-Others Rate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope Comments Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the Background In accordance with the preamble to preliminary determination Commerce Commerce’s regulations,4 the Initiation This preliminary determination is shall determine an estimated all-others Notice set aside a period of time for made in accordance with section 733(b) rate for all exporters and producers not parties to raise issues regarding product of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended individually examined. This rate shall coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested (the Act). Commerce published the be an amount equal to the weighted party commented on the scope of the notice of initiation of this investigation average of the estimated weighted- 1 investigation as it appeared in the on August 5, 2019. On December 3, average dumping margins established 2019, Commerce postponed the Initiation Notice. Commerce is for exporters and producers preliminary determination of this preliminarily not modifying the scope individually investigated, excluding any investigation, and the revised deadline language as it appeared in the Initiation zero and de minimis margins, and any is now February 4, 2020.2 For a Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to margins determined entirely under complete description of the events that this notice. section 776 of the Act. Commerce followed the initiation of this Methodology calculated an individual estimated investigation, see the Preliminary weighted-average dumping margin for Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics Commerce is conducting this included in the Preliminary Decision investigation in accordance with section the Marmen Group, the only Memorandum is included as Appendix 731 of the Act. Commerce has individually examined exporter/ II to this notice. The Preliminary calculated export prices and constructed producer in this investigation. Because Decision Memorandum is a public export prices in accordance with section the only individually calculated document and is on file electronically 772(a) & (b) of the Act. Normal value dumping margin is not zero, de via Enforcement and Compliance’s (NV) is calculated in accordance with minimis, or based entirely on facts Antidumping and Countervailing Duty section 773 of the Act. For a full otherwise available, the estimated Centralized Electronic Service System description of the methodology weighted-average dumping margin (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to underlying the preliminary calculated for the Marmen Group is the registered users at https:// determination, see the Preliminary margin assigned to all other producers access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Decision Memorandum. and exporters, pursuant to section Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Negative Determination of main Commerce building. In addition, a Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed In accordance with section 733(e) of Commerce preliminarily determines directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce that the following estimated weighted- frn/. The signed and the electronic preliminarily finds that critical average dumping margins exist:

Estimated weighted- Cash average deposit rate Exporter/producer dumping (adjusted for margin subsidy offsets) 6 (percent) (percent)

Marmen Inc./Marmen E´ nergie Inc ...... 5.04 5.04 All Others ...... 5.04 5.04

Suspension of Liquidation merchandise, as described in Appendix to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 In accordance with section 733(d)(2) I, entered, or withdrawn from CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. warehouse, for consumption on or after CBP to require a cash deposit equal to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to the date of publication of this notice in the estimated weighted-average suspend liquidation of entries of subject the Federal Register. Further, pursuant dumping margin or the estimated all-

1 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Investigations, 84 FR 66151 (December 3, 2019). Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 5 See Initiation Notice. Value Investigations, 84 FR 37992 (August 5, 2019) the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Determination (Initiation Notice). Fair-Value Investigation of Utility Scale Wind 2 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Towers from Canada,’’ dated concurrently with, and Calculations for the Marmen Group,’’ dated Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary February 4, 2020. Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8564 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

others rate, as follows: (1) The cash issues raised in case briefs, may be exceed six months.8 In accordance with deposit rate for the respondents listed submitted no later than five days after section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 above will be equal to the company- the deadline date for case briefs.7 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The specific estimated weighted-average Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and preliminary determination is dumping margins determined in this (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter preliminary determination; (2) if the rebuttal briefs in this investigation are accounts for a significant proportion of exporter is not a respondent identified encouraged to submit with each exports of the subject merchandise; and above, but the producer is, then the cash argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (3) no compelling reasons for denial deposit rate will be equal to the (2) a brief summary of the argument; exist, Commerce is postponing the final company-specific estimated weighted- and (3) a table of authorities. determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month average dumping margin established for Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), that producer of the subject period to a period not greater than six interested parties who wish to request a merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit months. Accordingly, Commerce will hearing, limited to issues raised in the rate for all other producers and make its final determination no later case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a exporters will be equal to the all-others than 135 days after the date of written request to the Assistant estimated weighted-average dumping publication of this preliminary Secretary for Enforcement and margin. determination. Commerce normally adjusts cash Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date International Trade Commission deposits for estimated antidumping Notification duties by the amount of export subsidies of publication of this notice. Requests countervailed in a companion should contain the party’s name, In accordance with section 733(f) of countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, address, and telephone number, the the Act, Commerce will notify the when CVD provisional measures are in number of participants, whether any International Trade Commission (ITC) of effect. Accordingly, where Commerce participant is a foreign national, and a its preliminary determination. If the preliminarily made an affirmative list of the issues to be discussed. If a final determination is affirmative, the determination for countervailable export request for a hearing is made, Commerce ITC will determine before the later of subsidies, Commerce has offset the intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. 120 days after the date of this estimated weighted-average dumping Department of Commerce, 1401 preliminary determination or 45 days margin by the appropriate CVD rate. Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, after the final determination whether Any such adjusted cash deposit rate DC 20230, at a time and date to be these imports are materially injuring, or may be found in the Preliminary determined. Parties should confirm by threaten material injury to, the U.S. Determination section above. telephone the date, time, and location of industry. the hearing two days before the Should provisional measures in the Notification to Interested Parties companion CVD investigation expire scheduled date. prior to the expiration of provisional This determination is issued and Postponement of Final Determination published in accordance with sections measures in this LTFV investigation, and Extension of Provisional Measures Commerce will direct CBP to begin 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c). collecting estimated antidumping duty Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides cash deposits unadjusted for that a final determination may be Dated: February 4, 2020. countervailed export subsidies at the postponed until not later than 135 days Jeffrey I. Kessler, time that the provisional CVD measures after the date of the publication of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and expire. These suspension of liquidation preliminary determination if, in the Compliance. instructions will remain in effect until event of an affirmative preliminary Appendix I further notice. determination, a request for such Scope of the Investigation Disclosure postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of The merchandise covered by this Commerce intends to disclose its exports of the subject merchandise, or in investigation consists of certain wind towers, calculations and analysis performed to the event of a negative preliminary whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. interested parties in this preliminary Certain wind towers support the nacelle and determination, a request for such rotor blades in a wind turbine with a determination within five days of any postponement is made by the petitioner. public announcement or, if there is no minimum rated electrical power generation Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with public announcement, within five days regulations requires that a request by a minimum height of 50 meters measured of the date of publication of this notice exporters for postponement of the final from the base of the tower to the bottom of in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). determination be accompanied by a the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower request for extension of provisional and nacelle are joined) when fully Verification assembled. As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the measures from a four-month period to a A wind tower section consists of, at a Act, Commerce intends to verify the period not more than six months in minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into information relied upon in making its duration. cylindrical or conical shapes and welded final determination. Between January 17 and 27, 2020, together (or otherwise attached) to form a pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), the steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, Public Comment Marmen Group and the Wind Tower 8 See the Marmen Group’s Letter, ‘‘Utility Scale Case briefs or other written comments Trade Coalition requested that Wind Towers from Canada—Request for may be submitted to the Assistant Commerce postpone the final Postponement of Final Determination and Secretary for Enforcement and determination and that provisional Provisional Measures Period,’’ dated January 27, Compliance no later than seven days measures be extended to a period not to 2020; see also Wind Tower Trade Coalition’s Letter, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, after the date on which the last Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Socialist Republic verification report is issued in this 7 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 of Vietnam: Request to Postpone Final investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to (for general filing requirements). Determination,’’ dated January 17, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8565

painting, treatment, or method of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Memorandum is included as Appendix manufacture, and with or without flanges, II to this notice. The Preliminary doors, or internal or external components International Trade Administration Decision Memorandum is a public (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, [A–552–825] document and is on file electronically electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling, via Enforcement and Compliance’s conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) Utility Scale Wind Towers From the attached to the wind tower section. Several Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Centralized Electronic Service System wind tower sections are normally required to Preliminary Affirmative Determination (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to form a completed wind tower. of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value and registered users at https:// Wind towers and sections thereof are Preliminary Affirmative Determination access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the included within the scope whether or not of Critical Circumstances Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of they are joined with non-subject the main Commerce building. In merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, addition, a complete version of the blades, and whether or not they have internal International Trade Administration, Preliminary Decision Memorandum can or external components attached to the Department of Commerce. be accessed directly at https:// subject merchandise. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/ Specifically excluded from the scope are (Commerce) preliminarily determines vietnam/vietnam-fr.htm. The signed and nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of that utility scale wind towers (wind the electronic versions of the whether they are attached to the wind tower. towers) from the Socialist Republic of Preliminary Decision Memorandum are Also excluded are any internal or external Vietnam (Vietnam) produced and identical in content. components which are not attached to the exported by CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. wind towers or sections thereof, unless those Scope of the Investigation components are shipped with the tower (CS Wind) are being, or are likely to be, sections. sold in the United States at less-than- The product covered by this Further, excluded from the scope of the fair-value (LTFV). The period of investigation is wind towers from antidumping duty investigation are any investigation (POI) is January 1, 2019 Vietnam. For a complete description of products covered by the existing through June 30, 2019. Interested parties the scope of this investigation, see antidumping duty order on utility scale wind are invited to comment on this Appendix I. towers from the Socialist Republic of preliminary determination. Scope Comments Vietnam. See Utility Scale Wind Towers from DATES: Applicable February 14, 2020. the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended In accordance with the preamble to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commerce’s regulations,4 the Initiation Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 Joshua A. DeMoss, AD/CVD Operations, Notice set aside a period of time for FR 11150 (February 15, 2013). Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, parties to raise issues regarding product Merchandise covered by this investigation International Trade Administration, coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested is currently classified in the Harmonized U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 party commented on the scope of the Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, investigation as it appeared in the under subheading 7308.20.0020 or DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3362. Initiation Notice. Commerce is 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: preliminarily not modifying the scope are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a tower or tower Background language as it appeared in the Initiation section(s). Wind towers may be classified Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to This preliminary determination is under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported this notice. made in accordance with section 733(b) as combination goods with a wind turbine Methodology (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended blades). While the HTSUS subheadings are (the Act). Commerce published the Commerce is conducting this provided for convenience and customs notice of initiation of this investigation investigation in accordance with section purposes, the written description of the on August 5, 2019.1 On December 3, 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section scope of the investigation is dispositive. 2019, Commerce postponed the 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminary determination of this relied on facts otherwise available, with Appendix II investigation, and the revised deadline adverse inferences, for CS Wind because List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary is now February 4, 2020.2 For a it did not timely respond to our request Decision Memorandum complete description of the events that for information. For a full description of I. Summary followed the initiation of this the methodology underlying II. Background investigation, see the Preliminary Commerce’s preliminary determination, III. Period of Investigation Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics see the Preliminary Decision IV. Scope Comments included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. V. Collapsing and Affiliation Preliminary Affirmative Determination VI. Preliminary Negative Determination of 1 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Critical Circumstances Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist of Critical Circumstances VII. Postponement of Final Determination Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- In accordance with section 733(e) of and Extension of Provisional Measures Value Investigations, 84 FR 37992 (August 5, 2019) the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce VIII. Discussion of the Methodology (Initiation Notice). 2 See Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, preliminarily finds that critical IX. Date of Sale circumstances exist with respect to CS X. Product Comparisons Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist XI. Export Price and Constructed Export Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Wind. For a full description of the Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Price methodology and results of Commerce’s Investigations, 84 FR 66151 (December 3, 2019). critical circumstances analysis, see the XII. Normal Value 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for XIII. Currency Conversion the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Preliminary Decision Memorandum. XIV. Recommendation Fair-Value Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,’’ 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, [FR Doc. 2020–02962 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 5 See Initiation Notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8566 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Preliminary Determination Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted- average dumping margin exists:

Estimated weighted-average Cash deposit rate Producer Exporter dumping (adjusted for margin subsidy offset) (percent) (percent)

CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd ...... CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd ...... 65.96 63.82

Suspension of Liquidation subsidies, Commerce has offset the preliminary determination, unless This investigation covers a single estimated weighted-average dumping Commerce alters the time limit. Rebuttal producer/exporter combination that is margin by the appropriate CVD rate. briefs, limited to issues raised in case excluded from the existing AD order Any such adjusted cash deposit rate briefs, may be submitted no later than covering the same merchandise from may be found in the Preliminary five days after the deadline date for case Vietnam (A–552–814). Therefore, in this Determination section above. briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR investigation, and in accordance with Should provisional measures in the 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce companion CVD investigation expire submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in will direct U.S. Customs and Border prior to the expiration of provisional this investigation are encouraged to Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation measures in this LTFV investigation, submit with each argument: (1) A only for entries of subject merchandise Commerce will direct CBP to begin statement of the issue; (2) a brief from the producer/exporter combination collecting cash deposits at a rate equal summary of the argument; and (3) a identified above, that were entered or to the estimated weighted-average table of authorities. dumping margins calculated in this withdrawn from warehouse for Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), preliminary determination unadjusted consumption on or after the date of interested parties who wish to request a for the passed-through domestic publication of this notice in the Federal hearing, limited to issues raised in the subsidies or for export subsidies at the Register. Further, pursuant to section case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a time the CVD provisional measures 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR written request to the Assistant expire. These suspension of liquidation 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP Secretary for Enforcement and instructions will remain in effect until to require a cash deposit for the covered Compliance, U.S. Department of further notice. producer/exporter combination, as Commerce, within 30 days after the date indicated in the chart above. Disclosure of publication of this notice. Requests Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides Normally, Commerce discloses to should contain the party’s name, that, given an affirmative determination address, and telephone number, the of critical circumstances, any interested parties the calculations number of participants, whether any suspension of liquidation shall apply to performed in connection with a participant is a foreign national, and a unliquidated entries of merchandise preliminary determination within five list of the issues to be discussed. If a entered or withdrawn from warehouse days of its public announcement or, if request for a hearing is made, Commerce for consumption on or after the later of there is no public announcement, intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. (a) the date which is 90 days before the within five days of the date of Department of Commerce, 1401 date on which the suspension of publication of this notice in accordance Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, DC 20230, at a time and date to be date on which notice of initiation of the because Commerce preliminarily determined. Parties should confirm by investigation was published. Commerce applied adverse facts available (AFA) to preliminarily finds that critical CS Wind in this investigation in telephone the date, time, and location of circumstances exist for imports of accordance with section 776 of the Act, the hearing two days before the subject merchandise from CS Wind. In and the applied AFA rate is based solely scheduled date. accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of on the petition, there are no calculations International Trade Commission the Act, the suspension of liquidation to disclose. Notification shall apply to all unliquidated entries of Verification merchandise from CS Wind when it is In accordance with section 733(f) of the producer and exporter, that were Because the mandatory respondent in the Act, Commerce will notify the entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, this investigation did not provide International Trade Commission (ITC) of for consumption on or after the date information requested by Commerce its preliminary determination. If the which is 90 days before the publication and Commerce preliminarily determines final determination is affirmative, the of this notice. that the mandatory respondent has been ITC will determine before the later of Commerce normally adjusts cash uncooperative, verification will not be 120 days after the date of this deposits for estimated antidumping conducted. preliminary determination or 45 days duties by the amount of export subsidies after the final determination whether Public Comment countervailed in a companion these imports are materially injuring, or countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, Case briefs or other written comments threaten material injury to, the U.S. when CVD provisional measures are in may be submitted to the Assistant industry. effect. Accordingly, where Commerce Secretary for Enforcement and preliminarily made an affirmative Compliance no later than 30 days after 6 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 determination for countervailable export the date of publication of the (for general filing requirements).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8567

Notification to Interested Parties (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor consisting of Centers in all 50 states and blades). While the HTSUS subheadings are Puerto Rico with partnerships at the This determination is issued and provided for convenience and customs published in accordance with sections state, federal and local levels. By statute, purposes, the written description of the the MEP Advisory Board provides the 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 scope of the investigation is dispositive. CFR 351.205(c). NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the Appendix II activities, plans and policies of the Dated: February 4, 2020. Program; (2) assessments of the Jeffrey I. Kessler, List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum soundness of the plans and strategies of Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and the Program; and (3) assessments of Compliance. I. Summary II. Background current performance against the plans of Appendix I III. Period of Investigation the Program. Background information on the MEP Scope of the Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Application of Facts Available and Use of Advisory Board is available at http:// The merchandise covered by this Adverse Inference www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory- investigation consists of certain wind towers, VI. Preliminary Affirmative Determination of board.cfm. whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Critical Circumstances Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Certain wind towers support the nacelle and VII. Recommendation rotor blades in a wind turbine with a Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. minimum rated electrical power generation [FR Doc. 2020–02725 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] App., notice is hereby given that the capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P MEP Advisory Board will hold an open a minimum height of 50 meters measured meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, from the base of the tower to the bottom of from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Standard Time. The meeting agenda and nacelle are joined) when fully will include an update on the MEP assembled. National Institute of Standards and programmatic operations, as well as A wind tower section consists of, at a Technology minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into provide guidance and advice on current cylindrical or conical shapes and welded Manufacturing Extension Partnership activities related to the MEP National together (or otherwise attached) to form a Advisory Board NetworkTM 2017–2022 Strategic Plan. steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, The MEP Advisory Board will provide painting, treatment, or method of AGENCY: National Institute of Standards input to NIST on supply chain manufacture, and with or without flanges, and Technology, Commerce development with an emphasis on doors, or internal or external components ACTION: Notice of open meeting. (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, defense suppliers in order to strengthen the defense industrial base. The final electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling, SUMMARY: The National Institute of agenda will be posted on the MEP conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, Standards and Technology (NIST) interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) Advisory Board website at http:// attached to the wind tower section. Several announces that the Manufacturing www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory- wind tower sections are normally required to Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory board.cfm. Board will hold an open meeting on form a completed wind tower. Individuals and representatives of Tuesday, March 3, 2020. Wind towers and sections thereof are organizations who would like to offer included within the scope whether or not DATES: The meeting will be held they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, comments and suggestions related to the Tuesday, March 3, 2020 from 8 a.m. to MEP Advisory Board’s business are such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. or not they have internal or external invited to request a place on the agenda. components attached to the subject ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Approximately 15 minutes will be merchandise. Building 101, The Portrait Room, at reserved for public comments at the end Specifically excluded from the scope are NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, of the meeting. Speaking times will be nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of MD 20899. Please note admittance assigned on a first-come, first-served whether they are attached to the wind tower. instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY basis. The amount of time per speaker Also excluded are any internal or external INFORMATION section below. components which are not attached to the will be determined by the number of wind towers or sections thereof, unless those FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requests received, but is likely to be no components are shipped with the tower Cheryl L. Gendron, Manufacturing more than three to five minutes each. sections. Extension Partnership, National Requests must be received in writing by Further, excluded from the scope of the Institute of Standards and Technology, Feb. 25, 2020 to be considered. The antidumping duty investigation are any 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, exact time for public comments will be products covered by the existing Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800; included in the final agenda that will be antidumping duty order on utility scale wind telephone number 301–975–2785; posted on the MEP Advisory Board towers from the Socialist Republic of email: [email protected]. Vietnam. See Utility Scale Wind Towers from website at http://www.nist.gov/mep/ the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MEP about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Advisory Board is authorized under from the public will not be considered Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 Section 3003(d) of the America during this period. Speakers who wish FR 11150 (February 15, 2013). COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110–69), as to expand upon their oral statements, Merchandise covered by this investigation amended by the American Innovation those who wished to speak but could is currently classified in the Harmonized and Competitiveness Act, Public Law not be accommodated on the agenda or Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 114–329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at those who are/were unable to attend in under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with person are invited to submit written 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 the provisions of the Federal Advisory statements to the MEP Advisory Board, when imported separately as a tower or tower Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. National Institute of Standards and section(s). Wind towers may be classified App. The Hollings Manufacturing Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported Extension Partnership Program Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899– as combination goods with a wind turbine (Program) is a unique program 4800, via fax at 301–963–6556 or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8568 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

electronically by email to ADDRESSES: The 135th SSC, Social phone: (808) 522–8220 or fax: (808) [email protected]. Science Planning Committee, the 522–8226. Admittance Instructions: All visitors Council’s Executive and Budget Agenda for 135th SSC Meeting to the NIST site are required to Standing Committee, Pelagic and preregister to be admitted. Please submit International Standing Committee, and Tuesday, March 3, 2020, 8:30 a.m. to 5 your name, company name, time of Program Planning and Research p.m. arrival, email address and telephone Standing Committee meetings will be 1. Introductions number to Ms. Gendron by 5 p.m. held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop 2. Approval of Draft Agenda and Eastern Standard Time, Tuesday, Feb. Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, Assignment of Rapporteurs 25, 2020. Non-U.S. citizens must submit phone: (808) 522–8220. The 181st 3. Status of the 134th SSC Meeting additional information; please contact Council meeting will be held at the Recommendations Ms. Gendron via email at Laniakea YWCA, Fuller Hall, 1040 4. Report from Pacific Islands Fisheries [email protected] or phone 301– Richards Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, Science Center Director 975–2785. For participants planning to phone: (808) 538–7061. The Fishers 5. Program Planning and Research attend in person, please note that Forum will be held at the Aloha Tower A. Standardized Bycatch Reporting federal agencies, including NIST, can Marketplace, 1 Aloha Tower Drive, Methodology only accept a state-issued driver’s Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813, phone: (808) B. Public Comment license or identification card for access 544–1453. C. SSC Discussion and to federal facilities if such license or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Recommendations identification card is issued by a state Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, 6. Island Fisheries that is compliant with the REAL ID Act Western Pacific Fishery Management A. Options Paper to Amend of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–13), or by a state Council; phone: (808) 522–8220. Bottomfish Management Unit that has an extension for REAL ID SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 135th Species in the American Samoa and compliance. NIST currently accepts SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 Marianas Fishery Ecosystem Plans other forms of federally issued a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 3 to 5, 2020. (FEP) (Initial Action) identification in lieu of a state-issued The Social Science Planning Committee B. Specifying the Acceptable driver’s license. For detailed meeting will be held between 1:30 p.m. Biological Catches (ABC) in the information please contact Ms. Gendron to 5 p.m. on March 5, 2020. The Marianas Bottomfish Fisheries at 301–975–2785 or visit: http:// Program Planning and Research 1. P-star analysis _ nist.gov/public affairs/visitor/. Standing Committee will be held on 2. SEEM analysis Kevin A. Kimball, March 9, 2020, between 8:30 a.m. and 3. Options for ABC in the Marianas Chief of Staff. 10:30 a.m. The Pelagic and International Bottomfish Fisheries (Final Action) Standing Committee will be held on C. Interim Measure for American [FR Doc. 2020–03017 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] March 9, 2020, between 11 a.m. and Samoa Bottomfish Fishery BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 2:30 p.m. The Executive and Budget D. Requirements for Rebuilding Plans Standing Committee meeting will be E. Update on Hawaii Precious Corals DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE held on March 9, 2020, between 3 p.m. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and and 5:30 p.m. The 181st Council Associated Bed Designation Issues National Oceanic and Atmospheric meeting will be held between 9 a.m. and F. Public Comment Administration 5 p.m. on March 10, 2020, and between G. SSC Discussion and 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 11–12, Recommendations [RTID 0648–XA043] 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Council 7. Protected Species will host a Fishers Forum between 6 A. False Killer Whale Abundance Western Pacific Fishery Management p.m. and 9 p.m. Estimates Council; Public Meetings Agenda items noted as ‘‘Final Action’’ B. Assessing Population Level refer to actions that result in Council Impacts of Marine Turtle AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries transmittal of a proposed fishery Interactions in the Hawaii Deep-set Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and management plan, proposed plan Longline Fishery Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), amendment, or proposed regulations to C. Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Commerce. the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Fishery Biological Opinion ACTION: Notice of public meetings. Sections 304 or 305 of the MSA. In Reasonable and Prudent Measures addition to the agenda items listed here, Working Group SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery the Council and its advisory bodies will D. Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Council (Council) will hear recommendations from Council Management Project for Protected hold its 135th Scientific and Statistical advisors. An opportunity to submit Species Impacts Assessment for Committee (SSC), Social Science public comment will be provided Hawaii and American Samoa Planning Committee, Program Planning throughout the agendas. The order in Longline Fisheries and Research Standing Committee, which agenda items are addressed may E. Public Comment Pelagic and International Standing change and will be announced in F. SSC Discussion and Committee, Executive and Budget advance at the Council meeting. The Recommendations Standing Committee, and 181st Council meetings will run as late as necessary to meetings to take actions on fishery complete scheduled business. Wednesday, March 4, 2020, 8:30 a.m.– management issues in the Western Background documents will be available 5 p.m. Pacific Region. from, and written comments should be SSC Plenary Presentation: Threat DATES: The meetings will be held sent to, Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Management Plan for Two Endemic between March 3 and 12, 2020. For Director; Western Pacific Fishery Subspecies of Dolphins specific times and agendas, see Management Council, 1164 Bishop 8. Pelagic Fisheries SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, A. American Samoa Longline Annual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8569

Fishery Report Agenda for the Program Planning and Agenda for the Executive and Budget B. Hawaii Longline Annual Fishery Research Standing Committee Standing Committee Report Monday, March 9, 2020, 8:30 a.m. to Monday, March 9, 2020, 3 p.m. to 5:30 C. Bigeye Tuna Research Initiative 10:30 a.m. p.m. D. Electronic Reporting and Electronic Monitoring 1. Territorial Bottomfish 1. Financial Reports 1. Electronic Technologies A. Interim Measure for the American A. Current Grants Implementation Plan Samoa Bottomfish Fishery B. New Grants B. Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and 2. Administrative Reports 2. Pacific Islands Region Longline Accountability Measures (AM) for 3. Freedom of Information Act and Electronic Reporting Plan and Mariana Archipelago Bottomfish Congressional Requests Options for Implementation of 1. P* Report and SEEM Report 4. Council Coordination Committee Mandatory Reporting 2. Alternatives for ACLs and AMs Meeting 3. Pacific Islands Regional Observer (Final Action) 5. Council Family Changes Program Overview and Costs 2. Options Paper to Amend the A. Archipelagic Plan Team 4. 2020 Electronic Monitoring Bottomfish Management Unit B. American Samoa Advisory Panel Workshop Species in the American Samoa and 6. Meetings and Workshops E. U.S. Territory Longline Bigeye Marianas FEP (Initial Action) 7. Other Issues Catch/Allocation Limits (Final 3. Requirements for Rebuilding Plans 8. Public Comment Action) 4. Standardized Bycatch Reporting 9. Discussion and Recommendations F. Deep Sea Mining and Spatial Methodology Agenda for 181st Council Meeting Planning in the Pacific 5. Update to Council FEPs G. International Fisheries 6. Advisory Group Report and Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 9 a.m. to 5 1. Western and Central Pacific Recommendations p.m. Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) A. Advisory Panel Report 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Conservation and Management B. Archipelagic Plan Team Report 2. Oath of Office Measures on Tropical Tunas C. Scientific & Statistical Committee 3. Approval of the 181st Agenda b. North Pacific Striped Marlin 7. Other Issues 4. Approval of the 180th Meeting Rebuilding Plan 8. Public Comment Minutes H. Report on Scoping Meeting on 9. Discussion and Recommendations 5. Executive Director’s Report Small Boat Pelagic Reporting Agenda for the Pelagic and 6. Agency Reports I. Public Comment International Standing Committee A. NOAA Office of General Counsel, J. SSC Discussion and Pacific Islands Section Recommendations Monday, March 9, 2020, 11 a.m. to 2:30 B. National Marine Fisheries Service p.m. Thursday, March 5, 2020, 8:30 a.m.–5 1. Pacific Islands Regional Office p.m. 1. Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline 2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Fishery Biological Opinion Center 9. Other Business Reasonable and Prudent Measures 3. Revising NEPA Procedure A. June 2020 SSC Meetings Dates Working Group Provisions B. National SSC Meeting Trigger 2. Assessing Population Level Impacts C. U.S. State Department Questions of Marine Turtle Interactions in the D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10. Summary of SSC Recommendations Hawaii Deep-set Longline Fishery E. Enforcement to the Council 3. Electronic Reporting and Electronic 1. U.S. Coast Guard Agenda for the Social Science Planning Monitoring 2. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement Committee A. Electronic Technologies 3. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Implementation Plan Enforcement Section Thursday, March 5, 2020, 1:30 p.m. to B. Pacific Islands Region Longline F. Public Comment 5 p.m. Electronic Reporting Plan and G. Council Discussion and Action 1. Welcome and Introductions Options for Implementation of 7. Hawaii Archipelago & Pacific Remote Mandatory Reporting Island Areas (PRIA) 2. Approval of Agenda 4. U.S. Territory Longline Bigeye Catch/ A. Moku Pepa 3. Review of the Social Science Allocation Limits (Final Action) B. Legislative Report Planning Committee Research Plan 5. International Fisheries C. Enforcement Issues and Priorities A. WCPFC D. Hawaii Management Initiatives and 4. NMFS Socioeconomic Aspects in a. Report on 16th Regular Session of Research Stock Assessments the WCPFC 1. Report on State of Hawaii Kona 5. Social Impact Assessment b. North Pacific Striped Marlin Crab Rule Changes 6. Cost-benefit Analysis to Evaluate Rebuilding Plan 2. Aquarium Fishery Update Impacts of Council Management B. Outcomes of UN Biodiversity E. Report on MHI Small-boat Scoping Actions Beyond National Jurisdiction Meetings 7. Report on OceanObs 2019 Outcomes (BBNJ) Meeting F. Update on Precious Corals EFH and on Incorporating Traditional 6. Advisory Group Report and Associated Bed Designation Issues Knowledge Recommendations G. Community Activities and Issues 8. User Group Involvement in A. Advisory Panel H. Education and Outreach Initiatives Developing Stock Assessments B. Scientific & Statistical Committee I. Advisory Group Report and 9. Public Comment 7. Other Issues Recommendations 10. Discussion and Recommendations 8. Public Comment 1. Advisory Panel 11. Other Business 9. Discussion and Recommendations 2. Scientific & Statistical Committee

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8570 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

J. Public Comment D. Assessing Population Level 5. Guam Marine Conservation Plan K. Council Discussion and Action Impacts of Marine Turtle 6. Community Activities and Issues 8. Protected Species Interactions in the Hawaii Deep-set 7. Education and Outreach Initiatives A. False Killer Whale Abundance Longline Fishery B. CNMI Estimate E. Electronic Reporting and Electronic 1. Arongol Falu´ B. Status of Endangered Species Act Monitoring 2. Legislative Report (ESA) Consultations 1. Electronic Technologies 3. Enforcement Issues C. Pacific Islands Regional Office Implementation Plan 4. Management and Research Green Turtle Recovery Plan 2. Pacific Islands Region Longline Initiatives Implementation Electronic Reporting Plan and a. PIFMAPS Implementation D. Other ESA and Marine Mammal Options for Implementation of i. Issuing Licenses for Fishermen Protection Act Updates Mandatory Reporting b. Reporting App Update E. Advisory Group Report and 3. Pacific Islands Regional Observer 5. CNMI Marine Conservation Plan Recommendations Program Overview & Costs 6. Community Activities and Issues 1. Advisory Panel 4. 2020 Electronic Monitoring 7. Education and Outreach Initiatives 2. Scientific & Statistical Committee Workshop C. Advisory Group Reports and F. Public Comment F. US Territory Longline Bigeye Recommendations G. Council Discussion and Action Catch/Allocation Limits (Final 1. Mariana Archipelago FEP Advisory Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 4 p.m. Action) Panel G. Deep Sea Mining and Spatial 2. Scientific & Statistical Committee 9. Public Comment on Non-agenda Planning in the Pacific D. Public Comment Items H. International Fisheries E. Council Discussion and Action Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 6 p.m.–9 p.m. 1. WCPFC 13. Administrative Matters a. Report on 16th Regular Session of Fishers Forum A. Financial Reports the WCPFC 1. Current Grants Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 8:30 a.m.– b. Conservation & Management 2. New Grants 5 p.m. Measures on Tropical Tunas B. Administrative Reports c. North Pacific Striped Marlin 10. Program Planning and Research C. Council Coordination Committee Rebuilding Plan Meeting A. National Legislative Report 2. Outcomes of UN BBNJ Meeting D. Council Family Changes B. Territorial Bottomfish I. Advisory Group Report and 1. Archipelagic Plan Team 1. Interim Measure for the American Recommendations 2. American Samoa Advisory Panel Samoa Bottomfish Fishery 1. Advisory Panel E. Meetings and Workshops 2. Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and 2. Scientific & Statistical Committee F. Standing Committee Report Accountability Measures (AMs) for J. Standing Committee Report and G. Public Comment Mariana Archipelago Bottomfish Recommendations a. P* Report K. Public Comment H. Council Discussion and Action b. SEEM* Report L. Council Discussion and Action 14. Other Business c. Alternatives for ACLs and AMs Non-emergency issues not contained (Final Action) Thursday, March 12, 2020, 8:30 a.m. to in this agenda may come before the C. Options paper to Amend the 5 p.m. Council for discussion and formal Bottomfish Management Unit 12. American Samoa Archipelago Council action during its 181st meeting. Species in the American Samoa and A. Motu Lipoti However, Council action on regulatory Marianas FEP (Initial Action) B. Fono Report issues will be restricted to those issues D. Requirements for Rebuilding Plans C. Enforcement Issues specifically listed in this document and E. Standardized Bycatch Reporting D. Management and Research any regulatory issue arising after Methodology Initiatives publication of this document that F. PRIA and Hawaii Marine 1. Pacific Insular Fisheries Monitoring requires emergency action under section Conservation Plans Assessment and Planning Summit 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, G. Update to Council FEPs (PIFMAPS) Implementation provided the public has been notified of H. Regional, National, & International a. Regulation Patch Up the Council’s intent to take action to Outreach & Education b. Director Annual Proclamation address the emergency. I. Advisory Group Report and E. Community Activities and Issues Recommendations F. Education and Outreach Initiatives Special Accommodations 1. Advisory Panel Report G. Advisory Group Report and These meetings are accessible to 2. Archipelagic Plan Team Report Recommendations people with disabilities. Requests for 3. Scientific & Statistical Committee 1. Advisory Panel sign language interpretation or other J. Standing Committee Report 2. Scientific & Statistical Committee auxiliary aids should be directed to K. Public Comment H. Public Comment Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 L. Council Discussion and Action I. Council Discussion and Action (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), at least 11. Pelagic & International Fisheries 13. Mariana Archipelago five days prior to the meeting date. A. American Samoa Longline Annual A. Guam Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Fishery Report 1. Isla Informe B. Hawaii Longline Annual Fishery 2. Legislative Report Dated: February 10, 2020. Report 3. Enforcement Issues Tracey L. Thompson, C. Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline 4. Management and Research Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fishery Biological Opinion Initiatives Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Reasonable and Prudent Measures a. PIFMAPS Implementation [FR Doc. 2020–02950 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Working Group i. Draft Regulations for Licensing BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8571

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: produced S–CCC steelhead resulting from operations at the Facility and Species Covered in this Notice National Oceanic and Atmospheric translocation activities. Post-release Administration This notice is relevant to the monitoring activities conducted by the following listed species: South-Central [RTID 0648–XA039] District will collect necessary data to California Coast (S–CCC) Steelhead document the achievement of Endangered and Threatened Species; (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct performance indicators specified in the Take of Anadromous Fish Population Segment (DPS), which is RRMP. For a more detailed discussion listed as threatened. of these activities, please see the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Authority associated documents at https:// Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/notice- Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Enhancement permits are issued in issuance-permit-implementation- Commerce. accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of carmel-river-steelhead-rescue-and- ACTION: Notice; issuance of one Section the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and rearing-enhancement. regulations governing listed fish and 10(a)(1)(A) permit to enhance the NEPA Determination propagation and survival of threatened wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–227). species. NMFS issues permits based on findings NOAA’s Policy and Procedures for that such permits: (1) Are applied for in Compliance with the National SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NMFS has issued one direct take permit would not operate to the disadvantage Related Authorities (NOAA (#14741) pursuant to the Endangered of the listed species that are the subject Administrative Order 216–6A and Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, of the permit; and (3) are consistent Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A) to the Monterey Peninsula Water with the purposes and policy of section establishes that all NOAA major Federal Management District (District) for the 2 of the ESA. The authority to take actions be reviewed with respect to Carmel River Steelhead Rescue and listed species is subject to conditions set environmental consequences on the Rearing Enhancement Program forth in the permits. human environment. NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A and (Program) for a five year period (with Permit 14741 the opportunity for a five year renewal). Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A On June 4, 2018, NMFS provided notice The District has been issued a permit were used to examine the issuance of of our receipt of this permit application under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for Permit 14741 for its potential to impact and Rescue and Rearing Management a period of five years that allows the the quality of the human environment. Plan (RRMP) in the Federal Register. take of juvenile and adult steelhead NMFS concluded that the issuance of The RRMP specifies operational from the threatened S–CCC DPS Permit 14741 would not have a methods for South-Central California pursuant to the RRMP. The RRMP was significant adverse effect, individually Coast (S–CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus developed with technical assistance or cumulatively, on the human mykiss) rescue, rearing, and from NMFS. The Program’s objective is environment and does not involve any translocation activities associated with to assist with the restoration, extraordinary circumstances listed in the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing conservation, and maintenance of the the Companion Manual for NAO 216– Facility (Facility). The Facility is steelhead population in the Carmel 6A. Further, it was determined that the located on the Carmel River on the River Watershed as mitigation for Program may appropriately be Central California Coast. environmental impacts caused by categorically excluded from the diversion of surface and subsurface DATES: Permit 14741, issued on requirement to prepare either an streamflow in the lower 38.6 kilometers September 30, 2019, has an expiration environmental assessment or (24 miles) of the mainstem Carmel date of September 30, 2024, with the environmental impact statement, in River. The Program which was initiated opportunity for a five year renewal. The accordance with the Companion Manual in 1997, was necessary to ensure issued permits are subject to certain for NAO 216–6A. Specifically, this compliance with California conditions set forth therein. Subsequent project fits under the categorical Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from to issuance, the necessary exclusion described in the Companion the environmental impacts of California countersignatures by the applicants Manual for NAO 216–6A, B1, issuance American Water Company’s water were received. of permits or permit modifications withdrawals. under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the The RRMP will be implemented as an take, import, or export of endangered decision documents or any of the other enhancement program, and actions species for scientific purposes or to associated materials should be directed taken pursuant to the permit are enhance the propagation or survival of to NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries designed to enhance survival of S–CCC the affected species, or in accordance Service, California Coast Office, USGS steelhead that are subject to annual low- with the requirements of an ESA section Pacific Coast & Marine Science Center, flow river dryback. The RRMP 4(d) regulation for threatened species. 2885 Mission Street, Santa Cruz, CA incorporates three main components: 95060. The decision documents for (1) Rescue and relocation activities; (2) Public Comments Permit 14741 are also available online at captive rearing activities, and (3) On June 4, 2018, NMFS provided https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ subsequent post-release monitoring. notice of our receipt of the ESA Section notice-issuance-permit-implementation- There is no captive spawning of 10(a)(1)(A) permit application and carmel-river-steelhead-rescue-and- steelhead reared at the facility. RRMP in the Federal Register (83 FR rearing-enhancement. Activities that constitute take of S– 25648), which also initiated a 30-day FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin CCC steelhead and are permitted public comment period. NMFS Seghesio at 707–578–8515, include rearing, handling and transport, reviewed all comments, conducted [email protected] or Mandy and tagging. The RRMP includes extensive literature reviews, consulted Ingham at 831–460–7580, measures to minimize the likelihood of with fish culturists, and analyzed [email protected]. genetic or ecologic effects to naturally stocking data to address comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:03 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8572 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

NMFS devised a suite of determining the status of fish stocks in Note: The times and sequence specified in recommendations for the District to the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three- this agenda are subject to change. consider implementing to improve the step process including: (1) Data Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Program. The Program modifications Workshop; (2) Assessment Process were added as an addendum to the utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Dated: February 10, 2020. RRMP. Workshop. The product of the Data Tracey L. Thompson, Dated: February 10, 2020. Workshop is a data report which Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable compiles and evaluates potential Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Angela Somma, datasets and recommends which [FR Doc. 2020–02968 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office datasets are appropriate for assessment of Protected Resources, National Marine BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Fisheries Service. analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report [FR Doc. 2020–02995 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] which describes the fisheries, evaluates DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 3510–22–P the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The [RTID 0648–XR093] National Oceanic and Atmospheric assessment is independently peer Administration reviewed at the Review Workshop. The Marine Mammals; File No. 23203 product of the Review Workshop is a [RTID 0648–XA042] Summary documenting panel opinions AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries regarding the strengths and weaknesses Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Fisheries of the Atlantic; Southeast of the stock assessment and input data. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Data, Assessment, and Review Participants for SEDAR Workshops are Commerce. (SEDAR) appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Management Councils and NOAA SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, the Environmental Institute of Houston Commerce. Highly Migratory Species Management at the University of Houston, Clear Lake (Responsible Party: George Guillen), ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 65 Assessment Division, and Southeast Fisheries Webinar I for Highly Migratory Species Science Center. Participants include: 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Box 540, Houston, Atlantic Blacktip Shark. Data collectors and database managers; TX 77508–1002, has applied in due stock assessment scientists, biologists, form for a permit to conduct research on SUMMARY: The SEDAR 65 assessment of and researchers; constituency bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops the Atlantic stock of Blacktip Shark will representatives including fishermen, truncatus). consist of a series of workshops and environmentalists, and non- DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email webinars: Data Workshop; Assessment governmental organizations (NGOs); comments must be received on or before Webinars; and a Review workshop. international experts; and staff of March 16, 2020. DATES: Councils, Commissions, and state and The SEDAR 65 Assessment ADDRESSES: federal agencies. The application and related Webinar I has been scheduled for March documents are available for review by 26, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., EST. The items of discussion at the Assessment webinar I are as follows: selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public ADDRESSES: • Comment’’ from the ‘‘Features’’ box on Meeting address: The meeting will be Introduce and discuss uncertainty analyses (alternative states of nature) the Applications and Permits for held via webinar. The webinar is open Protected Species (APPS) home page, to members of the public. Registration is and develop reference case model run(s) which are robust to the major https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then available online at: https:// selecting File No. 23203 from the list of attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ uncertainties identified. Although non-emergency issues not available applications. 8955867858539392267. These documents are also available SEDAR address: South Atlantic contained in this agenda may come upon written request or by appointment Fishery Management Council, 4055 before this group for discussion, those in the Permits and Conservation Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. issues may not be the subject of formal Division, Office of Protected Resources, Charleston, SC 29405; action during this meeting. Action will NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room www.sedarweb.org. be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: arising after publication of this notice (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376. Kathleen Howington, SEDAR that require emergency action under Written comments on this application Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens should be submitted to the Chief, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; Fishery Conservation and Management Permits and Conservation Division, at phone: (843) 571–4366; email: Act, provided the public has been the address listed above. Comments may [email protected]. notified of the intent to take final action also be submitted by facsimile to (301) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf to address the emergency. 713–0376, or by email to of Mexico, South Atlantic, and [email protected]. Please Caribbean Fishery Management Special Accommodations include the File No. in the subject line Councils, in conjunction with NOAA This meeting is accessible to people of the email comment. Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary Those individuals requesting a public States Marine Fisheries Commissions, aids should be directed to the South hearing should submit a written request have implemented the Southeast Data, Atlantic Fishery Management Council to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Assessment and Review (SEDAR) office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 Division at the address listed above. The process, a multi-step method for business days prior to the meeting. request should set forth the specific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8573

reasons why a hearing on this DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the Illex workgroup. In addition, the application would be appropriate. SSC may take up any other business as National Oceanic and Atmospheric necessary. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration A detailed agenda and background Amy Hapeman, (301) 427–8401. [RTID 0648–XA046] documents will be made available on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the Council’s website (www.mafmc.org) subject permit is requested under the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management prior to the meeting. authority of the Marine Mammal Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting Special Accommodations Protection Act of 1972, as amended AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries These meetings are physically (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and accessible to people with disabilities. regulations governing the taking and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Requests for sign language importing of marine mammals (50 CFR Commerce. interpretation or other auxiliary aid part 216). ACTION: Notice; public meeting. should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, The applicant proposes to conduct (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to research on common bottlenose SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery the meeting date. dolphins in the bays, sounds, estuaries, Management Council’s (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee Dated: February 11, 2020. and near-shore coastal waters of Texas Diane M. DeJames-Daly, in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The (SSC) of the will hold a meeting. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable purpose of the research is to: (1) DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, starting at 1 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Develop and maintain photo- [FR Doc. 2020–03012 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] identification catalogs; (2) characterize p.m. and continue through 12:30 p.m. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P fine-scale population structure and on Wednesday, March 11, 2020. See dynamics; (3) establish baseline patterns SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda details. of distribution, habitat use, diet, and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE health; (4) estimate abundance for ADDRESSES: strategic stocks; (5) analyze dolphin Meeting address: The meeting will National Oceanic and Atmospheric take place at the Royal Sonesta Harbor behavior in relation to anthropogenic Administration Place, 550 Light Street, Baltimore, MD activities; and (6) identify potential risks 21202; telephone: (410) 234–0550. [RTID 0648–XA048] to the population. Researchers would Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery New England Fishery Management take up to 16,288 dolphins annually Management Council, 800 N State Council; Public Meeting during vessel surveys for counts, photo- Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; identification, behavioral observation telephone: (302) 674–2331; website: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries and passive acoustic recordings. A www.mafmc.org. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and subset of animals would also be biopsy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sampled or observed for Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Commerce. photogrammetry with an unmanned Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery ACTION: Notice; public meeting. aircraft system. Up to 200 non-target Management Council, telephone: (302) cetaceans may be incidentally harassed 526–5255. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery and/or approached annually for counts Management Council (Council) is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The scheduling a public meeting of its and behavioral observation. purpose of this meeting is to make Herring Committee to consider actions In compliance with the National acceptable biological catch (ABC) affecting New England fisheries in the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 recommendations for golden tilefish for exclusive economic zone (EEZ). U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial the 2021 fishing year and interim Recommendations from this group will determination has been made that the recommendations for the 2022 fishing be brought to the full Council for formal activity proposed is categorically year based on information in the 2020 consideration and action, if appropriate. excluded from the requirement to data update. The SSC will also review DATES: prepare an environmental assessment or the most recent survey and fishery data This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 1 p.m. environmental impact statement. and the previously recommended 2021 ABC for blueline tilefish. The SSC will ADDRESSES: Concurrent with the publication of also review and provide feedback on the Meeting address: The meeting will be this notice in the Federal Register, most recent Mid-Atlantic State of the held at the Four Points by Sheraton, NMFS is forwarding copies of the Ecosystem report and other Ecosystem One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA application to the Marine Mammal Approach to Fisheries Management 01880; telephone: (781) 245–9300. Commission and its Committee of (EAFM) related activities. The SSC and Council address: New England Scientific Advisors. staff from the NMFS Marine Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Dated: February 11, 2020. Recreational Information Program Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Julia Marie Harrison, (MRIP) will have an open discussion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, and question and answer session Office of Protected Resources, National regarding the recently implemented New England Fishery Management Marine Fisheries Service. changes to the recreational data Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. collection program with a focus on [FR Doc. 2020–03005 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: specific implications to Mid-Atlantic BILLING CODE 3510–22–P stocks. The SSC will discuss the 2020– Agenda 2024 stock assessment schedule, recent The Herring Committee will discuss changes to the Mid-Atlantic Council’s goals and objectives and potential range risk policy, and receive an update from of alternatives to consider in Framework

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8574 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

7, an action to protect spawning of DATES: The meeting will convene on notified of the Council’s intent to take Atlantic herring on Georges Bank. The Monday, March 2, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. action to address the emergency. Committee will have an initial to 5 p.m., EST. For agenda details, see Special Accommodations discussion of Framework 8, an action SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. This meeting is physically accessible considering herring fishery ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at specifications for FY 2021–2023 and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management to people with disabilities. Requests for adjust measures in the Herring Fishery Council Office, 4107 W. Spruce Street, sign language interpretation or other Management Plan that potentially Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: auxiliary aids should be directed to inhibit the mackerel fishery from (813) 348–1630. Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office achieving optimum yield. They will also (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days have an opportunity to provide input on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. prior to the meeting. Natasha Mendez-Ferrer, Biologist, Gulf the Council’s five-year research Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. priorities related to the herring resource of Mexico Fishery Management Council; and fishery. Other business may be [email protected], Dated: February 10, 2020. discussed as necessary. telephone: (813) 348–1630. The Council Tracey L. Thompson, Although non-emergency issues not website is www.gulfcouncil.org, and, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable contained on this agenda may come also has details on the meeting location, Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. before this Council for discussion, those proposed agenda, webinar listen-in [FR Doc. 2020–02971 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] issues may not be the subject of formal access, and other materials. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P action during this meeting. Council SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The action will be restricted to those issues following items are on the agenda, specifically listed in this notice and any though agenda items may be addressed DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE issues arising after publication of this out of order (changes will be noted on notice that require emergency action the Councils’ website when possible.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric under section 305(c) of the Magnuson- Administration Monday, March 2, 2020; 8:30 a.m.–5 Stevens Act, provided the public has [RTID 0648–XA044] been notified of the Council’s intent to p.m. take final action to address the The meeting will begin with New England Fishery Management emergency. introduction of members, election of Council; Public Meeting Chair and Vice Chair, and adoption of Special Accommodations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries agenda. Council staff will review the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and This meeting is physically accessible committee’s scope of work; followed by Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to people with disabilities. This meeting a presentation on NOAA’s regional Commerce. will be recorded. Consistent with 16 approach to ecosystem-based ACTION: U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is management and Mid-Atlantic recent Notice; public meeting. available upon request. Requests for Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) efforts. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery sign language interpretation or other The committee will hold a discussion Management Council (Council) is auxiliary aids should be directed to on the regulatory authority of the Gulf scheduling a public meeting of its Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at Council in the context of ecosystem Herring Advisory Panel to consider 978–465–0492, at least 5 days prior to management; and, proposed FEP the meeting date. actions affecting New England fisheries outline. Lastly, the Ecosystem Technical in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Committee will review any other Recommendations from this group will Dated: February 11, 2020. business items, if any. be brought to the full Council for formal Diane M. DeJames-Daly, — Meeting Adjourns consideration and action, if appropriate. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable The meeting will be broadcast via DATES: This meeting will be held on Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. webinar. You may register for the listen- Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. [FR Doc. 2020–03013 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] in access by visiting ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at BILLING CODE 3510–22–P www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the the Four Points by Sheraton, One Technical Committee meeting on the Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; calendar. The Agenda is subject to telephone: (781) 245–9300. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE change, and the latest version along Council address: New England with other meeting materials will be Fishery Management Council, 50 Water National Oceanic and Atmospheric posted on www.gulfcouncil.org as they Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Administration become available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RIN 0648–XA041 Although other non-emergency issues Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, not on the agenda may come before the New England Fishery Management Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management group for discussion, in accordance Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. Council; Public Meeting with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Conservation and Management Act National Marine Fisheries Agenda Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), may not be the subject of formal action The Herring Advisory Panel will Commerce. during this meeting. Actions will be discuss goals and objectives and ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. restricted to those issues specifically potential range of alternatives to identified in this notice and any issues consider in Framework 7, an action to SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery arising after publication of this notice protect spawning of Atlantic herring on Management Council (GMFMC) will that require emergency action under Georges Bank. The panel will have an hold a meeting of its Ecosystem Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens initial discussion of Framework 8, an Technical Committee. Act, provided the public has been action considering herring fishery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8575

specifications for FY 2021–23 and ACTION: Proposed deletions from the ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY adjust measures in the Herring Fishery Procurement List. COORDINATOR Management Plan that potentially Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial inhibit the mackerel fishery from SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing Mandatory for: Federal Center: 620 Central achieving optimum yield. The Advisory to delete a product and services from Avenue, Alameda, CA Panel will have an opportunity to the Procurement List that were Mandatory Source of Supply: Rubicon Programs, Inc., Richmond, CA provide input on the Council’s five-year furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES research priorities related to the herring ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY resource and fishery. The Atlantic States have other severe disabilities. COORDINATOR Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) DATES: Comments must be received on Service Type: JWOD Staffing Services will host a public hearing on or before: March 15, 2020. Mandatory for: GSA, Nationwide Addendum III. Addendum III is ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES considering revisions to the days out From People Who Are Blind or Severely ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY program and quota management system Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite COORDINATOR in the Atlantic Herring Interstate 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Mandatory for: Southeast Federal Center: Fishery Management Plan to better FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For manage the Area 1A (inshore Gulf of Building at 49 L Street, SE, Washington, further information or to submit DC Maine) sub-annual catch limit (ACL) comments contact: Michael R. Mandatory Source of Supply: Davis Memorial under low quota scenarios. Staff from Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603–2117, Goodwill Industries, Washington, DC ASMFC will provide a summary of the Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email Contracting Activity: PUBLIC BUILDINGS draft addendum and there will be an [email protected]. SERVICE, WPHCC—WEST O&M opportunity for public comments. Other CONTRACTS BRANCH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This business may be discussed as necessary. notice is published pursuant to 41 Service Type: Custodial Services Mandatory for: DLA Warren Depot, Warren, Although non-emergency issues not U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its contained on this agenda may come OH purpose is to provide interested persons Mandatory Source of Supply: VGS, Inc., before this Council for discussion, those an opportunity to submit comments on issues may not be the subject of formal Cleveland, OH the proposed actions. Contracting Activity: DEFENSE LOGISTICS action during this meeting. Council AGENCY, DLA STRATEGIC action will be restricted to those issues Deletions MATERIALS specifically listed in this notice and any The following product and services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial issues arising after publication of this are proposed for deletion from the Mandatory for: Social Security notice that require emergency action Procurement List: Administration, Clinton, MD under section 305(c) of the Magnuson- Mandatory Source of Supply: Davis Memorial Stevens Act, provided the public has Product Goodwill Industries, Washington, DC Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES been notified of the Council’s intent to NSN—Product Name: MR 11056—Grocery take final action to address the ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY Shopping Tote Bag, Laminated, COORDINATOR emergency Halloween, Trick or Treat, Small Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Special Accommodations the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc., Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: West Allis, WI 271 Hedges Street Scouten, Mansfield, This meeting is physically accessible OH to people with disabilities. This meeting Contracting Activity: Military Resale-Defense Commissary Agency Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, will be recorded. Consistent with 16 W6QM MICC FT MCCOY (RC) U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service available upon request. Requests for Service Type: Switchboard Operation Mandatory for: Social Security sign language interpretation or other Mandatory for: Veterans Affairs Medical Administration District Office Building, auxiliary aids should be directed to Center: 3601 South 6th Avenue, Montclair, New Jersey Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at Washington, DC Mandatory Source of Supply: Fedcap (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to Mandatory Source of Supply: Southern Rehabilitation Services, Inc., New York, the meeting date. Arizona Association for the Visually NY Impaired deleted, Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: PUBLIC BUILDINGS Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Contracting Activity: VETERANS AFFAIRS, SERVICE, GSA PBS R2 ACQUISITION Dated: February 10, 2020. DEPARTMENT OF, NAC MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tracey L. Thompson, Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Mandatory for: Veterans Affairs Medical Mandatory for: Fort McPherson: USARC Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Center, Omaha, NE Headquarters, Atlanta, GA Contracting Activity: VETERANS AFFAIRS, Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, [FR Doc. 2020–02951 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF, NAC W6QM MICC–FDO FT SAM HOUSTON BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Service Type: Custodial Services Service Type: Litter Pickup Mandatory for: Food and Drug Mandatory for: Robins Air Force Base, Robins Administration, 1114 Market Street (9th AFB, GA & 10th floors only), St. Louis, MO Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM Mandatory Source of Supply: MGI Services FORCE, FA8501 AFSC PZIO PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR Corporation, St. Louis, MO Service Type: Vehicle Retrofitting Srvc SEVERELY DISABLED Contracting Activity: PUBLIC BUILDINGS limited to FPI surplus SERVICE, GSA/PUBLIC BUILDINGS Mandatory for: Good Vocations, Inc., Macon, Procurement List; Proposed Deletions SERVICE GA Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Mandatory Source of Supply: Good AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Mandatory for: U.S. Federal Building and Vocations, Inc., Macon, GA People Who Are Blind or Severely Post Office, Bozeman, MT Contracting Activity: BUREAU OF Disabled. Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES CUSTOMS AND BORDER

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8576 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

PROTECTION, SBI ACQUISITION COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 3. There are no known regulatory OFFICE PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR alternatives which would accomplish Service Type: Administrative Service SEVERELY DISABLED the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- Mandatory for: Federal Office Building: 225 O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in W King Street, Martinsburg, WV Procurement List; Addition Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Squad, Inc., connection with the service proposed Bridgeport, WV AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From for addition to the Procurement List. Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES People Who Are Blind or Severely The Committee finds good cause to ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY Disabled. dispense with the 30-day delay in the COORDINATOR ACTION: Addition to the Procurement effective date normally required by the Service Type: Administrative Support, List. Supply and Warehousing Service Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Mandatory for: Orlando Naval Training SUMMARY: This action adds a service to Committee’s Procurement List is Center, Orlando, FL the Procurement List that will be Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE NAVY, effectuated because of the expiration of NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Service Type: Grounds Maintenance have other severe disabilities. (DTRA) Administrative Support Service, Mandatory for: Fort Gillem: SE Army Reserve contract. The Federal customer has DATES: Date added to the Procurement Intelligence Center, Fort Gillem, GA worked diligently with the AbilityOne Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, List: March 5, 2020. Program to fulfill this service need W40M RHCO–ATLANTIC USAHCA ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid Service Type: Grounds Maintenance From People Who Are Blind or Severely performance disruption, and the Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, possibility that the DTRA will refer its 1011 George Boulevard, Akron, OH Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, business elsewhere, this addition must FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W40M RHCO–ATLANTIC USAHCA be effective on March 5, 2020, ensuring Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603– Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial timely execution for a March 6, 2020 7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve, SGT start date while still allowing 21 days George Lenkalis USARC, West Hazleton, [email protected]. for comments. Pursuant to its own PA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation 41 CFR 51–2.4, the Mandatory Source of Supply: Portco, Inc., notice is published pursuant to 41 Committee has been in contact with one Portsmouth, VA U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, of the affected parties, the incumbent of W6QK ACC–PICA purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the expiring contract since June 2019, Service Type: Janitorial/Grounds the proposed actions. and determined that no severe adverse Maintenance impact exists. The Committee also Mandatory for: Tucson Air Operations, Addition published a notice of proposed Tucson, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: J.P. Industries, On 6/22/2019, the Committee for Procurement List addition in the Inc., Tucson, AZ Purchase From People Who Are Blind Federal Register on November 22, 2019, Contracting Activity: U.S. CUSTOMS AND or Severely Disabled published notice of and did not receive comments from the BORDER PROTECTION, BORDER proposed additions to the Procurement incumbent contractor. This addition ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTING List. This notice is published pursuant will not create a public hardship and DIVISION to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51– has limited effect on the public at large, Service Type: Facility Support Services 2.3. but, rather, will create new jobs for Mandatory for: Social Security After consideration of the material other affected parties—people with Administration: Southeastern Program presented to it concerning capability of Service Center, Birmingham, AL significant disabilities in the AbilityOne qualified nonprofit agencies to provide Program who otherwise face challenges Mandatory Source of Supply: Alabama the service and impact of the addition Goodwill Industries, Inc., Birmingham, locating employment. Moreover, this AL on the current or most recent addition will enable Federal customer contractors, the Committee has Contracting Activity: SOCIAL SECURITY operations to continue without determined that the service listed below ADMINISTRATION, REGION 04— interruption. SOUTHEAST PROGRAM SERVICE is suitable for procurement by the CENTER Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. End of Certification Service Type: Demilitarization of Military 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4. Hardware Accordingly, the following service is Mandatory for: Robins Air Force Base, Robins Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification added to the Procurement List: AFB, GA I certify that the following action will Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR not have a significant impact on a Service FORCE, FA8501 AFSC PZIO substantial number of small entities. Service Type: Administrative Support Service Type: Operation of Postal Service The major factors considered for this Service Center certification were: Mandatory for: Defense Threat Reduction Mandatory for: Shaw Air Force Base, Shaw 1. The action will not result in any AFB, SC Agency (DTRA), DTRA Headquarters, Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR additional reporting, recordkeeping or Fort Belvoir, VA FORCE, FA4803 20 CONS LGCA other compliance requirements for small Mandatory Source of Supply: Melwood entities other than the small Horticultural Training Center, Inc., Patricia Briscoe, organizations that will furnish the Upper Marlboro, MD Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing service to the Government. Contracting Activity: DEFENSE THREAT and Information Management). 2. The action will result in REDUCTION AGENCY (DTRA), [FR Doc. 2020–02979 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] authorizing small entities to furnish the DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION BILLING CODE 6353–01–P service to the Government.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8577

AGENCY 3. There are no known regulatory Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Government Printing Patricia Briscoe, alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- Office Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management). O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in Patricia Briscoe, connection with the services deleted [FR Doc. 2020–02980 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing from the Procurement List. BILLING CODE 6353–01–P and Information Management). End of Certification [FR Doc. 2020–02981 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Accordingly, the following services BILLING CODE 6353–01–P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM are deleted from the Procurement List: PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Services COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Service Type: Operation of Postal Service COMMISSION Procurement List; Deletions Center, Fort Riley, KS Mandatory Source of Supply: Skookum AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Agency Information Collection Educational Programs, Bremerton, WA Activities: Notice of Intent To Extend People Who Are Blind or Severely Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, Disabled. Collection 3038–0101, Registration of W6QM MICC–FT RILEY Foreign Boards of Trade ACTION: Deletions from the Procurement Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial List. Mandatory for: Department of Veterans AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Affairs, VA Outpatient Clinic, 104 Alex Commission. SUMMARY: This action deletes services Lane, Charleston, WV ACTION: Notice. from the Procurement List that were Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill furnished by nonprofit agencies Industries of Kanawha Valley, SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures employing persons who are blind or Charleston, WV Trading Commission (CFTC) is have other severe disabilities. Contracting Activity: VETERANS AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF, 581–HUNTINGTON announcing an opportunity for public DATES: Date deleted from the comment on the proposed renewal of a Procurement List: March 15, 2020. Service Type: Administrative Services Mandatory for: Office of the U.S. Trade collection of certain information by the ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase Representative, Washington, DC agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction From People Who Are Blind or Severely Mandatory Source of Supply: ServiceSource, Act (PRA), Federal agencies are required Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Inc., Oakton, VA to publish notice in the Federal Register Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. Contracting Activity: EXECUTIVE OFFICE concerning each proposed collection of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OF THE PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE information, including proposed Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT extension of an existing collection of 603–2117, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email Service Type: Central Facility Management information, and to allow 60 days for [email protected]. Mandatory for: Social Security public comment. This notice solicits Administration: Trust Fund Building, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Chambersburg, PA comments on collections of information notice is published pursuant to 41 Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill provided for by Commission regulation U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its Services, Inc., Harrisburg, PA Part 48, Registration of Foreign Boards purpose is to provide interested persons Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES of Trade. an opportunity to submit comments on ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY DATES: Comments must be submitted on the proposed actions. COORDINATOR or before April 14, 2020. Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Deletions ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Mandatory for: National Park Service: identified by ‘‘Registration of Foreign On 1/10/2020, the Committee for Gateway National Recreational Area, Staten Island, NY Boards of Trade’’ or ‘‘OMB Control No. Purchase From People Who Are Blind 3038–0101’’ by any of the following or Severely Disabled published notice of Mandatory Source of Supply: Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., New York, methods: proposed deletions from the NY • The Agency’s website, at http:// Procurement List. Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the After consideration of the relevant ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY instructions for submitting comments matter presented, the Committee has COORDINATOR through the website. determined that the services listed Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial • Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, below are no longer suitable for Mandatory for: Veterans Outreach Center: Secretary of the Commission, procurement by the Federal Government 954 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Commodity Futures Trading Mandatory Source of Supply: ACHIEVA under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 51–2.4. Support, Pittsburgh, PA Contracting Activity: VETERANS AFFAIRS, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification DEPARTMENT OF, NAC 20581. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as I certify that the following action will Service Type: Cutting and Assembly Mail above. not have a significant impact on a Mandatory for: Robins Air Force Base, Robins Please submit your comments using substantial number of small entities. AFB, GA Mandatory Source of Supply: Middle Georgia only one method. The major factors considered for this Diversified Industries, Inc., Dublin, GA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: certification were: Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR 1. The action will not result in Duane C. Andresen, Associate Director, FORCE, FA8501 AFSC PZIO Division of Market Oversight, additional reporting, recordkeeping or Service Type: Duplication of Official Use other compliance requirements for small Commodity Futures Trading Documents Commission, (202) 418–5492; email: entities. Mandatory for: Government Printing Office: 2. The action may result in 710 North Capitol & H Street NW, [email protected]. authorizing small entities to furnish the Washington, DC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the services to the Government. Mandatory Source of Supply: Alliance, Inc., PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

agencies must obtain approval from the • The accuracy of the Commission’s Estimated total annual burden on Office of Management and Budget estimate of the burden of the proposed respondents: 8,612 hours. (OMB) for each collection of collection of information, including the Frequency of collection: When a information they conduct or sponsor. validity of the methodology and reportable event occurs and quarterly ‘‘Collection of Information’’ is defined assumptions used; and annually for required reports. in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 • Ways to enhance the quality, There are no capital costs or operating and includes agency requests or usefulness, and clarity of the and maintenance costs associated with requirements that members of the public information to be collected; and this collection. submit reports, keep records, or provide • Ways to minimize the burden of (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) collection of information on those who information to a third party. Section Dated: February 10, 2020 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. are to respond, including through the Robert Sidman, 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies use of appropriate automated electronic, to provide a 60-day notice in the mechanical, or other technological Deputy Secretary of the Commission. Federal Register concerning each collection techniques or other forms of [FR Doc. 2020–02965 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] proposed collection of information, information technology; e.g., permitting BILLING CODE P including each proposed extension of an electronic submission of responses. existing collection of information, All comments must be submitted in before submitting the collection to OMB English, or if not, accompanied by an DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE for approval. To comply with this English translation. Comments will be requirement, the CFTC is publishing posted as received to http:// Office of the Secretary notice of the proposed collection of www.cftc.gov. You should submit only Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice information listed below. An agency information that you wish to make of Federal Advisory Committee may not conduct or sponsor, and a available publicly. If you wish the Meeting person is not required to respond to, a Commission to consider information collection of information unless it that you believe is exempt from AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for displays a currently valid OMB control disclosure under the Freedom of Personnel and Readiness, Department of number. Information Act, a petition for Defense (DoD). Title: Registration of Foreign Boards confidential treatment of the exempt ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory of Trade (OMB Control No. 3038–0101). information may be submitted according Committee meeting. This is a request for extension of a to the procedures established in § 145.9 currently approved information of the Commission’s regulations.1 SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing this collection. The Commission reserves the right, notice to announce that the following Abstract: Section 738 of the Dodd- but shall have no obligation, to review, Federal Advisory Committee meeting of Frank Act amended section 4(b)(1) of pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) the Commodity Exchange Act to provide remove any or all of your submission will take place. that the Commission may adopt rules from http://www.cftc.gov that it may DATES: The RFPB will hold a meeting on and regulations requiring foreign boards deem to be inappropriate for Wednesday, March 4, 2020 from 7:40 of trade (FBOT) that wish to provide publication, such as obscene language. a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The portion of the their members or other participants All submissions that have been redacted meeting from 7:40 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. will located in the United States with direct or removed that contain comments on be closed to the public. The portion of access to the FBOT’s electronic trading the merits of the ICR will be retained in the meeting from 1:10 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and order matching system to register the public comment file and will be will be open to the public. with the Commission. Pursuant to this considered as required under the ADDRESSES: The RFPB meeting address authorization, the CFTC adopted a final Administrative Procedure Act and other is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, rule requiring FBOTs that wish to applicable laws, and may be accessible VA. permit trading by direct access to under the Freedom of Information Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provide certain information to the Burden Statement Alexander Sabol, (703) 681–0577 Commission in applications for (Voice), 703–681–0002 (Facsimile), registration and, once registered, to Collection 3038–0101—Registration of [email protected] (Email). provide certain information to meet Foreign Boards of Trade (17 CFR Part Mailing address is Reserve Forces Policy quarterly and annual reporting 48) Board, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 601, requirements. The rule establishes The estimate of the burden for this Falls Church, VA 22041. Website: reporting and/or recordkeeping collection for registered FBOTs remains http://rfpb.defense.gov/. The most up- requirements that are required by Part the same. The respondent burden for to-date changes to the meeting agenda 48 of the Commission’s regulations and this collection is estimated to range can be found on the website and the are necessary to ensure that FBOTs from two to eight hours per response for Federal Register. registered to provide for trading by submission of required reports. These SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This direct access meet statutory and estimates include the time to locate, meeting is being held under the regulatory requirements on an initial compile, validate, and verify and provisions of the Federal Advisory and ongoing basis. disclose and to ensure such information Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., With respect to the collection of is maintained. The respondent burden Appendix), the Government in the information, the CFTC invites for this collection is estimated to be as Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 comments on: follows: CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150. • Whether the proposed collection of Estimated number of respondents: 23. Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose information is necessary for the proper Estimated Average Burden Hours per of the meeting is to obtain, review, and performance of the functions of the Respondent: 374.4 hours. evaluate information related to Commission, including whether the strategies, policies, and practices information will have a practical use; 1 17 CFR 145.9. designed to improve and enhance the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8579

capabilities, efficiency, and Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to for public inspection, including, but not effectiveness of the Reserve section 10(a)(1) of the FACA and 41 CFR limited to, being posted on the RFPB’s Components. 102–3.140 through 102–3.165, and website. Agenda: The RFPB will hold a subject to the availability of space, the Dated: February 10, 2020. meeting from 7:40 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public from 1:10 Aaron T. Siegel, portion of the meeting from 7:40 a.m. to p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Seating is on a first- 1:00 p.m. will be closed to the public Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison come, first-served basis. All members of Officer, Department of Defense. and will consist of remarks to the RFPB the public who wish to attend the from the following invited speakers: The public meeting must contact Mr. Alex [FR Doc. 2020–02969 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Commander, United States Army Forces Sabol, the Designated Federal Officer, BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Command will discuss the Army’s not later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, challenges facing our Nation and March 3, 2020, as listed in the FOR priorities for adapting the Army’s force FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY structure to include the Army Reserve make arrangements for a Pentagon Component’s mission requirements; the Environmental Management Site- escort, if necessary. Public attendees Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth Commander, United States Army North requiring escort should arrive at the will discuss the readiness and use of the Pentagon Metro Entrance at 12:30 p.m. AGENCY: Office of Environmental Army National Guard and Reserve to provide sufficient time to complete Management, Department of Energy. within the Army North Command with security screening to attend the ACTION: Notice of open meeting. increased emphasis on the homeland beginning of the Open Meeting at 1:10 security missions for the Reserve p.m. on March 4. To complete the SUMMARY: This notice announces a Component; the Official Performing the security screening, please be prepared to meeting of the Environmental Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense present two forms of identification. One Management Site-Specific Advisory for Personnel and Readiness will must be a picture identification card. In Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The discuss the goals of the Office of the accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Under Secretary of Defense for FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR requires that public notice of this Personnel and Readiness; the Deputy 102–3.155, the DoD has determined that meeting be announced in the Federal Director, Army National Guard will the portion of this meeting scheduled to Register. discuss the National Guard’s occur from 7:40 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. will DATES: requirements to operate with the Border Thursday, March 5, 2020; 6:00 be closed to the public. Specifically, the p.m. Patrol and the effects that the border Performing the Duties of the Under ADDRESSES: security mission has on their military Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Ohio State University, readiness; goals and updates on Reserve Readiness, in coordination with the Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Components’ personnel system reforms Department of Defense FACA Attorney, Piketon, Ohio 45661. under consideration; the Commander, has determined in writing that this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Air Mobility Command and the portion of the meeting will be closed to Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Commander, Air Combat Command will the public because it is likely to disclose Federal Officer, U.S. Department of discuss the Air Mobility Command/Air classified matters covered by 5 U.S.C. Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Combat Command’s goals, readiness 552b(c)(1). Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, objectives, and challenges for the Ohio 45661, (740) 897–3737, or email: Written Statements: Pursuant to ‘‘Operational Reserve’’ as part of the [email protected]. section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR Total Force with the Active and Reserve SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Component mission effectiveness. 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, interested persons may submit written statements Purpose of the Board: The purpose of The portion of the meeting from 1:10 the Board is to make recommendations p.m. to 3:00 p.m. will be open to the to the RFPB about its approved agenda or at any time on the RFPB’s mission. to DOE–EM and site management in the public and will consist of briefings from areas of environmental restoration, the following: The Subcommittee on Written statements should be submitted to the RFPB’s Designated Federal Officer waste management and related Enhancing DoD’s Role in The Homeland activities. will discuss the establishment of the at the address, email, or facsimile Space Force Department with the DoD’s number listed in the FOR FURTHER Tentative Agenda INFORMATION CONTACT section. If legislative requirements, and the • Call to Order, Introductions, Review statements pertain to a specific topic integration of Reserve Components into of Agenda the Space Force; the Subcommittee on being discussed at the planned meeting, • Approval of January 2020 Minutes Supporting and Sustaining Reserve then these statements must be submitted • Deputy Designated Federal Officer’s Component Personnel will present to no later than five (5) business days prior Comments the RFPB the subcommittee’s review to the meeting in question. Written • Federal Coordinator’s Comments and make suggestions for future statements received after this date may • Liaison’s Comments proposed recommendations to the not be provided to or considered by the • Presentation Secretary of Defense concerning the RFPB until its next meeting. The • Administrative Issues Joint Credit proposal and the Services’ Designated Federal Officer will review Æ Draft Recommendation 20–02, DOE MILTECH policy proposal; and the all timely submitted written statements Take Measures to Fully Subcommittee on Ensuring a Ready, and provide copies to all the RFPB Communicate the 2018 Portsmouth Capable, Available, and Sustainable members before the meeting that is the Annual Site Environmental Report Operational Reserve will provide the subject of this notice. Please note that • Subcommittee Updates subcommittee’s review of and make since the RFPB operates in accordance • Public Comments suggestions for the Department’s New with the provisions of the FACA, all • Final Comments from the Board Administration Transition Book for a submitted comments and public • Adjourn future proposed RFPB recommendation presentations will be treated as public Public Participation: The meeting is to the Secretary of Defense. documents and will be made available open to the public. The EM SSAB,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY • Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and the public at its advisory committee Biosciences Division COV Meeting meetings and will make every effort to Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Announcement accommodate persons with physical Committee • Energy Frontier Research Centers/Hub COV Meeting Announcement disabilities or special needs. If you AGENCY: Office of Science, Department • Basic Research Needs Workshop on require special accommodations due to of Energy. a disability, please contact Greg Transformative Manufacturing Update ACTION: Notice of open meeting. • Simonton at least seven days in advance Public Comments • Adjourn of the meeting at the telephone number SUMMARY: This notice announces a listed above. Written statements may be meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Breaks Taken As Appropriate filed with the Board either before or Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Public Participation: The meeting is after the meeting. Individuals who wish Federal Advisory Committee Act open to the public. If you would like to to make oral statements pertaining to requires that public notice of these file a written statement with the agenda items should contact Greg meetings be announced in the Federal Committee, you may do so either before Simonton at the address or telephone Register. or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of number listed above. Requests must be DATES: the items on the agenda, you should received five days prior to the meeting Thursday, March 19, 2020; 9:00 a.m. to contact Katie Runkles at katie.runkles@ and reasonable provision will be made 5:00 p.m. science.doe.gov. Reasonable provision to include the presentation in the Friday, March 20, 2020; 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. will be made to include the scheduled agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal oral statements on the agenda. The Officer is empowered to conduct the ADDRESSES: Bethesda North Marriott Chairperson of the Committee will meeting in a fashion that will facilitate Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 conduct the meeting to facilitate the the orderly conduct of business. Marinelli Drive, Rockville, MD 20852. orderly conduct of business. Public Individuals wishing to make public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment will follow the 10-minute comments will be provided a maximum Katie Runkles; Office of Basic Energy rule. Information about the committee of five minutes to present their Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; can be found at: https://science.osti.gov/ comments. Germantown Building, 1000 bes/besac. Minutes: Minutes will be available by Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Minutes: The minutes of this meeting writing or calling Greg Simonton at the DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903–6529; will be available for public review and address and telephone number listed email: [email protected]. copying within 30 days at the above. Minutes will also be available at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Committee’s website: https:// the following website: https:// Purpose of the Committee: The science.osti.gov/bes/besac. www.energy.gov/pppo/ports-ssab/ purpose of this committee is to make Signed in Washington, DC, on February 11, listings/meeting-materials. recommendation to DOE-Office of 2020. Science with respect to the basic energy LaTanya Butler, Signed in Washington, DC, on February 11, sciences research program. Deputy Committee Management Officer. 2020. Tentative Agenda: [FR Doc. 2020–03038 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] LaTanya Butler, • Call to Order, Introductions, Review BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Deputy Committee Management Officer. of the Agenda [FR Doc. 2020–03039 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] • News from the Office of Science • BILLING CODE 6450–01–P News from the Office of Basic Energy DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Sciences • Neutron Subcommittee Update Notice of Orders Issued Under Section • International Benchmarking Study 3 of the Natural Gas Act During Update December 2019

FE Docket Nos.

REV LNG, LLC ...... 19–138–LNG CITADEL ENERGY MARKETING LLC ...... 19–141–NG MACQUARIE ENERGY LLC ...... 19–139–NG PASO NORTE GAS EXPORT, LLC ...... 19–142–NG SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY d/b/a NV ENERGY ...... 19–144–NG UNIPER TRADING CANADA LTD ...... 19–145–NG APPLIED LNG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ...... 19–149–NG COMMONWEALTH LNG, LLC ...... 12–152–LNG; 13–153–LNG DIAMOND CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC ...... 19–140–NG SUMAS DRY KILNS INC ...... 19–150–NG

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, import and export natural gas, to import listing-doefe-authorizationsorders- Department of Energy. and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), issued-2019. ACTION: Notice of orders. and to vacate authorization. These They are also available for inspection orders are summarized in the attached SUMMARY: and copying in the U.S. Department of The Office of Fossil Energy appendix and may be found on the FE (FE) of the Department of Energy gives Energy (FE–34), Division of Natural Gas website at https://www.energy.gov/fe/ notice that during December 2019, it Regulation, Office of Regulation, issued orders granting authority to Analysis, and Engagement, Office of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8581

Fossil Energy, Docket Room 3E–033, 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Signed in Washington, DC, on February 9, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence except Federal holidays. 2020. Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, Amy Sweeney, (202) 586–9478. The Docket Room is Director, Office of Regulation, Analysis, and open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas.

APPENDIX—DOE/FE ORDERS

4471 ...... 12/19/19 19–138–LNG ...... Rev LNG, LLC ...... Order 4471 granting blanket authority to import/ex- port LNG from/to Canada by truck. 4472 ...... 12/19/19 19–141–NG ...... Citadel Energy Marketing Order 4472 granting blanket authority to import/ex- LLC. port natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4473 ...... 12/19/19 19–139–NG ...... Macquarie Energy LLC .... Order 4473 granting blanket authority to import/ex- port natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico, to im- port/export LNG from/to Canada/Mexico by truck, and to import LNG from various international sources by vessel. 4474 ...... 12/19/19 19–142–NG ...... Paso Norte Gas Export, Order 4474 granting blanket authority to export nat- LLC. ural gas to Mexico. 4475 ...... 12/19/19 19–144–NG ...... Sierra Pacific Power Order 4475 granting blanket authority to import/ex- Company d/b/a NV En- port natural gas from/to Canada. ergy. 4476 ...... 12/19/19 19–145–NG ...... Uniper Trading Canada Order 4476 granting blanket authority to import/ex- Ltd.. port natural gas from/to Canada. 4478 ...... 12/19/19 19–149–LNG ...... Applied LNG Tech- Order 4478 granting blanket authority to import/ex- nologies, LLC. port LNG from/to Canada/Mexico by truck. 3211–A ...... 12/19/19 12–152–LNG, 13–153– Commonwealth LNG, LLC Order 3211–A vacating long-term multi-contract au- LNG. thorization to export LNG by vessel from the pro- posed Waller Point LNG Terminal, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, to Free Trade Agreement Na- tions, and withdrawing pending Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations Application. 4479 ...... 12/20/19 19–140–NG ...... Diamond Capital Inter- Order 4479 granting blanket authority to import/ex- national, LLC. port natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico, to im- port/export LNG from/to Canada/Mexico by truck, and to import LNG from various international sources by vessel. 4480 ...... 12/20/19 19–150–NG ...... Sumas Dry Kilns Inc...... Order 4480 granting blanket authority to import nat- ural gas from Canada.

[FR Doc. 2020–03032 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Comment Procedures section no later Cassandra Bernstein or Kari Twaite, BILLING CODE 6450–01–P than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, March 2, U.S. Department of Energy (GC–76), 2020. Office of the Assistant General ADDRESSES: Counsel for Electricity and Fossil DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Electronic Filing by email: fergas@ Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 hq.doe.gov. Independence Avenue SW, [FE Docket No. 18–70–LNG] Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– Change In Control; Mexico Pacific Energy (FE–34), Office of Regulation, 9793; (202) 586–6978, Limited LLC Analysis, and Engagement, Office of [email protected] or Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, [email protected]. AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. Washington, DC 20026–4375. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Notice of change in control. Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Summary of Change in Control SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy Department of Energy (FE–34), Office of The Notification states that, at the (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement, time MPL filed its application in this gives notice of receipt of a Notification Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal proceeding and through October 21, Regarding Change in Control Building, Room 3E–042, 1000 2019, its membership interests were (Notification) filed by Mexico Pacific Independence Avenue SW, Washington, held by two entities: DKRW Energy Limited LLC (MPL) in the above- DC 20585. Sonora Holding LLC and ACAP Sonora referenced docket on November 18, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Energy LLC. MPL states that, by means 2019, and in a Supplement filed on Benjamin Nussdorf or Amy Sweeney, of a transaction that closed effective as January 14, 2020. The Notification and U.S. Department of Energy (FE–34), of October 22, 2019, its ownership has Supplement describe changes in MPL’s Office of Regulation, Analysis, and changed. ownership. The Notification and Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, MPL states that it is now controlled Supplement were filed under section 3 Forrestal Building, Room 3E–042, by a consortium led by AVAIO of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Management LP (AVAIO Capital), DATES: Protests, motions to intervene, or Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– which also includes funds managed by notices of intervention, as applicable, 7893; (202) 586–2627, Tortoise Capital Advisors LLC. The and written comments are to be filed [email protected] or three largest equity owners of MPL in using procedures detailed in the Public [email protected]. terms of total ownership are AVAIO

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8582 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

MPL SPV, LP (51.72%), ACAP Sonora method: emailing the filing to fergas@ ACTION: Notice and request for Energy LLC (19.53%), and DKRW hq.doe.gov; (2) mailing an original and comments. Energy Partners LLC (16.09%). MPL three paper copies of the filing to the states that two of these entities, AVAIO Office of Regulation, Analysis, and SUMMARY: The Department of Energy MPL SPV, LP and DKRW Energy Engagement at the address listed in (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Partners LLC, increased their ownership ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an Reduction Act of 1995, intends to percentages by more than 10%, as original and three paper copies of the extend for three years a currently shown in Exhibit A to both the filing to the Office of Regulation, approved collection of information with Notification and Supplement. Analysis, and Engagement at the the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The information collection Additional details can be found in address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings DECP’s Notification and Supplement, must include a reference to the request, Weatherization Assistance Program, was previously approved on posted on the DOE/FE website at: individual FE Docket Number(s) in the February 28, 2017 under OMB Control https://www.energy.gov/fe/mexico- title line, or Mexico Pacific Limited LLC No. 1910–5127 and its current pacific-limited-llc-mpl-fe-dkt-no-18-70- Change in Control in the title line. expiration date is February 29, 2020. lng. Please Note: If submitting a filing via The proposed collection will collect email, please include all related DOE/FE Evaluation information on the status of Grantee documents and attachments (e.g., activities, expenditures, and results, to DOE/FE will review MPL’s exhibits) in the original email ensure that program funds are being Notification and Supplement in correspondence. Please do not include used appropriately, effectively, and accordance with its Procedures for any active hyperlinks or password expeditiously. Changes in Control Affecting protection in any of the documents or Applications and Authorizations to attachments related to the filing. All DATES: Comments regarding this Import or Export Natural Gas (CIC electronic filings submitted to DOE collection must be received on or before Procedures).1 Consistent with the CIC must follow these guidelines to ensure March 16, 2020. If you anticipate that Procedures, this notice addresses MPL’s that all documents are filed in a timely you will be submitting comments, but authorization to export liquefied natural manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted find it difficult to do so within the gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement greater in length than 50 pages must period of time allowed by this notice, (non-FTA) countries, granted in DOE/FE also include, at the time of the filing, a please advise the OMB Desk Officer of Order No. 4312 (FE Docket No. 18–70– digital copy on disk of the entire your intention to make a submission as LNG).2 If no interested person protests submission. soon as possible. The Desk Officer may the change in control and DOE takes no MPL’s Notification and Supplement, be telephoned at (202) 395–4650. action on its own motion, the proposed and any filed protests, motions to ADDRESSES: Written comments should change in control will be deemed intervene, notices of intervention, and be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office granted 30 days after publication in the comments, are available for inspection of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Federal Register. If one or more protests and copying in the Office of Regulation, Office of Management and Budget, New are submitted, DOE will review any Analysis, and Engagement docket room, Executive Office Building, Room 10102, motions to intervene, protests, and Room 3E–042, 1000 Independence 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC answers, and will issue a determination Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. 20503; and to Christine Askew, EE–5W, as to whether the proposed change in The docket room is open between the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 control has been demonstrated to render hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Independence Ave. SW, Washington, the underlying authorization Monday through Friday, except Federal DC 20585, Email: Christine.Askew@ inconsistent with the public interest. holidays. ee.doe.gov. Public Comment Procedures MPL’s Notification and Supplement, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons will be provided 15 and any filed protests, motions to Requests for additional information or days from the date of publication of this intervene, notices of intervention, and copies of the information collection notice in the Federal Register in order comments, will also be available instrument and instructions should be to move to intervene, protest, and electronically by going to the following directed to: answer MPL’s Notification and DOE/FE Web address: http:// Christine Askew, EE–5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Supplement.3 Protests, motions to www.fe.doe.gov/programs/ Independence Ave. SW, Washington, intervene, notices of intervention, and gasregulation/index.html. DC 20585–1290, Phone: (202) 586–8224, written comments are invited in Signed in Washington, DC, on February 9, Fax: (202) 287–1992, Email: response to this notice only as to the 2020. [email protected]. change in control described in MPL’s Amy Sweeney, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Notification and Supplement. All Director, Office of Regulation, Analysis, and protests, comments, motions to Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. are invited on: (a) Whether the extended intervene, or notices of intervention collection of information is necessary [FR Doc. 2020–03033 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] for the proper performance of the must meet the requirements specified by BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DOE’s regulations in 10 CFR part 590. functions of the agency, including Filings may be submitted using one of whether the information shall have the following methods: (1) Preferred DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the 1 79 FR 65541 (Nov. 5, 2014). Revision of a Currently Approved proposed collection of information, 2 MPL’s Notification and Supplement also apply Information Collection for the including the validity of the to its existing FTA authorization, but DOE/FE will Weatherization Assistance Program methodology and assumptions used; (c) respond to that portion of the documents separately ways to enhance the quality, utility, and pursuant to the CIC Procedures, 79 FR 65542. AGENCY: 3 Intervention, if granted, would constitute Office of Energy Efficiency and clarity of the information to be intervention only in the change in control portion Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of collected; and (d) ways to minimize the of this proceeding, as described herein. Energy. burden of the collection of information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:03 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8583

on respondents, including through the approval by the Federal Energy submit Rate Order No. WAPA–189 to use of automated collection techniques Regulatory Commission (FERC) on a FERC for confirmation and approval on or other forms of information final basis or until superseded. a final basis. technology. This information collection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dated: February 10, 2020. request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910– Steven R. Johnson, Colorado River Bruce J. Walker, 5127; (2) Information Collection Request Storage Project (CRSP) Manager, CRSP Title: ‘‘Weatherization Assistance Management Center, Western Area Assistant Secretary for Electricity. Program (WAP)’’; (3) Type of Review: Power Administration, 299 South Main Department of Energy Revision of a Currently Approved Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT Collection; (4) Purpose: To collect 84111, (801) 524–6372, email johnsons@ Assistant Secretary for Electricity information on the status of grantee wapa.gov; or Mr. Thomas Hackett, Rates In the matter of: Western Area Power activities, expenditures, and results, to Manager, CRSP Management Center, Administration Rate Adjustment for the ensure that program funds are being (801) 524–5503, or email: CRSPMC-rate- used appropriately, effectively and [email protected]. Provo River Project, Firm Power Formula Rate expeditiously; per House Report 115– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 929, DOE will begin tracking the November 2, 2010, FERC confirmed, Rate Order No. WAPA–189 occurrence of window replacements, approved, and placed into effect the which supports the reduction of lead- existing formula rate, which is set to Order Confirming, Approving, and based paint hazards in homes; (5) expire on March 31, 2020.1 The existing Placing the Firm Power Formula Rate Annual Estimated Number of formula rate provides sufficient revenue for the Provo River Project Into Effect Respondents: 57; (6) Annual Estimated to recover annual expenses, including on an Interim Basis Number of Total Responses: 399; (7) interest expense, and repay capital The formula rate in Rate Order No. Annual Estimated Number of Burden investments within the cost recovery WAPA–189 is established pursuant to Hours: 1254; (8) Annual Estimated criteria set forth in Department of section 302 of the Department of Energy Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Energy (DOE) Order RA 6120.2. (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. Burden: $33,228.72. Legal Authority 7152).3 Statutory Authority: Title V, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89– By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00B, By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00B, 665 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). effective November 19, 2016, the effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The Signed in Washington, DC, February 5, authority to develop power and 2020. authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Western Area transmission rates to the Western Area AnnaMaria Garcia, Power Administration’s (WAPA) Power Administration’s (WAPA) Director, Weatherization and Administrator; (2) the authority to Administrator; (2) the authority to Intergovernmental Programs, Energy confirm, approve, and place such rates Efficiency and Renewable Energy. confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the into effect on an interim basis to the [FR Doc. 2020–03015 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the BILLING CODE 6450–01–P authority to confirm, approve on a final authority to confirm, approve on a final basis, remand, or disapprove such rates basis, remand, or disapprove such rates to FERC. In Delegation Order No. 00– DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY to the Federal Energy Regulatory 002.00S, effective January 15, 2020, the Commission (FERC). By Delegation Western Area Power Administration Secretary of Energy also delegated the Order No. 00–002.00S, effective January authority to confirm, approve, and place 15, 2020, the Secretary of Energy also Provo River Project—Rate Order No. such rates into effect on an interim basis delegated the authority to confirm, WAPA–189 to the Under Secretary of Energy. By approve, and place such rates into effect Redelegation Order No. 00–002.10D, on an interim basis to the Under AGENCY: Western Area Power effective June 4, 2019, the Under Administration, DOE. Secretary of Energy. By Redelegation Secretary of Energy further delegated Order No. 00–002.10D, effective June 4, ACTION: Notice of rate order concerning the authority to confirm, approve, and 2019, the Under Secretary of Energy firm power formula rate. place such rates into effect on an further delegated the authority to interim basis to the Assistant Secretary, SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary, confirm, approve, and place such rates Office of Electricity. This rate action is Office of Electricity, confirms, approves, into effect on an interim basis to the issued under the Redelegation Order and places into effect, on an interim Assistant Secretary for Electricity. This and DOE’s procedures for public basis, the firm power formula rate for rate action is issued under the participation in rate adjustments set the Provo River Project (Provisional Redelegation Order and DOE’s forth at 10 CFR part 903.2 procedures for public participation in Formula Rate). The existing firm power Following DOE’s review of WAPA’s formula rate under Rate Schedule Provo rate adjustments set forth at 10 CFR part proposal, I hereby confirm, approve, 4 River Formula Rate PR–1 is set to expire and place Rate Order No. WAPA–189, 903. on March 31, 2020. This rate action which provides the firm power formula 3 makes no change to the existing formula rate for the Provo River Project, into This Act transferred to, and vested in, the rate. Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions effect on an interim basis. WAPA will of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior DATES: The Provisional Formula Rate and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) under under Rate Schedule Provo River 1 FERC approved consecutive 5-year rate the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. Formula Rate PR–2 is effective on the extensions of the same formula rate in Docket Nos. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent first day of the first full billing period EF10–5–000 (133 FERC ¶ 62,112 (2010)) and EF15– laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation 6–000 (151 FERC ¶ 62,223 (2015)), extending the Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other beginning on or after April 1, 2020, and rate through March 31, 2020. acts that specifically apply to the project involved. will remain in effect through March 31, 2 50 FR 37,835 (September 18, 1985) and 84 FR 4 50 FR 37,835 (September 18, 1985) and 84 FR 2025, pending confirmation and 5347 (February 21, 2019). 5347 (February 21, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8584 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Acronyms, Terms, and Definitions 4. During the 30-day consultation and www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/rates/ As used in this Rate Order, the comment period, which ended on Pages/rate-order-189.aspx. August 16, 2019, WAPA did not receive following acronyms, terms, and Ratemaking Procedure Requirements definitions apply: any verbal or written comments. Environmental Compliance DOE Order RA 6120.2: An order Existing Firm Power Rate outlining Power Marketing WAPA has determined that this Administration financial reporting and WAPA markets the output of the PRP action is categorically excluded from the ratemaking procedures. to the Utah Associated Municipal Power preparation of an environmental Energy: Measured in terms of the Systems, Utah Municipal Power assessment or an environmental impact work it is capable of doing over a period Agency, and Heber Light and Power statement.7 A copy of the categorical 6 of time. Electric energy is expressed in (Customers). The Customers receive all exclusion determination is available on kilowatt-hours. marketable power generation from the WAPA’s website at https:// Firm: A type of product and/or service PRP and pay the annual revenue www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/rates/ always available at the time requested requirement in 12 monthly installments Pages/rate-order-189.aspx. by a Customer. based on the estimated operation, maintenance, interest, and replacement Determination Under Executive Order Provisional Formula Rate: A formula 12866 rate confirmed, approved, and placed costs for the Deer Creek Power Plant. WAPA has an exemption from into effect on an interim basis by the The payments do not depend upon the centralized regulatory review under Assistant Secretary for Electricity. power and energy made available for Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no Revenue Requirement: The revenue sale each year. At the end of each fiscal clearance of this notice by the Office of required to recover annual expenses year, WAPA reconciles estimates to Management and Budget is required. (such as operation and maintenance, actual expenses and includes any transmission service expenses, interest, differences in the following fiscal year’s Submission to the Federal Energy and deferred expenses) and repay revenue requirement. Regulatory Commission Federal investments and other assigned Basis for Rate Development The Provisional Formula Rate herein costs. WAPA is continuing use of its confirmed, approved, and placed into Effective Date existing firm power formula rate. The effect on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be Provisional Formula Rate, under Rate The Provisional Formula Rate, under submitted to FERC for confirmation and Schedule Provo River Formula Rate Rate Schedule Provo River Formula Rate final approval. PR–2, will take effect on the first day of PR–2, will provide sufficient revenue to the first full billing period beginning on pay all annual costs, including interest Order or after April 1, 2020, and will remain expenses, and repay investments and In view of the above, and under the in effect through March 31, 2025, irrigation aid within the allowable authority delegated to me, I hereby pending approval by FERC on a final periods. confirm, approve, and place into effect, basis or until superseded. Certification of Rates on an interim basis, Rate Order No. Public Notice and Comment WAPA–189. The rate will remain in WAPA’s Administrator certified that effect on an interim basis until: (1) FERC WAPA followed the Procedures for the Provisional Formula Rate, under confirms and approves it on a final Public Participation in Power and Rate Schedule Provo River Formula Rate basis; (2) a subsequent rate is confirmed Transmission Rate Adjustments and PR–2, is the lowest possible rate, and approved; or (3) such rate is Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in consistent with sound business superseded. 5 principles. The Provisional Formula developing this formula rate. Following Dated: February 10, 2020. are the steps WAPA took to involve Rate was developed following Bruce J. Walker, interested parties in the rate process: administrative policies and applicable 1. On July 17, 2019, a Federal laws. Assistant Secretary for Electricity Register notice (84 FR 34175) (Proposal Availability of Information United States Department of Energy FRN) announced the proposed Western Area Power Administration continuation of the existing firm power Information about this rate Colorado River Storage Project formula rate and launched the 30-day adjustment, including the power Management Center Provo River Project public consultation and comment repayment study, letters, period to give the public an opportunity memorandums, and other supporting Formula Rate to comment on the proposed formula materials that were used to develop the Effective rate. Provisional Formula Rate, is available 2. On July 19, 2019, WAPA emailed for inspection and copying at the The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after April 1, letters to preference customers and Colorado River Storage Project 2020, through March 31, 2025, or until interested parties transmitting a copy of Management Center, Western Area superseded by another formula, the Proposal FRN. Power Administration, 299 South Main whichever occurs earlier. 3. WAPA provided a website Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah. containing all dates, customer letters, Many of these documents are also Available presentations, FRNs, and other available on WAPA’s website at: https:// Customers of the Provo River Project. information about this rate process. The website is located at (https:// 6 WAPA provides electric service to the 7 The determination was done in compliance with www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/rates/ Customers under contracts that will expire the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as Pages/rate-order-189.aspx). September 30, 2024. WAPA intends to execute new amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; the Council contracts and a new marketing plan to be effective on Environmental Quality Regulations for October 1, 2024; however, these will be done in a implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); and 5 The proposed action is a minor rate adjustment, separate public process and will not impact this DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and as defined by 10 CFR 903.2(f). rate action. Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8585

Applicable EIS No. 20200034, Draft, USFS, NC, public comments on specific aspects of To preference customers under Nantahala and Pisgah NFs DEIS for the proposed information collection as contract (Contractor) with WAPA. the Proposed Land Management Plan, described below. This is a proposed Comment Period Ends: 05/14/2020, renewal of the ICR, which is currently Power Formula Rate Contact: Heather Luczak 828–257– approved through October 31, 2020. An Rate Formula Provisions are 4817 Agency may not conduct or sponsor, contained in the service agreement. EIS No. 20200035, Final Supplement, and a person is not required to respond Service agreements currently are TVA, TN, Update of TVA’s Natural to, a collection of information unless it Contract Nos. 94–SLC–0253, 94–SLC– Resource Plan, Review Period Ends: displays a currently valid OMB control 0254, and 07–SLC–0601, as 03/16/2020, Contact: Matthew Higdon number. supplemented. 865–632–8051 DATES: Comments must be submitted on EIS No. 20200036, Final, BLM, ID, or before April 14, 2020. Billing Programmatic EIS for Fuel Breaks in ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Billing will be as specified in the the Great Basin, Review Period Ends: referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– service agreement. 03/16/2020, Contact: Ammon OAR–2011–0901, online using Wilhelm 208–373–3824 www.regulations.gov (our preferred Adjustment for Losses EIS No. 20200037, Final, BLM, ID, Four method) by email to a-and-r-docket@ Not applicable. Rivers Field Office Proposed Resource epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket [FR Doc. 2020–03019 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Management Plan and Final Center, Environmental Protection Environmental Impact Statement, BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Review Period Ends: 03/16/2020, Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC Contact: Brent Ralston 208–384–3300 20460. EIS No. 20200038, Final, FRA, MS, Port The EPA’s policy is that all comments ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bienville Railroad Combined Final received will be included in the public AGENCY Environmental Impact Statement and docket without change including any [ER–FRL–9049–4] Record of Decision, Contact: Kevin personal information provided, unless Wright 202–493–0845 the comment includes profanity, threats, Environmental Impact Statements; Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FRA has information claimed to be Confidential Notice of Availability issued a single document that consists Business Information (CBI) or other of a final environmental impact information whose disclosure is Responsible Agency: Office of Federal statement and record of decision. restricted by statute. Activities, General Information 202– Therefore, the 30-day wait/review FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 564–5632 or https://www.epa.gov/ Ben period under NEPA does not apply to nepa/. Garwood, Air Quality Policy Division, this action. Office of Air Quality Planning and Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Standards, C504–03, U.S. Statements Dated: February 10, 2020. Cindy S. Barger, Environmental Protection Agency, Filed February 3, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; through February 10, 2020, 10 a.m. Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. telephone number: (919) 541–1358; fax EST number: (919) 541–4028; email address: [FR Doc. 2020–03027 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. [email protected]. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requires that EPA make public its Supporting documents which explain in comments on EISs issued by other ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION detail the information that the EPA will Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters AGENCY be collecting are available in the public on EISs are available at: https:// docket for this ICR. The docket can be cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/ [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0901; FRL–10005–26– viewed online at www.regulations.gov action/eis/search. OAR] or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EIS No. 20200030, Draft, USAF, TX, Proposed Information Collection WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 F–35A Operational Beddown—Air Request; Comment Request; Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC Force Reserve Command, Comment Prevention of Significant Deterioration The telephone number for the Docket Period Ends: 03/30/2020, Contact: and Nonattainment New Source Center is (202) 566–1744. For additional Hamid Kamalpour 210–925–2738 Review (Renewal) information about the EPA’s public EIS No. 20200031, Final, BLM, MT, docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/ Missoula Proposed Resource AGENCY: Environmental Protection dockets. Management Plan and Final EIS, Agency (EPA). Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Review Period Ends: 03/16/2020, ACTION: Notice. the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments Contact: Maggie Ward 406–329–3914 and information to enable it to: (i) EIS No. 20200032, Final, BLM, MT, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Evaluate whether the proposed Lewistown Proposed Resource Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an collection of information is necessary Management Plan and Final EIS, information collection request (ICR), for the proper performance of the Review Period Ends: 03/16/2020, ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration functions of the Agency, including Contact: Dan Brunkhorst 406–538– and Nonattainment New Source whether the information will have 1981 Review’’ (EPA ICR No. 1230.33, OMB practical utility; (ii) evaluate the EIS No. 20200033, Final, BLM, NV, Control No. 2060–0003) to the Office of accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the Coeur Rochester and Packard Mines Management and Budget (OMB) for burden of the proposed collection of POA11 Project, Review Period Ends: review and approval in accordance with information, including the validity of 03/16/2020, Contact: Kathleen the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). the methodology and assumptions used; Rehberg 775–623–1500 Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8586 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

clarity of the information to be audits the state and local programs for FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS collected; and (iv) minimize the burden their effectiveness. Consequently, COMMISSION of the collection of information on those information prepared and submitted by who are to respond, including through sources is essential for sources to [OMB 3060–0862; FRS 16494] the use of appropriate automated receive permits, and for federal, state, electronic, mechanical, or other and local environmental agencies to Information Collection Being Reviewed technological collection techniques or adequately review the permit by the Federal Communications other forms of information technology, applications and thereby properly Commission Under Delegated e.g., permitting electronic submission of administer and manage the NSR Authority responses. The EPA will consider the programs. AGENCY: comments received and amend the ICR Federal Communications as appropriate. The final ICR package Information that is collected is Commission. will then be submitted to OMB for handled according to EPA’s policies set ACTION: Notice and request for review and approval. At that time, the forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, comments. EPA will issue another Federal Register subpart B—Confidentiality of Business SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort document to announce the submission Information (see 40 CFR part 2). See also of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity section 114(c) of the Act. to reduce paperwork burdens, and as to submit additional comments to OMB. required by the Paperwork Reduction Form numbers: 5900–246, 5900–247, Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Abstract: This ICR is for activities 5900–248, 5900–340, 5900–341, 5900– related to the implementation of the Communications Commission (FCC or 342, 5900–343, 5900–344, 5900–367, the Commission) invites the general EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) 5900–368, 5900–369, 5900–370, 5900– program, for the time period between public and other Federal agencies to 371, 5900–372, 5900–390, and 5900– November 1, 2020 and October 31, 2023, take this opportunity to comment on the 391. and renews the previous ICR. Title I, following information collection. part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Respondents/affected entities: Entities Comments are requested concerning: Act)—‘‘Prevention of Significant potentially affected by this action are Whether the proposed collection of Deterioration,’’ and part D—‘‘Plan those which must apply for and obtain information is necessary for the proper Requirements for Nonattainment a preconstruction permit under part C or performance of the functions of the Areas,’’ require all states to adopt D or section 110(a)(2)(C) of title I of the Commission, including whether the preconstruction review programs for Act. In addition, state, local, and tribal information shall have practical utility; new or modified stationary sources of reviewing authorities that must review the accuracy of the Commission’s air pollution. In addition, the provisions permit applications and issue permits burden estimate; ways to enhance the of section 110 of the Act include a are affected entities. quality, utility, and clarity of the requirement for states to have a information collected; ways to minimize Respondent’s obligation to respond: preconstruction review program to the burden of the collection of Mandatory (see 40 CFR part 49, subpart manage the emissions from the information on the respondents, construction and modification of any C; 40 CFR part 51, subpart I; 40 CFR part including the use of automated stationary source of air pollution to 52, subpart A; 40 CFR part 124, subparts collection techniques or other forms of assure that the National Ambient Air A and C). information technology; and ways to Quality Standards are achieved and Estimated number of respondents: further reduce the information maintained. Tribes may choose to 73,516 (total); 73,393 industrial facilities collection burden on small business develop implementation plans to and 123 state, local, and tribal reviewing concerns with fewer than 25 employees. address these requirements. authorities. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a Implementing regulations for these collection of information unless it Frequency of response: On occasion, three programs are promulgated at 40 displays a currently valid control as necessary. CFR 49.101 through 49.105; 40 CFR number. No person shall be subject to 49.151 through 49.173; 40 CFR 51.160 Total estimated burden: 5,516,675 any penalty for failing to comply with through 51.166; 40 CFR part 51, hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 a collection of information subject to the Appendix S; and 40 CFR 52.21 and CFR 1320.03(b). PRA that does not display a valid Office 52.24. In order to receive a construction Total estimated cost: $455,409,456 of Management and Budget (OMB) permit for a major new source or major (per year). This includes $3,847,266 control number. modification, the applicant must annually in outsourced start-up costs for DATES: Written PRA comments should conduct the necessary research, perform preconstruction monitoring. be submitted on or before April 14, the appropriate analyses and prepare Changes in estimates: There is no 2020. If you anticipate that you will be the permit application with submitting comments, but find it documentation to demonstrate that their change in the hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared difficult to do so within the period of project meets all applicable statutory time allowed by this notice, you should with the ICR currently approved by and regulatory NSR requirements. advise the contact listed below as soon OMB because the estimated number of Specific activities and requirements are as possible. listed and described in the Supporting permits of each type has not changed. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Statement for the ICR. There is a slight increase in estimated State, local, tribal, or federal costs as labor costs have been updated Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email PRA@ reviewing authorities review permit from 2016 to 2019 labor rates. fcc.gov and to [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For applications and provide for public Dated: February 10, 2020. review of proposed projects and issue additional information about the permits based on their consideration of Scott Mathias, information collection, contact Nicole all technical factors and public input. Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division. Ongele at (202) 418–2991. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a [FR Doc. 2020–02983 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: fraction of the total applications and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P OMB Control Number: 3060–0862.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8587

Title: Handling Confidential FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Information. COMMISSION the FCC invites the general public and Form Number: N/A. other Federal agencies to take this [OMB 3060–0737; FRS 16490] Type of Review: Extension of a opportunity to comment on the currently approved collection. Information Collection Being Reviewed following information collections. Respondents: Business or other for- by the Federal Communications Comments are requested concerning: profit entities; Not-for-profit Whether the proposed collection of institutions; Federal Government; and Commission Under Delegated Authority information is necessary for the proper State, Local, or Tribal Government. performance of the functions of the Number of Respondents and AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission, including whether the Responses: 2,400 respondents; 2,400 Commission. information shall have practical utility; responses. ACTION: Notice and request for the accuracy of the Commission’s Estimated Time per Response: 1–2 comments. burden estimate; ways to enhance the hours. Obligation to Respond: Required to quality, utility, and clarity of the SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort information collected; ways to minimize obtain or retain benefits. The statutory to reduce paperwork burdens, and as authority for this collection of the burden of the collection of required by the Paperwork Reduction information on the respondents, information is contained in 5 U.S.C. Act (PRA), the Federal Communications 552(b)(4), 18 U.S.C. 1905, and 47 U.S.C. including the use of automated Commission (FCC or Commission) collection techniques or other forms of 154(i). invites the general public and other Frequency of Response: On occasion information technology; and ways to Federal agencies to take this further reduce the information reporting requirement; recordkeeping opportunity to comment on the and third party disclosure requirements. collection burden on small business following information collections. concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Total Annual Burden: 4,300 hours. Comments are requested concerning: Total Annual Cost: No Cost. OMB Control Number: 3060–0737. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper Title: Disclosure Requirements for impact(s). Information Services Provided Under a Nature of Extent of Confidentiality: performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the Presubscription or Comparable The Commission is not requesting that Arrangement. the respondents submit confidential information shall have practical utility; Form Number: N/A. information to the FCC. Respondents the accuracy of the Commission’s may, however, request confidential burden estimate; ways to enhance the Type of Review: Extension of a treatment for information they believe to quality, utility, and clarity of the currently approved collection. be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of information collected; ways to minimize Respondents: Business or other for- the Commission’s rules. the burden of the collection of profit entities. Needs and Uses: On August 4, 1998, information on the respondents, Number of Respondents and the FCC released a Report and Order including the use of automated Responses: 1,000 respondents; 1,000 (R&O), Examination of Current Policy collection techniques or other forms of responses. information technology; and ways to Concerning the Treatment of Estimated Time per Response: 4.5 further reduce the information Confidential Information Submitted to hours. collection burden on small business the Commission, CG Docket No. 96–55. Frequency of Response: Annual and The R&O included a Model Protective concerns with fewer than 25 employees. on occasion reporting requirement; Order (MPO) that is used, when The FCC may not conduct or sponsor Third party disclosure. appropriate, to grant limited access to a collection of information unless it information that the Commission displays a currently valid Office of Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. determines should not be routinely Management and Budget (OMB) control Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours. available for public inspection. The number. No person shall be subject to Total Annual Cost: None. party granted access to the confidential any penalty for failing to comply with Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: information materials must keep a a collection of information subject to the An assurance of confidentiality is not written record of all copies made and PRA that does not display a valid OMB offered because this information provide this record to the submitted of control number. collection does not require the the confidential materials upon request. DATES: Written comments should be collection of personally identifiable This approach was adopted to facilitate submitted on or before April 14, 2020. information (PII) from individuals. the use of confidential materials under If you anticipate that you will be Privacy Impact Assessment: No an MPO, instead of restricting access to submitting comments, but find it impact(s). materials. In addition, the FCC amended difficult to do so within the period of Needs and Uses: Section 64.1501(b) of 47 CFR 0.459(b) to set forth the type of time allowed by this notice, you should the Commission’s rules defines a information that should be included advise the contacts below as soon as presubscription or comparable when a party submits information to the possible. arrangement as a contractual agreement Commission for which it seeks ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to in which an information service confidential treatment. This listing of Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@ provider makes specified disclosures to types of information to be submitted fcc.gov and to [email protected]. consumers when offering was adopted to provide guidance to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For ‘‘presubscribed’’ information services. public for confidentiality requests. additional information about the The disclosures are intended to Federal Communications Commission. information collection, contact Cathy ensure that consumers receive Marlene Dortch, Williams at (202) 418–2918. information regarding the terms and Secretary, Office of the Secretary. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of conditions associated with these [FR Doc. 2020–02997 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] its continuing effort to reduce services before they enter into contracts BILLING CODE 6712–01–P paperwork burdens, and as required by to subscribe to them.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8588 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Federal Communications Commission. Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, enable another individual in their Marlene Dortch, or various Tribal-specific federal household to qualify for Lifeline Secretary. assistance programs. In a Report and benefits; are minors whose status [FR Doc. 2020–02996 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the qualifies a parent or guardian for BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Commission ordered USAC to create a Lifeline benefits; are individuals who National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier have received Lifeline benefits; or are (National Verifier), including the individuals acting on behalf of an FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS National Lifeline Eligibility Database eligible telecommunications carrier COMMISSION (LED), that would match data about (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in Lifeline applicants and subscribers with the Lifeline program. [FRS 16497] other data sources to verify the Categories of Records Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the The categories of records involved in AGENCY: Federal Communications National Verifier would reduce the matching program include, but are Commission. compliance costs for Lifeline service not limited to, State of residence; ACTION: Notice of re-establishment of a providers, improve service for Lifeline Lifeline applicant or subscriber’s first or matching program. subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, last name; date of birth; and last four and abuse in the program. digits of Social Security Number. SUMMARY: In accordance with the The National Verifier will transfer Privacy Act of 1974, as amended Participating Agency these data elements to HUD, which will (‘‘Privacy Act’’), this notice announces The Department of Housing and respond either ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ that the the re-establishment of a computer Urban Development—HUD Inventory individual is enrolled in a Lifeline- matching program the Federal Management System/PIH Information qualifying assistance program. Communications Commission (FCC or Center (IMS/PIC). Commission or Agency) and the System(s) of Records Authority for Conducting the Matching Universal Service Administrative The USAC records shared as part of Program Company (USAC) will conduct with the this matching program reside in the Department of Housing and Urban 47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400 et seq.; Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB–1, Development (HUD). The purpose of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Lifeline Program, a notice of which the this matching program is to verify the Modernization, et al., Third Report and FCC published at 82 FR 38686 (Aug. 15, eligibility of applicants to and Order, Further Report and Order, and 2017) and became effective on subscribers of the Universal Service Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd September 14, 2017. Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is 3962, 4006–21, paras. 126–66 (2016) Federal Communications Commission. administered by USAC under the (2016 Lifeline Modernization Order). direction of the FCC. More information Marlene Dortch, about this program is provided in the Purpose(s) Secretary. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization [FR Doc. 2020–02998 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] below. Order, the FCC required USAC to BILLING CODE 6712–01–P develop and operate a National Lifeline DATES: Written comments are due on or before March 16, 2020. This computer Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to improve efficiency and reduce waste, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS matching program will commence on COMMISSION March 16, 2020, unless written fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the comments are received that require a [OMB 3060–0391; FRS 16489] contrary determination, and will National Verifier is ‘‘to increase the conclude on September 16, 2021. integrity and improve the performance Information Collection Being Reviewed of the Lifeline program for the benefit of ADDRESSES: by the Federal Communications Send comments to Mr. a variety of Lifeline participants, Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Commission Under Delegated including Lifeline providers, Authority Information Technology (IT), subscribers, states, community-based Room 1–C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW, organizations, USAC, and the AGENCY: Federal Communications Washington, DC 20554, or to Commission.’’ 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, Commission. [email protected]. para. 126. To help determine whether ACTION: Notice and request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lifeline applicants and subscribers are comments. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418–0217, or to eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order [email protected]. contemplates that a USAC-operated SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED) will to reduce paperwork burdens, and as Lifeline program provides support for communicate with information systems required by the Paperwork Reduction discounted broadband and voice and databases operated by other Federal Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal services to low-income consumers. and State agencies. Id. at 4011–2, paras. Communications Commission (FCC or Lifeline is administered by the 135–7. Commission) invites the general public Universal Service Administrative and other Federal agencies to take this Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Categories of Individuals opportunity to comment on the Consumers qualify for Lifeline through The categories of individuals whose following information collections. proof of income or participation in a information is involved in this matching Comments are requested concerning: qualifying program, such as Medicaid, program include, but are not limited to, Whether the proposed collection of the Supplemental Nutritional those individuals (residing in a single information is necessary for the proper Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal household) who have applied for performance of the functions of the Public Housing Assistance, Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Commission, including whether the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Lifeline benefits; are individuals who information shall have practical utility;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8589

the accuracy of the Commission’s respondents may request confidential submitting comments but find it burden estimate; ways to enhance the treatment of such information pursuant difficult to do so with the period of time quality, utility, and clarity of the to Section 0.459 of the FCC’s rules, 47 allowed by this notice, you should information collected; ways to minimize CFR 0.459. advise the contacts listed below as soon the burden of the collection of Needs and Uses: The monitoring as possible. information on the respondents, program is necessary for the ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to including the use of automated Commission, the Federal-State Joint Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email collection techniques or other forms of Board on Universal Service, Congress [email protected]; and information technology; and ways to and the general public to assess the to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@ further reduce the information impact of the universal service support fcc.gov and to [email protected]. collection burden on small business mechanisms. This information Include in the comments the OMB concerns with fewer than 25 employees. collection has become a valuable tool to control number as shown in the The FCC may not conduct or sponsor review network usage and growth data SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. a collection of information unless it and the advancement of universal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For displays a currently valid OMB control service. The Commission is reporting a additional information or copies of the number. No person shall be subject to 124 hour increase in the total hour information collection, contact Cathy any penalty for failing to comply with burden based on updated information Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a a collection of information subject to the from the National Exchange Carrier copy of this information collection PRA that does not display a valid OMB Association [NECA] regarding the request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go control number. number of respondents/responses. to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/ DATES: Written PRA comments should Federal Communications Commission. public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the be submitted on or before April 14, Marlene Dortch, section of the web page called 2020. If you anticipate that you will be Secretary. ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on submitting comments but find it [FR Doc. 2020–02994 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] the downward-pointing arrow in the difficult to do so within the period of ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P time allowed by this notice, you should ‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) advise the contact listed below as soon select ‘‘Federal Communications as possible. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Commission’’ from the list of agencies ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to COMMISSION presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@ (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the fcc.gov and to [email protected]. [3060–0110, FRS 16486] right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Information Collection Being under review appears, look for the Title additional information about the Submitted for Review and Approval to of this ICR and then click on the ICR information collection, contact Cathy Office of Management and Budget Williams at (202) 418–2918. Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Federal Communications OMB Control Number: 3060–0391. Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of Title: Parts 54 and 36, Program to ACTION: Notice and request for its continuing effort to reduce Monitor the Impacts of the Universal comments. paperwork burdens, as required by the Service Support Mechanisms. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 Form Number: N/A. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the FCC invited Type of Review: Extension of a to reduce paperwork burdens, as the general public and other Federal currently approved collection. required by the Paperwork Reduction Agencies to take this opportunity to Respondents: Business or other for- Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal comment on the following information profit entities. Communications Commission (FCC or collection. Comments are requested Number of Respondents and the Commission) invites the general concerning: (a) Whether the proposed Responses: 65 respondents; 260 public and other Federal Agencies to collection of information is necessary responses. take this opportunity to comment on the for the proper performance of the Estimated Time per Response: 227 following information collection. functions of the Commission, including minutes (3.783 hours). Pursuant to the Small Business whether the information shall have Frequency of Response: Quarterly Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the reporting requirement and third-party seeks specific comment on how it might Commission’s burden estimates; (c) disclosure requirement. ‘‘further reduce the information ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Obligation to Respond: Required to collection burden for small business clarity of the information collected; and obtain or retain benefits. Statutory concerns with fewer than 25 (d) ways to minimize the burden of the authority for this information collection employees.’’ collection of information on the is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, The Commission may not conduct or respondents, including the use of 201–205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and sponsor a collection of information automated collection techniques or 410. unless it displays a currently valid other forms of information technology. Total Annual Burden: 984 hours. Office of Management and Budget Pursuant to the Small Business Total Annual Cost(s): No cost. (OMB) control number. No person shall Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No be subject to any penalty for failing to Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), impact(s). comply with a collection of information the FCC seeks specific comment on how Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: subject to the PRA that does not display it might ‘‘further reduce the information The data requested are regarded as non- a valid OMB control number. collection burden for small business proprietary. If the FCC requests that DATES: Written comments should be concerns with fewer than 25 respondents submit information which submitted on or before March 16, 2020. employees.’’ respondents believe is confidential, If you anticipate that you will be OMB Control Number: 3060–0110.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8590 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for children’s programming rules; requires information collected; ways to minimize Renewal of Broadcast Station License, that broadcast stations air the the burden of the collection of LMS Schedule 303–S. substantial majority of their Core information on the respondents, Form Number: FCC 2100, LMS Programming on their primary program including the use of automated Schedule 303–S. streams, but permit broadcast stations to collection techniques or other forms of Type of Review: Revision of a air up to 13 hours per quarter of information technology; and ways to currently approved collection. regularly scheduled weekly further reduce the information Respondents: Business or other for- programming on a multicast stream; collection burden on small business profit entities; Not for profit institutions; eliminates the additional processing concerns with fewer than 25 employees. State, Local or Tribal Governments. guideline applicable to stations that The FCC may not conduct or sponsor Number of Respondent and multicast; and modify the rules a collection of information unless it Responses: 5,126 respondents, 5,126 governing preemption of Core displays a currently valid OMB control responses. Programming. In addition, the R&O number. No person shall be subject to Obligation to Respond: Required to eliminates the requirements that the any penalty for failing to comply with obtain or retain benefits. The statutory reports include information describing a collection of information subject to the authority for this collection of the educational and informational PRA that does not display a valid OMB information is contained in Sections purpose of each Core Program aired control number. 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the during the current reporting period and DATES: Written PRA comments should Communications Act of 1934, as each Core Program that the licensee be submitted on or before April 14, amended, and Section 204 of the expects to air during the next reporting 2020. If you anticipate that you will be Telecommunications Act of 1996. period; eliminating the requirement to submitting comments but find it Estimated Time per Response: 1.2–12 identify the program guide publishers difficult to do so within the period of hours. who were sent information regarding time allowed by this notice, you should Frequency of Response: Every eight- the licensee’s Core Programs; and advise the contact listed below as soon year reporting requirement; Third party streamlining the form by eliminating as possible. disclosure requirement. certain fields. The R&O also eliminates Total Annual Burden: 13,554 hours. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Total Annual Costs: $5,786.268. the requirement to publicize the Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@ Obligation of Response: Required to Children’s Television Programming fcc.gov and to [email protected]. Reports. obtain or retain benefits. The statutory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For authority for the collection is contained Federal Communications Commission. additional information about the Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Marlene Dortch, information collection, contact Cathy Communications Act of 1934, as Secretary, Office of the Secretary. Williams at (202) 418–2918. amended, and Section 204 of the [FR Doc. 2020–02985 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Telecommunications Act of 1996. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P OMB Control No.: 3060–0027. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Title: Application for Construction There is no need for confidentiality with Permit for Commercial Broadcast this information collection. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Station, FCC Form 301; Form 2100, Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No COMMISSION Schedule A—Application for Media impact(s). Bureau Video Service Authorization; 47 Needs and Uses: The Licensing [OMB 3060–0027, OMB 3060–0652 and OMB 3060–0932; FRS 16484] Sections 73.3700(b)(1) and (b)(2) and Management System (LMS) Form Section 73.3800, Post Auction Schedule 303–S is used in applying for Information Collections Being Licensing; Form 2100, Schedule 301– renewal of license for commercial or Reviewed by the Federal FM—Commercial FM Station noncommercial AM, FM, TV, FM Communications Commission Construction Permit Application. translator, TV translator, Class A TV, or Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule Low Power TV, and Low Power FM AGENCY: Federal Communications A, FCC Form 301, FCC Form 2100, broadcast station licenses. Licensees of Commission. Schedule 301–FM. broadcast stations must apply for ACTION: Notice and request for Type of Review: Extension of a renewal of their licenses every eight comments. currently approved information years. The Commission is revising this collection. collection to reflect the adoption of a SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort Respondents: Business or other for- Report and Order (‘‘R&O’’) in MB to reduce paperwork burdens, and as profit entities; Not for profit institutions; Docket No. 17–105 and 12–202, FCC required by the Paperwork Reduction State, local or Tribal Government. 19–67, In the Matter of Children’s Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Number of Respondents and Television Programming Rules; Communications Commission (FCC or Responses: 3,090 respondents and 6,526 Modernization of Media Regulation Commission) invites the general public responses. Initiative, adopted and released on July and other Federal agencies to take this Estimated Time per Response: 1–6.25 10, 2019. The R&O modernizes the opportunity to comment on the hours. children’s television programming rules following information collections. Frequency of Response: One-time in light of changes to the media Comments are requested concerning: reporting requirement; On occasion landscape that have occurred since the Whether the proposed collection of reporting requirement; Third party rules were first adopted. Among other information is necessary for the proper disclosure requirement. revisions, the R&O revises the children’s performance of the functions of the Obligation To Respond: Required to television programming rules to expand Commission, including whether the obtain or retain benefits. The statutory the Core Programming hours to 6:00 information shall have practical utility; authority for this collection is contained a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; modify the safe the accuracy of the Commission’s in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the harbor processing guidelines for burden estimate; ways to enhance the Communications Act of 1934, as determining compliance with the quality, utility, and clarity of the amended.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8591

Total Annual Burden: 15,317 hours. (DTV) operations, commercial broadcast Obligation To Respond: Required to Annual Cost Burden: $62,444,288. licensees must file FCC Form 2100, obtain or retain benefits. The statutory Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Schedule A for a construction permit. authority for this collection of impact(s). The application may be filed any time information is contained in Sections 4(i) Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: after receiving the initial DTV allotment and 632 of the Communications Act of There is no need for confidentiality with and before mid-point in the applicant’s 1934, as amended. this collection of information. construction period. The Commission Total Annual Burden: 41,796 hours. Needs and Uses: FCC Form 301 is will consider the application as a minor Total Annual Cost: None. used to apply for authority to construct change in facilities. Applicants do not Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No a new commercial AM or FM broadcast have to provide full legal or financial impact(s). station and to make changes to existing qualifications information. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: facilities of such a station. It may be In the first phase of the ‘‘Licensing used to request a change of a station’s There is no need for confidentiality with and Management System’’ roll-out, this collection of information. community of license by AM and non- Form 2100, Schedule A replaced FCC reserved band FM permittees and Needs and Uses: The Commission Form 301 only for the filing of full- requires that the various disclosure and licensees. In addition, FM licensees or service digital television construction permittees may request, by filing an notifications contained in this collection permits. Subsequently, the Commission as a means of consumer protection to application on FCC Form 301, upgrades received OMB approval for FM on adjacent and co-channels, ensure that subscribers and franchising Auxiliary Stations to transition from modifications to adjacent channels of authorities are aware of cable operators’ CDBS to LMS using Form 2100, the same class, and downgrades to business practices, current rates, rate Schedule 301–FM. FCC Form 301 is still adjacent channels. All applicants using changes for programming, service and being used through CDBS to apply for this one-step process must demonstrate equipment, and channel line-up authority to construct a new full-service that a suitable site exists that would changes. Permitting the use of email commercial AM or FM commercial comply with allotment standards with modernizes the Commission’s rules broadcast station and to make changes respect to minimum distance separation regarding notices required to be to the existing facilities of such stations. and principal community coverage and provided by MVPDs. This collection also includes the that would be suitable for tower OMB Control No.: 3060–0932. construction. For applicants seeking a third-party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580. This rule requires Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for community of license change through Media Bureau Audio and Video Service this one-step process, the proposed applicants to provide local public notice, in a newspaper of general Authorization, Schedule E (Former FCC facility must be mutually exclusive with Form 301–CA); 47 CFR Sections the applicant’s existing facility, and the circulation published in a community in which a station is located, of requests 73.3700(b)(1)(i)–(v) and (vii), (b)(2)(i) new facility must comply with the and (ii); 47 CFR Section 74.793(d). Commission’s standards with respect to for new or major changes in facilities and for changes of a station’s Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule minimum distance separation and E (Application for Media Bureau Audio principal community coverage. community of license by AM and non- reserved band FM permittees and and Video Service Authorization) Applicants availing themselves of this (Former FCC Form 301–CA). procedure must also attach an exhibit licensees. The local notice must be completed within 30 days of tendering Type of Review: Extension of a demonstrating that the proposed currently approved information community of license change comports the application and must be published at least twice a week for two collection. with the fair, efficient, and equitable Respondents: Business or other for- distribution of radio service, pursuant to consecutive weeks in a three-week period. A copy of the notice and the profit entities; Not for profit institutions; Section 307(b) of the Communications State, Local or Tribal Government. Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). application must be placed in the FCC Form 301 also accommodates station’s public inspection file, pursuant Number of Respondents and commercial FM applicants applying in to Section 73.3526. Responses: 745 respondents and 745 a Threshold Qualifications Window (TQ OMB Control Number: 3060–0652. responses. Window) for a Tribal Allotment. A Title: Section 76.309, Customer Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 commercial FM applicant applying in Service Obligations; Section 76.1602, hours–6 hours (for a total of 8.25 hours). the TQ Window, who was not the Customer Service-General Information, Frequency of Response: One-time original proponent of the Tribal Section 76.1603, Customer Service-Rate reporting requirement; On occasion Allotment at the rulemaking stage, must and Service Changes and Section reporting requirement; Third party demonstrate that it would have 76.1619, Information and Subscriber disclosure requirement. qualified in all respects to add that Bills. Obligation To Respond: Required to particular Tribal Allotment for which it Form Number: N/A. obtain or retain benefits. The statutory is applying. Additionally, a petitioner Type of Review: Extension of a authority for this collection is contained seeking to add a new Tribal Allotment currently approved collection. in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) to the FM Table of Allotments must file Respondents: Business or other for- as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief Form 301 when submitting its Petition profit entities; State, Local or Tribal and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public for Rulemaking. The collection also Government. Law 112–96, 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. accommodates applicants applying in a Number of Respondents and 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. TQ Window for a Tribal Allotment that Responses: 4,113 respondents; 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum had been added to the FM Table of 1,109,246 responses. Act) and the Community Broadcasters Allotments using the Tribal Priority Estimated Time per Response: 0.0166 Protection Act of 1999. under the ‘‘threshold qualifications’’ to 1 hour. Total Annual Burden: 6,146 hours. procedures. Frequency of Response: On occasion Annual Cost Burden: $4,035,550. Similarly, to receive authorization for reporting requirement; Third party Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No commencement of Digital Television disclosure requirement. impact(s).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8592 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Special Meeting held December 12, or bank holding company. The factors There is no need for confidentiality with 2019. that are considered in acting on the this collection of information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications are set forth in paragraph 7 Needs and Uses: FCC Form 2100, Mark Abbott, Grants Director, at mark@ of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). Schedule E (formerly FCC Form 301– asc.gov, or Alice M. Ritter, General The applications listed below, as well CA) is to be used in all cases by a Class Counsel, at [email protected], ASC, 1325 G as other related filings required by the A television station licensees seeking to Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC Board, if any, are available for make changes in the authorized 20005. immediate inspection at the Federal facilities of such station. FCC Form SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ASC Reserve Bank indicated. The 2100, Schedule E requires applicants to is authorized to grant funds to the applications will also be available for certify compliance with certain Appraisal Foundation under Title XI, inspection at the offices of the Board of statutory and regulatory requirements. section 1109(b)(4). The ASC may ‘‘make Governors. Interested persons may Detailed instructions on the FCC Form grants in such amounts as it deems express their views in writing on the 2100, Schedule E provide additional appropriate to the Appraisal standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of information regarding Commission rules Foundation, to help defray those costs the Act. and policies. FCC Form 2100, Schedule of the foundation relating to the Comments regarding each of these E is presented primarily in a ‘‘Yes/No’’ activities of its Appraisal Standards and applications must be received at the certification format. However, it 1 Appraiser Qualifications Boards.’’ The Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of contains appropriate places for ASC is also authorized to grant funds to the Board of Governors, Ann E. submitting explanations and exhibits State appraiser certifying and licensing Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th where necessary or appropriate. Each agencies under Title XI section Street and Constitution Avenue NW, certification constitutes a material 1109(b)(5), which provides that the ASC Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later representation. Applicants may only may ‘‘make grants to State appraiser than March 2, 2020. mark the ‘‘Yes’’ certification when they certifying and licensing agencies, in are certain that the response is correct. accordance with policies to be A. Federal Reserve Bank of San A ‘‘No’’ response is required if the developed by the [ASC], to support the Francisco (Sebastian Astrada, Director, applicant is requesting a waiver of a efforts of such agencies to comply with Applications) 101 Market Street, San pertinent rule and/or policy, or where [Title XI] . . . .’’ 2 Francisco, California 94105–1579: the applicant is uncertain that the The Handbook as adopted by the ASC 1. Castle Creek Capital Partners VI, application fully satisfies the pertinent is available to the public and can be LP; Castle Creek Capital VI LLC; Castle rule and/or policy. FCC Form 2100, found at: https://www.asc.gov/ Creek Advisors IV LLC; JME Advisory Schedule E filings made to implement Documents/GrantsFunding Corporation; Pietrzak Advisory post-auction channel changes will be Correspondence/ASC%20Grants Corporation; Scavuzzo Advisory considered minor change applications. %20Handbook.pdf on the ASC’s Corporation; Volk Advisory Federal Communications Commission. website (asc.gov). The ASC is also Corporation; Rana Advisory Marlene Dortch, adopting the Office of Management and Corporation; John Eggemeyer; John Secretary. Budget’s uniform guidance located in 2 Pietrzak; Anthony Scavuzzo; David CFR part 200, commonly referred to as Volk; and Sundeep Rana, all of Rancho [FR Doc. 2020–02984 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] the ‘‘super circular.’’ This guidance Santa Fe, California; as a group acting BILLING CODE 6712–01–P consolidates existing federal regulations in concert to acquire 17.92 percent of and includes discussion of awards the voting shares of Riverview Financial processes, procurement rules, indirect Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS costs, internal controls, time and effort and thereby indirectly acquire 17.92 EXAMINATION COUNCIL documentation, and single audit percent of the voting shares of procedures. Riverview Bank, Marysville, [Docket No. AS20–03] * * * * * Pennsylvania. Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of By the Appraisal Subcommittee. B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Adoption of Grants Handbook Dated: February 11, 2020. (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice James R. Park, President) 230 South LaSalle Street, AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: Executive Director. Federal Financial Institutions 1. Heather L.H. Miller Revocable Examination Council. [FR Doc. 2020–03021 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6700–01–P Trust, Heather L.H. Miller, trustee, and ACTION: Notice of adoption of Grants Heidi A. Loverude Revocable Trust, Handbook. Heidi A. Loverude, trustee, both of FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Urbandale, Iowa; to become members of SUMMARY: The Appraisal Subcommittee the Hill Family Control Group and (ASC) of the Federal Financial Change in Bank Control Notices; retain voting shares of Freedom Institutions Examination Council Holdings Company, and thereby (FFIEC) is providing notice of its Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company indirectly retain voting shares of adoption of the Grants Handbook Freedom Financial Bank, both of West (Handbook). The Handbook is the The notificants listed below have Des Moines, Iowa. official repository of the policies and applied under the Change in Bank procedures for the administration of Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 11, 2020. grants made by the ASC as authorized § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 by Title XI of the Financial Institutions CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank Yao-Chin Chao, Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act Assistant Secretary of the Board. of 1989, as amended. The ASC adopted 1 Title XI § 1109(b)(4), 12 U.S.C. 3338(b)(4). [FR Doc. 2020–03028 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] the Handbook in the open session ASC 2 Title XI § 1109(b)(5), 12 U.S.C. 3338(b)(5). BILLING CODE P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8593

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ACTION: Notice. HUMAN SERVICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Centers for Disease Control and Control and Prevention (CDC) located Prevention within the Department of Health and The companies listed in this notice Human Services (HHS) announces the have applied to the Board for approval, Disease, Disability, and Injury launch of the 2020 Million Hearts pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Prevention and Control Special Hypertension Control Challenge. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Emphasis Panel (SEP)—DP20–002, DATES: The Challenge will accept (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Natural Experiments of the Impact of applications from February 21, 2020 Population-Targeted Policies To 225), and all other applicable statutes through April 6, 2020. Prevent Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetes and regulations to become a bank FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complications; Amended Notice of Division for Heart Disease and Stroke holding company and/or to acquire the Meeting assets or the ownership of, control of, or Prevention, National Center for Chronic the power to vote shares of a bank or Notice is hereby given of a change in Disease Prevention and Health bank holding company and all of the the meeting of the Disease, Disability, Promotion, Centers for Disease Control banks and nonbanking companies and Injury Prevention and Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, owned by the bank holding company, Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—DP20– Mailstop MS–S107–1, Chamblee, GA including the companies listed below. 002, Natural Experiments of the Impact 30341, Telephone: 770–488–2424, Email: [email protected]; subject The applications listed below, as well of Population-Targeted Policies To Prevent Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetes line of email: Million Hearts as other related filings required by the Complications; April 7–9, 2020; 10:00 Hypertension Control Challenge; Board, if any, are available for a.m.–6:00 p.m., (EDT), Teleconference, Attention: Mary George. immediate inspection at the Federal which was published in the Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reserve Bank indicated. The Register on Friday, January 10, 2020, Background applications will also be available for Volume 85, Number 7, pages 1316– inspection at the offices of the Board of 1317. Million Hearts is a national initiative Governors. Interested persons may The meeting is being amended to to prevent one million heart attacks and express their views in writing on the change the date and time to April 7–8, strokes by 2022. In order to prevent one standards enumerated in the BHC Act 2020, from 11:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m., EDT. million cardiovascular events (e.g., heart (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). The meeting is closed to the public. attacks and strokes), we need to Comments regarding each of these For Further Information Contact: Jaya decrease smoking, sodium consumption applications must be received at the Raman Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, and physical inactivity by 20%; Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop improve performance on quality of care the Board of Governors, Ann E. F80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: measures for appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th (770) 488–6511, [email protected]. management, and smoking cessation to Street and Constitution Avenue NW, The Director, Strategic Business 80%; and improve outcomes for priority Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief populations disproportionately than March 17, 2020. Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been burdened by cardiovascular disease. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston delegated the authority to sign Federal Over the last six years, we have seen (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice Register notices pertaining to tremendous progress by providers and President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, announcements of meetings and other health care systems that focus on Massachusetts 02210–2204. Comments committee management activities, for improving their performance in can also be sent electronically to both the Centers for Disease Control and controlling patients’ blood pressure. BOS.SRC.Applications.Comments@ Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Getting to 80% blood pressure control bos.frb.org: Substances and Disease Registry. would mean that 10 million more Americans with hypertension would 1. HB Holdings, MHC, Haverhill, Kalwant Smagh, have their blood pressure under control, Massachusetts; to become a mutual Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, and be at substantially lower risk for bank holding company upon the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers strokes, heart attacks, kidney failure, conversion by Haverhill Bank, for Disease Control and Prevention. and other related cardiovascular events. Haverhill, Massachusetts, from mutual [FR Doc. 2020–03018 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] For more information about the to stock form. BILLING CODE 4163–18–P initiative, visit https:// Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve millionhearts.hhs.gov/. Million Hearts is System, February 11, 2020. a registered trademark of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Yao-Chin Chao, Department of Health and Human HUMAN SERVICES Assistant Secretary of the Board. Services. The challenge is an important way to [FR Doc. 2020–03029 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Centers for Disease Control and call attention to the need for improved Prevention BILLING CODE P hypertension control, provides a Announcement of Requirements and powerful motivation and target for Registration for the 2020 Million Hearts clinicians, and will improve Hypertension Control Challenge understanding of successful implementation strategies at the health AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and system level. It will identify clinicians, Prevention (CDC), Department of Health clinical practices, and health systems and Human Services (HHS). that have exceptional rates of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8594 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

hypertension control and recognize who by formal arrangement share action, and background check, will be them as 2020 Million Hearts responsibility for a common panel of determined at the discretion of the CDC Hypertension Control Champions. To patients, practice at the same physical consistent with CDC’s public health support improved quality of care location or street address, and provide mission. delivered to patients with hypertension, continuing medical care for adult (12) Must agree to be recognized if Million Hearts will document the patients with hypertension; selected and agree to participate in an systems, strategies, processes, and c. Be a health system, incorporated in interview to develop a success story that staffing that contribute to the and maintaining a primary place of describes the systems and processes that exceptional blood pressure control rates business in the U.S., that provides support hypertension control among achieved by Champions. continuing medical care for adult patients. Champions will be recognized Subject of Challenge Competition: patients with hypertension. We on the Million Hearts website. Strategies The challenge is authorized by Public encourage large health systems (those used by Champions that support Law 111–358, the America Creating that are comprised of a large number of hypertension control may be written Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote geographically dispersed clinics and/or into a success story, placed on the Excellence in Technology, Education have multiple hospital locations) to Million Hearts website, used in press and Science Reauthorization Act of consider having one or a few of the releases, publications, and attributed to 2010 (COMPETES Act). highest performing clinics or regional Champions. Applicants for the 2020 Million affiliates apply individually instead of In addition to meeting the Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge the health system applying as a whole; requirements listed in parts 1–12 above, will be asked to provide two (3) Must treat all adult patients with to be eligible for recognition in the hypertension control rates for the hypertension in the practice, not a challenge, an individual or entity also practice’s or health system’s selected subgroup of patients; must comply with the conditions or hypertensive population: a current rate (4) Must have a data management requirements set forth in each of the for the most recent 12-month reporting system (electronic or paper) that allows following paragraphs in this section. period (e.g., 1/1/2019–12/31/2019) and HHS/CDC or their contractor to verify Federal funds may not be used to a previous rate for the 12-month period data submitted; develop COMPETES Act challenge immediately preceding the most recent (5) Must treat a minimum of 500 adult applications or to fund efforts in reporting period (e.g., 1/1/2018–12/31/ patients annually and have a support of a COMPETES Act challenge. 2018). Applicants will also be asked to hypertension control rate (blood Individual applicants and individuals provide the prevalence of hypertension pressure <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 in a group practice must be free from in their population (more details mm Hg diastolic) of at least 80%; convictions for or pending provided below), describe some (6) May not be a Federal entity or investigations of criminal and health population characteristics (such as Federal employee acting within the care fraud offenses such as felony health urban/rural location, percent minority, scope of their employment; care fraud, patient abuse or neglect; percent enrolled in Medicaid, percent (7) An HHS employee must not work felony convictions for other health care- with no health insurance, and percent on their application(s) during assigned related fraud, theft, or other financial whose primary language is not English) duty hours; misconduct; and felony convictions and strategies used by the practice or (8) Shall not be an employee of or relating to unlawful manufacture, health system that support contractor at CDC; distribution, prescribing, or dispensing improvements in blood pressure (9) Must agree to participate in a data of controlled substances as verified control. A copy of the application form validation process to be conducted by a through the Office of the Inspector will be available on the Challenge reputable independent contractor. Data General List of Excluded Individuals website for the duration of the will be kept confidential by the and Organizations at http://oig.hhs.gov/ Challenge. contractor to the extent applicable law exclusions/background.asp. allows and will be shared with the CDC, Individual applicants must be free Eligibility Rules for Participating in the in aggregate form only (e.g., the from serious sanctions, such as those for Competition hypertension control rate for the misuse or mis-prescribing of To be eligible for recognition as a practice not individual patients’ prescription medications. Eligibility Million Hearts Hypertension Control hypertension values); status of individual applicants with Champion under this challenge, an (10) Must agree to sign, without serious sanctions will be determined at individual or entity — revisions, a Business Associate the discretion of CDC. CDC or CDC’s (1) Shall have completed the Agreement with the contractor contractor may perform background application form in its entirety to conducting the data validation. checks on individual clinicians and participate in the competition under the (11) Must have a written policy in medical practices. rules developed by HHS/CDC; place about conducting periodic Champions previously recognized (2) Shall have complied with all background checks on all providers and through the 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, eligibility requirements and satisfy the taking appropriate action based on the 2018, and 2019 Million Hearts requirements in one of the following results of the check. CDC’s contractor Hypertension Control Challenges retain subparts: may also request to review the policy their designation as a ‘‘Champion’’ and a. Be a U.S. licensed clinician (i.e., and any supporting information deemed are not eligible to be named a Champion MD, DO, nurse practitioner, or necessary. In addition, a health system in the 2020 challenge. physician assistant), practicing in any background check will be conducted by An individual or organization shall U.S. setting, who provides ongoing care CDC or a CDC contractor that includes not be disqualified from the 2020 for adult patients with hypertension. a search for The Joint Commission Million Hearts Hypertension Control The individual must be a citizen or sanctions and current investigations for Challenge for utilizing Federal facilities permanent resident of the U.S.; serious institutional misconduct (e.g., or consulting with Federal employees b. Be a U.S. incorporated clinical attorney general investigation). during a competition so long as the practice, defined as any practice with Eligibility status, based upon the above- facilities and Federal employees are two or more U.S. licensed clinicians referenced written policy, appropriate made available to all individuals and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8595

organizations participating in the limited to a sample. The provider’s or verified hypertension control rate. In the competition on an equal basis. health system’s hypertensive population event of tied scores based on the By participating in this challenge, an ages 18–85 should include only patients hypertension control rate at any point in individual or organization agrees to in primary care or in cardiology care in the selection process, geographic assume any and all risks related to the case of a cardiology clinic. Patients location may be considered to ensure a participating in the challenge. seen only in dental care or behavioral broad distribution of champions. Individuals or organizations also agree health care should not be included. Selected Champions will be notified by to waive claims against the Federal Examples of ineligible data submissions phone or email. Government and its related entities, include hypertension control rates that Some Champions may participate in a except in the case of willful misconduct, are limited to treatment cohorts from post-challenge telephone interview. The when participating in the challenge, research studies or pilot studies, interview will include questions about including claims for injury; death; patients limited to a specific age range the strategies employed by the damage; or loss of property, money, or (such as 18–35 only), or patients individual practice or organization to profits, and including those risks caused enrolled in limited scale quality achieve high rates of hypertension by negligence or other causes. improvement projects. control, including barriers and • By participating in this challenge, Completion of a checklist of facilitators for those strategies. The individuals and organizations agree to sustainable clinic systems or processes interview will focus on systems and protect the Federal Government against that support hypertension control. processes and should not require third party claims for damages arising These may include provider or patient preparation time by the Champion. The from or related to challenge activities. incentives, dashboards, staffing estimated time for the interview is one Individuals or organizations are not characteristics, electronic record hour, which includes time to review the required to hold liability insurance keeping systems, reminder or alert interview protocol with the interviewer, related to participation in this systems, clinician reporting, service respond to the interview questions, and challenge. modifications, etc. review a summary about the No cash prize will be awarded. The estimated burden for completing Champion’s practices. The summary Champions will receive national the application form is 30 minutes. may be written as a success story and recognition. Amount of the Prize will be posted on the Million Hearts website. Registration Process for Participants Up to 35 of the highest scoring To participate and submit an clinical practices or health systems will Additional Information application, interested parties should go be recognized as Million Hearts Applications received from applicants to https://millionhearts.hhs.gov or Hypertension Control Champions. No will be stored in a password protected https://www.challenge.gov. On this site, cash prize will be awarded. Champions file on a secure server. The Challenge applicants will find the application will receive national recognition website will not include confidential or form and the rules and guidelines for through the Million Hearts initiative. proprietary information about participating. Information required of Basis Upon Which Champions Will Be individual applicants, as described the applicants on the application form Selected further below. The database of includes: • The size of the applicant’s adult The application will be scored based information submitted by applicants primary care patient population, a on two hypertension control rates: one will not be posted on the website. summary of known patient for your most recent 12-month reporting Information collected from applicants demographics (e.g., age distribution), period ending not earlier than December will include general details, such as the and any noteworthy patient population 31, 2019, and consistency with a business name, address, and contact characteristics (such as urban/rural previous rate for the 12-month period information of the applicant. This type location, percent minority, percent beginning 1 year before the current of information is generally publicly enrolled in Medicaid, percent with no period. available. The application will collect health insurance, and percent whose Phase 1 includes verification of the and store only aggregate clinical data primary language is not English). hypertension prevalence and blood through the application process; no • The number of the applicant’s adult pressure control rate data submitted and individually identifiable patient data primary care patients, ages 18–85, who a background check. For applicants will be collected or stored. Confidential were seen during the measurement year whose Phase 1 data is verified as or propriety data, clearly marked as and had a hypertension diagnosis (i.e. accurate and who pass the background such, will be secured to the full extent hypertension prevalence). check without concerns, phase 2 allowable by law. • The applicant’s current consists of a medical chart review. The Information for selected Champions, hypertension control rate for their medical chart review will verify the such as the provider, practice, or health hypertensive population ages 18–85 diagnosis of hypertension during the system’s name, location, hypertension during the measurement year is reporting year as well as blood pressure control rate, and clinic practices that required. In determining the being controlled to <140 mmHg systolic support hypertension control may be hypertension control rate for the 2020 and <90 mmHg diastolic. The estimated shared through press releases, Million Hearts Hypertension Control time for the data verification and publications, the challenge website, and Challenge, CDC defines ‘‘hypertension validation is two hours. Million Hearts and CDC resources. control’’ as a blood pressure reading A CDC-sponsored panel of three to Summary data on the types of systems <140 mmHg systolic and <90 mmHg five experts consisting of CDC staff will and processes that all applicants use to diastolic among patients ages 18–85 review the applications that pass phase control hypertension may be shared in with a diagnosis of hypertension. 2 to select Champions. Final selection of documents or other communication • The hypertension control rate Champions will consider all the products that describe generally used should be for the provider’s or health information from the application form, practices for successful hypertension system’s entire adult hypertensive the background check, data verification control. HHS/CDC will use the summary patient population ages 18–85, and not and medical chart validation, and final data only as described.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8596 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Compliance With Rules and Contacting Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the Contents Contest Winners PRA), federal agencies are required to This notice sets out a summary of the Finalists and the Champions must publish notice in the Federal Register use and burden associated with the comply with all terms and conditions of concerning each proposed collection of following information collections. More these Official Rules and being information (including each proposed detailed information can be found in designated as a Million Hearts extension or reinstatement of an existing each collection’s supporting statement Hypertension Control Champion is collection of information) and to allow and associated materials (see contingent upon fulfilling all 60 days for public comment on the ADDRESSES). requirements herein. The initial finalists proposed action. Interested persons are CMS–10710 Generic Clearance for will be notified by email or telephone invited to send comments regarding our Improving Customer Experience (OMB after the date of the judging. burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including Circular A–11, Section 280 Privacy the necessity and utility of the proposed Implementation) If Contestants choose to provide CDC information collection for the proper Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501– with personal information by registering performance of the agency’s functions, 3520), federal agencies must obtain or filling out the application form the accuracy of the estimated burden, approval from the Office of Management through the Challenge.gov website, that ways to enhance the quality, utility, and and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information is used to respond to clarity of the information to be information they conduct or sponsor. Contestants in matters regarding their collected, and the use of automated The term ‘‘collection of information’’ is application, announcements of collection techniques or other forms of defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR applicants, finalists, and winners of the information technology to minimize the 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests Challenge. information collection burden. or requirements that members of the DATES: Comments must be received by General Conditions public submit reports, keep records, or April 14, 2020. provide information to a third party. CDC reserves the right to cancel, ADDRESSES: When commenting, please Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA suspend, and/or modify the Challenge, reference the document identifier or requires federal agencies to publish a or any part of it, for any reason, at HHS/ OMB control number. To be assured 60-day notice in the Federal Register CDC’s sole discretion. consideration, comments and concerning each proposed collection of Award Approving Official: Robert R. recommendations must be submitted in information, including each proposed Redfield, MD, Director, Centers for any one of the following ways: extension or reinstatement of an existing Disease Control and Prevention, and 1. Electronically. You may send your collection of information, before Administrator, Agency for Toxic comments electronically to http:// submitting the collection to OMB for Substances and Disease Registry. www.regulations.gov. Follow the approval. To comply with this Participation in this Contest instructions for ‘‘Comment or requirement, CMS is publishing this constitutes a contestants’ full and Submission’’ or ‘‘More Search Options’’ notice. unconditional agreement to abide by the to find the information collection Contest’s Official Rules found at https:// Information Collection document(s) that are accepting www.Challenge.gov and https:// comments. 1. Type of Information Collection millionhearts.hhs.gov/. 2. By regular mail. You may mail Request: New collection (Request for a Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3719. written comments to the following new OMB control number) collection; Dated: February 11, 2020. address: Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for Improving Customer Sandra Cashman, CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Experience (OMB Circular A–11, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Section 280 Implementation); Use: Control and Prevention. Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Whether seeking a loan, Social Security [FR Doc. 2020–02987 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] benefits, veterans benefits, or other BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Number ll, Room C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, services provided by the Federal Maryland 21244–1850. Government, individuals and businesses expect Government customer services to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND To obtain copies of a supporting be efficient and intuitive, just like HUMAN SERVICES statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in services from leading private-sector Centers for Medicare & Medicaid this notice, you may make your request organizations. Yet the 2016 American Services using one of following: Consumer Satisfaction Index and the 2017 Forrester Federal Customer 1. Access CMS’ website address at [Document Identifier: CMS–10710] Experience Index show that, on average, website address at https://www.cms.gov/ Government services lag nine Agency Information Collection Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/ percentage points behind the private Activities: Proposed Collection; PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA- sector. Comment Request Listing.html. A modern, streamlined and 2. Email your request, including your responsive customer experience means: AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & address, phone number, OMB number, Raising government-wide customer Medicaid Services, HHS. and CMS document identifier, to experience to the average of the private ACTION: Notice. [email protected]. sector service industry; developing 3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at SUMMARY: The Centers for Medicare & indicators for high-impact Federal (410) 786–1326. Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing programs to monitor progress towards an opportunity for the public to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: excellent customer experience and comment on CMS’ intention to collect William N. Parham at (410) 786–4669. mature digital services; and providing information from the public. Under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the structure (including increasing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8597

transparency) and resources to ensure Dated: February 11, 2020. the docket unchanged. Because your customer experience is a focal point for William N. Parham, III, comment will be made public, you are agency leadership. To support this, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office solely responsible for ensuring that your OMB Circular A–11 Section 280 of Strategic Operations and Regulatory comment does not include any established government-wide standards Affairs. confidential information that you or a for mature customer experience [FR Doc. 2020–03046 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] third party may not wish to be posted, organizations in government and BILLING CODE 4120–01–P such as medical information, your or measurement. To enable Federal anyone else’s Social Security number, or programs to deliver the experience confidential business information, such taxpayers deserve, they must undertake DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND as a manufacturing process. Please note three general categories of activities: HUMAN SERVICES that if you include your name, contact Conduct ongoing customer research, information, or other information that gather and share customer feedback, and Food and Drug Administration identifies you in the body of your test services and digital products. [Docket No. FDA–2019–D–5585] comments, that information will be These data collection efforts may be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. • either qualitative or quantitative in Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic- If you want to submit a comment nature or may consist of mixed Device Combination Products; Draft with confidential information that you methods. Additionally, data may be Guidance for Industry; Availability; do not wish to be made available to the collected via a variety of means, Extension of Comment Period public, submit the comment as a including but not limited to electronic written/paper submission and in the AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper or social media, direct or indirect HHS. observation (i.e., in person, video and Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). ACTION: Notice of availability, extension audio collections), interviews, of comment period. Written/Paper Submissions questionnaires, surveys, and focus Submit written/paper submissions as groups. The Centers for Medicare and SUMMARY: The Food and Drug follows: Medicaid Services (CMS) will limit its Administration (FDA or the Agency) is • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for inquiries to data collections that solicit extending the comment period for the written/paper submissions): Dockets strictly voluntary opinions or responses. notice of availability that appeared in Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Steps will be taken to ensure anonymity the Federal Register of December 19, Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers of respondents in each activity covered 2019. In the notice of availability, FDA Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. by this request. requested comments on the draft • For written/paper comments The results of the data collected will guidance for industry entitled ‘‘Bridging submitted to the Dockets Management be used to improve the delivery of for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device Staff, FDA will post your comment, as Federal services and programs. It will Combination Products.’’ The Agency is well as any attachments, except for include the creation of personas, taking this action in response to information submitted, marked and customer journey maps, and reports and requests for an extension to allow identified, as confidential, if submitted summaries of customer feedback data interested persons additional time to as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ and user insights. It will also provide submit comments. Instructions: All submissions received government-wide data on customer DATES: FDA is extending the comment must include the Docket No. FDA– experience that can be displayed on period on the notice of availability 2019–D–5585 for ‘‘Bridging for Drug- performance.gov to help build published December 19, 2019 (84 FR Device and Biologic-Device transparency and accountability of 69749). Submit either electronic or Combination Products.’’ Received Federal programs to the customers they written comments by April 20, 2020. comments, those filed in a timely serve. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed CMS will collect this information by as follows. Please note that late, in the docket and, except for those electronic means when possible, as well untimely filed comments will not be submitted as ‘‘Confidential as by mail, fax, telephone, technical considered. Electronic comments must Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at discussions, and in-person interviews. be submitted on or before April 20, https://www.regulations.gov or at the CMS may also utilize observational 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov Dockets Management Staff between 9 techniques to collect this information. electronic filing system will accept a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Form Number: CMS–10710 (OMB comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time Friday. • control number: 0938-New); Frequency: at the end of April 20, 2020. Comments Confidential Submissions—To Occasionally; Affected Public: received by mail/hand delivery/courier submit a comment with confidential Individuals or Households; Private (for written/paper submissions) will be information that you do not wish to be Sector (business or other for-profits, not- considered timely if they are made publicly available, submit your for-profit institutions), State, Local or postmarked or the delivery service comments only as a written/paper Tribal governments; Federal acceptance receipt is on or before that submission. You should submit two government; and Universities; Number date. copies total. One copy will include the of Respondents: 1,001,750; Number of information you claim to be confidential Responses: Varied, dependent upon the Electronic Submissions with a heading or cover note that states data collection method used. The Submit electronic comments in the ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS possible response time to complete a following way: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The questionnaire or survey may be 3 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Agency will review this copy, including minutes or up to 2 hours to participate https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the the claimed confidential information, in in an interview; Total Annual Hours: instructions for submitting comments. its consideration of comments. The 51,175. (For questions regarding this Comments submitted electronically, second copy, which will have the collection contact Aaron Lartey at 410– including attachments, to https:// claimed confidential information 786–7866). www.regulations.gov will be posted to redacted/blacked out, will be available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8598 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

for public viewing and posted on MD 20993–0002, 240–402–7911; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND https://www.regulations.gov. Submit Andrew Yeatts, Center for Devices and HUMAN SERVICES both copies to the Dockets Management Radiological Health, Food and Drug Staff. If you do not wish your name and Administration 10903 New Hampshire Food and Drug Administration contact information to be made publicly Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5452, Silver Spring, [Docket No. FDA–2019–N–5608] available, you can provide this MD 20993–0002, 301–796–4539; or information on the cover sheet and not Patricia Love, Office of Special Medical Wockhardt Limited, et al.; Withdrawal in the body of your comments and you Programs, Office of Combination of Approval of 28 Abbreviated New must identify this information as Products, Food and Drug Drug Applications ‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked Administration, 10903 New Hampshire AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5144, Silver Spring, HHS. except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 MD 20993–0002, 301–796–8933. and other applicable disclosure law. For ACTION: Notice. more information about FDA’s posting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the of comments to public dockets, see 80 Federal Register of December 19, 2019, SUMMARY: The Food and Drug FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access FDA published a notice of availability Administration (FDA or Agency) is the information at: https:// with a 60-day comment period to withdrawing approval of 28 abbreviated www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015- request comments on the draft guidance new drug applications (ANDAs) from 09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. for industry entitled ‘‘Bridging for Drug- multiple applicants. The applicants Docket: For access to the docket to Device and Biologic-Device notified the Agency in writing that the read background documents or the Combination Products.’’ drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the electronic and written/paper comments The Agency has received requests for received, go to https:// applications be withdrawn. an extension of the comment period for www.regulations.gov and insert the DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of the notice of availability. Each request docket number, found in brackets in the March 16, 2020. conveyed concern that the current 60- heading of this document, into the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: day comment period does not allow ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug sufficient time to develop a meaningful and/or go to the Dockets Management Evaluation and Research, Food and Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, or thoughtful response to the notice of Drug Administration, 10903 New Rockville, MD 20852. availability. FDA has considered the Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, requests and is extending the comment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240– period for the notice of availability for Robert Berlin, Center for Drug 402–6980, [email protected]. 60 days, until April 20, 2020. The Evaluation and Research, Office of New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, Agency believes that a 60-day extension applicants listed in the table have 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, allows adequate time for interested informed FDA that these drug products Rm. 6373, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, persons to submit comments without are no longer marketed and have 301–796–8828; Irene Chan, Center for compromising the timely publication of requested that FDA withdraw approval Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of the final version of the guidance. of the applications under the process New Drugs, Food and Drug Dated: February 11, 2020. described in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Lowell J. Schiller, 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4420, Silver Spring, by their requests, waived their Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy. MD, 20993, 301–796–3962; Stephen opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation [FR Doc. 2020–03023 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] of approval of an application or and Research, Food and Drug BILLING CODE 4164–01–P abbreviated application under Administration, 10903 New Hampshire § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, refiling.

Application No. Drug Applicant

ANDA 040732 .. Phenytoin Sodium Capsules, 100 milligrams (mg) (Extended) Wockhardt Limited, c/o Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6451 Main St., Morton Grove, IL 60053. ANDA 065230 .. Ceftriaxone for Injection, Equivalent to (EQ) 250 mg base/ Hospira, Inc., 275 North Field Dr., Bldg. H1, Lake Forest, IL vial; EQ 500 mg base/vial; EQ 1 gram (g) base/vial; EQ 2 g 60045. base/vial. ANDA 065231 .. Ceftriaxone for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial Do. Piggy Back. ANDA 065290 .. Cefotaxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 500 mg base/vial; EQ 1 Do. g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial. ANDA 065292 .. Cefotaxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 10 g base/vial Phar- Do. macy Bulk Package. ANDA 065293 .. Cefotaxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g Do. base/vial. ANDA 065312 .. Cefoxitin for Injection, EQ 10 g base/vial Pharmacy Bulk Do. Package. ANDA 065313 .. Cefoxitin for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial ...... Do. ANDA 065369 .. Cefepime Hydrochloride (HCl) for Injection, EQ 500 mg base/ Do. vial; EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial. ANDA 065483 .. Cefuroxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 750 mg base/vial; EQ Do. 1.5 g base/vial.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8599

Application No. Drug Applicant

ANDA 065484 .. Cefuroxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 7.5 g base/vial Phar- Do. macy Bulk Package. ANDA 065503 .. Cefuroxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 1.5 g base/vial ...... Do. ANDA 075250 .. Prednisolone Sodium Phosphate Oral Solution, EQ 15 mg Bausch Health US, LLC, 400 Somerset Corporate Blvd., base/5 milliliters (mL). Bridgewater, NJ 08807. ANDA 075618 .. Acetaminophen, Butalbital, Caffeine, and Codeine Phosphate Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 1809 Wilson Rd., Colum- Capsules, 325 mg, 50 mg, 40 mg, and 30 mg. bus, OH 43228. ANDA 090375 .. Ampicillin and Sulbactam for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial and Hospira, Inc. EQ 500 mg base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial and EQ 1 g base/ vial. ANDA 090646 .. Ampicillin and Sulbactam for Injection, EQ 10 g base/vial and Do. EQ 5 g base/vial. ANDA 090653 .. Ampicillin and Sulbactam for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial and Do. EQ 500 mg base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial and EQ 1 g base/ vial. ANDA 090825 .. Imipenem and Cilastatin for Injection, EQ 250 mg base/vial Do. and 250 mg base/vial; EQ 500 mg base/vial and 500 mg/ vial. ANDA 090940 .. Meropenem for Injection, 500 mg/vial, and 1 g/vial ...... Do. ANDA 091007 .. Imipenem and Cilastatin for Injection, EQ 500 mg base/vial Do. and 500 mg/vial. ANDA 202268 .. Cefepime HCl for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/ Do. vial. ANDA 202563 .. Ceftriaxone for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial .. Do. ANDA 202864 .. Ampicillin Sodium for Injection, EQ 250 mg base/vial; EQ 500 Do. mg base/vial; EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial. ANDA 202865 .. Ampicillin Sodium for Injection, EQ 10 g base/vial Pharmacy Do. Bulk Package. ANDA 203132 .. Cefotaxime Sodium for Injection, EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g Do. base/vial. ANDA 204879 .. Pyridoxine HCl Injection, 100 mg/mL ...... Mylan Institutional, LLC, 4901 Hiawatha Dr., Rockford, IL 61103. ANDA 206062 .. Doxorubicin HCl for Injection, USP, 20 mg/vial ...... Hisun Pharmaceutical Hangzhou Co., LTD, 200 Crossing Blvd., 2nd Floor, Bridgewater, NJ 08807. ANDA 206195 .. Daunorubicin HCl for Injection, EQ 20 mg base/vial ...... Do.

Therefore, approval of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND by June 15, 2020 to ensure that the applications listed in the table, and all HUMAN SERVICES Agency considers your comment on this amendments and supplements thereto, draft guidance before it begins work on is hereby withdrawn as of March 16, Food and Drug Administration the final version of the guidance. 2020. Approval of each entire [Docket No. FDA–2018–D–1398] ADDRESSES: You may submit comments application is withdrawn, including any on any guidance at any time as follows: strengths or products inadvertently Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food missing from the table. Introduction or Against Intentional Adulteration; Draft Electronic Submissions delivery for introduction into interstate Guidance for Industry; Availability Submit electronic comments in the commerce of products without AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, following way: approved new drug applications HHS. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: violates section 301(a) and (d) of the ACTION: Notice of availability. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act instructions for submitting comments. (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Comments submitted electronically, products that are listed in the table that Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is including attachments, to https:// are in inventory on March 16, 2020 may announcing the availability of a www.regulations.gov will be posted to continue to be dispensed until the supplemental draft guidance for the docket unchanged. Because your inventories have been depleted or the industry entitled ‘‘Mitigation Strategies comment will be made public, you are drug products have reached their to Protect Food Against Intentional solely responsible for ensuring that your expiration dates or otherwise become Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.’’ comment does not include any violative, whichever occurs first. This supplemental draft guidance confidential information that you or a document, when finalized, will help third party may not wish to be posted, Dated: February 11, 2020. food facilities that manufacture, process, such as medical information, your or Lowell J. Schiller, pack, or hold food, and that are required anyone else’s Social Security number, or Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy. to register under the Federal Food, Drug, confidential business information, such [FR Doc. 2020–03025 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) comply as a manufacturing process. Please note BILLING CODE 4164–01–P with the requirements of our regulation that if you include your name, contact entitled ‘‘Mitigation Strategies to Protect information, or other information that Food Against Intentional Adulteration.’’ identifies you in the body of your DATES: Submit either electronic or comments, that information will be written comments on the draft guidance posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8600 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

• If you want to submit a comment the information at: https:// part 121. We are announcing the with confidential information that you www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015- availability of the following chapters do not wish to be made available to the 09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. and appendices: public, submit the comment as a Docket: For access to the docket to • Chapter 5—Mitigation Strategies written/paper submission and in the read background documents or the Management Components: Food manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper electronic and written/paper comments Defense Corrective Actions Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). received, go to https:// • Chapter 6—Mitigation Strategies Written/Paper Submissions www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the Management Components: Food Submit written/paper submissions as heading of this document, into the Defense Verification follows: • Chapter 7—Reanalysis • ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for and/or go to the Dockets Management • Chapter 9—Records written/paper submissions): Dockets Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, • Appendix 2—Mitigation Strategies in Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Rockville, MD 20852. the Food Defense Mitigation Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers You may submit comments on any Strategies Database Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. guidance at any time (see 21 CFR • • For written/paper comments Appendix 3—Determination of Status 10.115(g)(5)). as a Very Small Business or Small submitted to the Dockets Management Submit written requests for single Staff, FDA will post your comment, as Business Under Part 121: Mitigation copies of the guidance to the Center for Strategies to Protect Food Against well as any attachments, except for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, information submitted, marked and Intentional Adulteration Food and Drug Administration, 5001 identified, as confidential, if submitted Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. II. Significance of Guidance as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ Instructions: All submissions received Send two self-addressed adhesive labels This level 1 draft guidance is being must include the Docket No. FDA– to assist that office in processing your issued consistent with FDA’s good SUPPLEMENTARY 2018–D–1398 for ‘‘Mitigation Strategies requests. See the guidance practices regulation (21 CFR to Protect Food Against Intentional INFORMATION section for electronic 10.115). The draft guidance, when Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.’’ access to the draft guidance document. finalized, will represent the current Received comments will be placed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: thinking of FDA on food defense the docket and, except for those Ryan Newkirk, Center for Food Safety measures against intentional submitted as ‘‘Confidential and Applied Nutrition (HFS–005), Food adulteration for the regulation Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus ‘‘Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402– Against Intentional Adulteration.’’ It Dockets Management Staff between 9 3712, [email protected]. does not establish any rights for any a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: person and is not binding on FDA or the Friday. public. You can use an alternative I. Background • Confidential Submissions—To approach if it satisfies the requirements submit a comment with confidential The FDA Food Safety Modernization of the applicable statutes and information that you do not wish to be Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111–353) enables regulations. made publicly available, submit your FDA to better protect public health by comments only as a written/paper helping to ensure the safety and security III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 submission. You should submit two of the food supply. FSMA enables FDA This draft guidance refers to copies total. One copy will include the to focus more on preventing food safety previously approved collections of information you claim to be confidential problems rather than relying primarily information found in FDA regulations. with a heading or cover note that states on reacting to problems after they occur. These collections of information are ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS FSMA added to the FD&C Act several subject to review by the Office of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The new sections that reference intentional Management and Budget (OMB) under Agency will review this copy, including adulteration. For example, section 418 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the claimed confidential information, in of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections its consideration of comments. The addresses intentional adulteration in the of information in 21 CFR part 121 have second copy, which will have the context of facilities that manufacture, been approved under OMB control claimed confidential information process, pack, or hold food, and that are number 0910–0812. redacted/blacked out, will be available required to register under section 415 for public viewing and posted on (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 420 of the IV. Electronic Access https://www.regulations.gov. Submit FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses Persons with access to the internet both copies to the Dockets Management intentional adulteration in the context may obtain the draft guidance at either Staff. If you do not wish your name and of high-risk foods and exempts farms https://www.fda.gov/regulatory- contact information to be made publicly except for farms that produce milk. information/search-fda-guidance- available, you can provide this We are announcing the availability of documents or https:// information on the cover sheet and not a supplemental draft guidance for www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA in the body of your comments and you industry entitled ‘‘Mitigation Strategies website listed in the previous sentence must identify this information as to Protect Food Against Intentional to find the most current version of the ‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.’’ guidance. as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed This multi-chapter supplemental draft except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 guidance for industry is intended to Dated: February 10, 2020. and other applicable disclosure law. For help food facilities required to comply Lowell J. Schiller, more information about FDA’s posting develop and implement some of the Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy. of comments to public dockets, see 80 components of a food defense plan, and [FR Doc. 2020–02986 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access meet other requirements under 21 CFR BILLING CODE 4164–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8601

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND II. Background and Purpose HUMAN SERVICES SECURITY In October of 2017, the Government National Institutes of Health Coast Guard Accountability Office issued report GAO–18–9, titled ‘‘Actions Needed to National Institute of General Medical [Docket Number USCG–2020–0042] Close Stations Identified as Overlapping Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting and Unnecessarily Duplicative.’’ This Consolidation of Redundant Coast GAO report recommended the Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Guard Boat Stations consolidation of eighteen boat stations. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Due to environmental and operational amended, notice is hereby given of the AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. factors, the Coast Guard is not following meeting. ACTION: Request for comments. considering all eighteen boat stations The meeting will be closed to the identified in the GAO report for SUMMARY: We are requesting your public in accordance with the consolidation. Instead, we anticipate comments on the planned consolidation provisions set forth in sections consolidating five stations, with of redundant Coast Guard boat stations. implementation notionally scheduled 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Many stations were established at a time for fiscal year 2021. These stations have as amended. The grant applications and when boats lacked engines and were been identified because there are other the discussions could disclose powered by oars and paddles. With confidential trade secrets or commercial modern boat operating speeds and units nearby capable of responding to property such as patentable material, improved direction finding technology, cases in these areas, and because these and personal information concerning many calls for Coast Guard assistance five stations respond to a low number of individuals associated with the grant can be responded to by multiple units cases. We do not anticipate any adverse applications, the disclosure of which significantly faster than when these boat effect on Coast Guard response would constitute a clearly unwarranted stations were first established. The capability. We expect an improvement invasion of personal privacy. combination of significantly improved to the proficiency of boat operators as well as a less complicated response Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review response times, along with an overall system. Group; Training and Workforce Development reduction in rescue calls due to boating safety improvements throughout the Subcommittee—D Training and Workforce III. Discussion Development Subcommittee Meeting. nation, has resulted in a number of boat Date: March 19, 2020. stations becoming redundant. This Station Oxford and Stations-Small Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. consolidation will result in a more Fishers Island, Shark River, Roosevelt Agenda: To review and evaluate grant robust response system by increasing Inlet, and Salem have been identified applications. staffing levels and capacity at select for consolidation with neighboring Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, Conference nearby boat stations. Such a stations. Room Cabinet, One Bethesda Metro Center, consolidation creates synergy and more 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD opportunities for boat operators to IV. Public Participation and Request for 20814. properly train instead of missing Comments Contact Person: Tracy Koretsky, Ph.D., training opportunities while standing Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific ready to respond to calls that do not We encourage you to submit Review, National Institute of General Medical come. comments through the Federal portal at Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 https://www.regulations.gov. If your DATES: Written comments and related material cannot be submitted using Center Drive, MSC 6200, Room 3AN.12F, material may be submitted to the Coast Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–2886, https://www.regulations.gov, contact the Guard personnel specified. Your [email protected]. person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION comments and related material must CONTACT section of this document for (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance reach the Coast Guard on or before April alternate instructions. In your Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical 14, 2020. Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and submission, please include the docket Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments number for this notice and provide a Physiology, and Biological Chemistry identified by docket number USCG– reason for each suggestion or Research; 93.862, Genetics and 2020–0042 using the Federal recommendation. Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, rulemaking portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public We accept anonymous comments. All Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, comments received will be posted Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Participation and Request for without change to https:// Biomedical Research and Research Training, Comments’’ portion of the National Institutes of Health, HHS) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for www.regulations.gov and will include further instructions on submitting any personal information you have Dated: February 10, 2020. comments. provided. For more about privacy and Miguelina Perez, submissions in response to this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory document, see DHS’s Correspondence information about this document, please Committee Policy. System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard [FR Doc. 2020–02999 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] September 26, 2018). Office of Boat Forces, 202–372–2463, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P [email protected]. Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, and all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public comments, will be in our online I. Table of Abbreviations docket at https://www.regulations.gov CFR Code of Federal Regulations and can be viewed by following that DHS Department of Homeland Security website’s instructions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8602 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Dated: February 11, 2020. privacy and the docket, review the During the March 10, 2020 Matthew W. Sibley, Privacy and Security Notice for the teleconference, a public comment Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Federal Docket Management at http:// period will be held from approximately Commandant for Capability. www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 2:45 p.m. to 3 p.m. Speakers are [FR Doc. 2020–03079 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Written comments may also be requested to limit their comments to 3 BILLING CODE 9110–04–P submitted using the Federal minutes. Please note that this public eRulemaking Portal at http:// comment period may start before 2:45 www.regulations.gov. If you encounter p.m. if all other agenda items have been DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND technical difficulties with comment covered and may end before 3 p.m. if all SECURITY submission, contact the individual of those wishing to comment have done listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION so. Please contact Mr. Matthew D. Coast Guard CONTACT section of this notice. Layman, listed in the FOR FURTHER [Docket No. USCG–2020–0047] Docket Search: For access to the INFORMATION CONTACT section to register docket or to read documents or as a speaker. Towing Safety Advisory Committee; comments related to this notice, go to Notice of Future 2020 Towing Safety March 2020 Teleconference http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG– Advisory Committee Meetings 2020–0047 in the Search box, press AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department Enter, and then click on the item you To receive automatic email notices of of Homeland Security. wish to view. future Towing Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2020, go to the ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. online docket, USCG–2020–0047 Committee teleconference meeting. Matthew D. Layman, Alternate (http://www.regulations.gov/ Designated Federal Officer of the SUMMARY: The Towing Safety Advisory #!docketDetail;D=USCG-2020-0047), Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Committee will meet via teleconference, and select the sign-up-for-email-alerts 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, to discuss the two current tasks of the option. We plan to use the same docket Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593– Committee. The Committee is expected number for all Towing Safety Advisory 7509, telephone 202–372–1421, fax to receive the final reports from the Committee meeting notices in 2020, so 202–372–8382 or Matthew.D.Layman@ Subcommittee on Load Line Exemption when the next meeting notice is uscg.mil. for River Barges on Lakes Erie and published you will receive an email Ontario. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The alert from http://www.regulations.gov Towing Safety Advisory Committee when the notice appears in this docket, DATES: provides advice and recommendations in addition to notices of other items Meeting: The full Committee will to the Department of Homeland Security being added to the docket. meet by teleconference on Tuesday, on matters related to shallow-draft March 10, 2020, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Dated: February 6, 2020. inland and coastal waterway navigation Eastern Standard Time. Please note that Jeffrey G. Lantz, and towing safety. It was established by this meeting may close early if the Director of Commercial Regulations and Public Law 96–380 in 1980 and was an Committee has completed its business. Standards. active committee on December 3, 2018, Comments and supporting [FR Doc. 2020–03030 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] the day before the Frank LoBiondo documents: To ensure your comments BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 are reviewed by Committee members (Pub. L. 115–282) was enacted. before the teleconference, submit your written comments no later than March Agenda DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 3, 2020. The agenda for the March 10, 2020, URBAN DEVELOPMENT ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference teleconference meeting is as follows: [Docket No. FR–7029–N–01] or to request special accommodations, (1) Final report from the contact the individual listed in the FOR Subcommittee on ‘‘Recommendations 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section on Load Line Exemption for River Collection: Evaluation of the no later than 1 p.m. on March 3, 2020, Barges on Lakes Erie and Ontario (Task Supportive Services Demonstration to obtain the needed information. The 17–02)’’ AGENCY: Office of the Assistant number of teleconference lines is (2) Additional tasking for the Secretary for Policy Development and limited and will be available on a first- Subcommittee working on Research, HUD. come, first-served basis. ‘‘Recommendations on the Instructions: You are free to submit Implementation of 46 Code of Federal ACTION: Notice. comments at any time, including orally Regulations Subchapter M—Inspection SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from at the teleconference, but if you want of Towing Vessels (Task 16–01)’’ the Office of Management and Budget Committee members to review your (3) Update on the National Towing (OMB) for the information collection comments before the teleconference, Safety Advisory Committee and the described below. In accordance with the please submit your comments no later December 4, 2020 termination date for Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is than March 3, 2020. We are particularly the Towing Safety Advisory Committee. requesting comment from all interested interested in comments on the issue in (4) Public Comment period. parties on the proposed collection of the ‘‘Agenda’’ section below. You must A copy of all meeting documentation information. The purpose of this notice include the words ‘‘Department of will be available at https:// is to allow for 60 days of public Homeland Security’’ and the docket www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/ comment. number [USCG–2020–0047]. Comments Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention- received will be posted without Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations- DATES: Comments Due Date: April 14, alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operating- 2020. including any personal information and-Environmental-Standards/vfos/ ADDRESSES: Interested persons are provided. For more information about TSAC/. invited to submit comments regarding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8603

this proposal. Comments should refer to housing-based supportive services on groups with residents of the treatment the proposal by name and/or OMB the healthcare utilization and housing and active control properties and with Control Number and should be sent to: stability of low-income older adults. caregivers of residents of the treatment Anna P. Guido, Reports Management The goal of the SSD model is to help properties. This request is for a final Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing older adults in HUD-assisted housing to round of data collection through: (1) and Urban Development, 451 7th Street age in place successfully. The SSD Interviews with RWD at the 40 SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC model funds a full-time Resident treatment group properties; (2) 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–5534 Wellness Director (RWD) and part-time interviews with WN at the 40 treatment (this is not a toll-free number) or email Wellness Nurse (WN) to work in HUD- group properties; (3) interviews with at [email protected] for a copy of assisted housing developments that Service Coordinators at the 40 active the proposed forms or other available either predominantly or exclusively control properties; and (4) interviews information. Persons with hearing or serve households headed by people with representatives of the 28 speech impairments may access this aged 62 or over. These services are not organizations that own or manage the 40 number through TTY by calling the toll- typically available in HUD-assisted treatment properties. The purpose of free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– housing developments for this these activities is to collect data from 8339. population and are anticipated to multiple perspectives about FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: positively impact outcomes. implementation experience with the Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Eligible HUD-assisted properties demonstration, the strengths and Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing applied for the demonstration and were weakness of the model, and how and Urban Development, 451 7th Street randomly assigned to one of three resident wellness activities compare SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna groups: A ‘‘treatment group’’ that across treatment and control properties. P. Guido at [email protected] or received grant funding to hire a RWD This information is necessary to telephone 202–402–5535. This is not a and WN and implement the SSD model complete the study of the toll-free number. Persons with hearing (40 properties); an ‘‘active control’’ demonstration’s implementation— or speech impairments may access this group that did not receive grant funding providing input from key stakeholders number through TTY by calling the toll- but received a stipend to participate in as of the end of the demonstration. The free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– the evaluation (40 properties); and a new information will complement the 8339. ‘‘passive control’’ group that received research already collected at the start Copies of available documents neither grant funding nor a stipend (44 and mid-point of the demonstration and submitted to OMB may be obtained properties). The random assignment will offer stakeholders a final from Ms. Guido. permits an evaluation that quantifies the opportunity to provide their input on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This impact of the SSD model by comparing the demonstration. notice informs the public that HUD is outcomes at the 40 treatment group Respondents: Staff working at the seeking approval from OMB for the properties to outcomes at the 84 properties in the study’s treatment and information collection described in properties in the active and passive active control groups and Section A. control groups. representatives of the organizations that Under contract with HUD’s Office of own or manage the treatment group A. Overview of Information Collection Policy Development and Research, Abt properties. Title of Information Collection: Associates Inc. is conducting a two-part Estimated Number of Respondents: Evaluation of the Supportive Services evaluation—a process study to describe 156. Demonstration. the implementation of the Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 OMB Approval Number: 2528–0321. demonstration and an impact study to hours (up to 1 hour for the interview Type of Request: Revision. measure the impact of the SSD model and up to 0.5 hours for preparation). Form Number: N/A. on residents’ use of healthcare services Frequency of Response: 1 time. Description of the need for the and housing stability. The evaluation Estimated Total Annual Burden information and proposed use: This features analysis of administrative data Hours: 234. request is for the clearance of additional and primary data collection. The Estimated Total Annual Cost: data collection for the evaluation of following primary data collection $10,639. HUD’s Supportive Services activities have already received OMB Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Demonstration (SSD), also referred to as approval: Questionnaires with staff from Legal Authority: The survey is Integrated Wellness in Supportive the treatment and active control conducted under Title 12, United States Housing (IWISH). The SSD is a three- properties, site visits and in-depth Code, Section 1701z and Section 3507 year demonstration sponsored by HUD interviews with staff from the treatment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to test the impact of a new model of and active control properties, and focus 44, U.S.C., 35, as amended.

Number of Frequency of Responses Burden hour Annual burden Hourly cost Information collection respondents response per annum per response hours per response Cost

Interviews with Resi- dent Wellness Direc- tors ...... 54 1 1 1.5 81 $36.93 $2,991 Interviews with Wellness Nurses...... 42 1 1 1.5 63 57.12 3,599 Interviews with Service Coordinators ...... 40 1 1 1.5 60 36.93 2,216 Interviews with owner organizations ...... 20 1 1 1.5 30 61.11 1,833

Total ...... 156 ...... 234 ...... 10,639

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8604 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

B. Solicitation of Public Comment DATES: Comments Due Date: April 14, the work of this study will involve 2020. identifying the types of barriers, their This notice is soliciting comments potential impact (or stringency), and from members of the public and affected ADDRESSES: Interested persons are their use in various communities. This parties concerning the collection of invited to submit comments regarding process will involve research on several information described in Section A on this proposal. Comments should refer to different communities in order to the following: the proposal by name and/or OMB develop a typology of different barriers, (1) Whether the proposed collection Control Number and should be sent to: catalog the community contexts where of information is necessary for the Anna P. Guido, Reports Management different barriers are more prevalent, proper performance of the functions of Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and develop opportunity cost estimates the agency, including whether the and Urban Development, 451 7th Street of different barriers in different information will have practical utility; SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC contexts. Information will be collected (2) The accuracy of the agency’s 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email online and by telephone from local land estimate of the burden of the proposed use planning officials and collection of information; at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available manufacturers and dealers of factory- (3) Ways to enhance the quality, built housing to help determine the utility, and clarity of the information to information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this extent to which regulatory barriers limit be collected; and the development of factory-built (4) Ways to minimize the burden of number through TTY by calling the toll- free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– housing systems as an affordable the collection of information on those housing option. who are to respond, including through 8339. Members of affected public: This the use of appropriate automated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: study will involve collecting collection techniques or other forms of Anna P. Guido, Reports Management information from two primary groups information technology, e.g., permitting Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing (1) Local land use planning officials (2) electronic submission of responses. and Urban Development, 451 7th Street Manufacturers and dealers of factory- HUD encourages interested parties to SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna built housing. submit comment in response to these P. Guido at [email protected] or questions. telephone 202–402–5535. This is not a Estimated Number of Respondents: toll-free number. Persons with hearing 125. The objective of this study is to C. Authority or speech impairments may access this conduct in-depth telephone interviews Section 3507 of the Paperwork number through TTY by calling the toll- with local land use planning officials on Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– regulatory barriers to factory-built Chapter 35. 8339. housing from a sample of 30 communities, for a total of 30 completed Dated: February 3, 2020. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained interviews. The study team anticipates Seth D. Appleton, from Ms. Guido. contacting multiple individuals in the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development land use planning department from each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This and Research. sampled community to ascertain the [FR Doc. 2020–03059 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the targeted respondent. Therefore, the total BILLING CODE 4210–67–P information collection described in estimated number of community Section A. respondents is estimated at 120 (i.e., 4 persons per community). In-depth DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND A. Overview of Information Collection interviews will also be conducted with URBAN DEVELOPMENT Title of Information Collection: 5 manufacturers or dealers of factory- Strategies for Removing the Regulatory built housing. [Docket No. FR–7029–N–02] Impediments to the Financing and Estimated Time per Response: 0.36 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Siting of Factory-Built Housing in hours. The estimated time per response Collection: Strategies for Removing American Communities. will vary depending on the respondent the Regulatory Impediments to the OMB Approval Number: N/A. category (e.g., informant vs. respondent) Financing and Siting of Factory-Built Type of Request (i.e., new, revision or and may range from 5 to 45 minutes. In- Housing in American Communities extension of currently approved depth interviews will not exceed 45 collection): New collection. minutes. Across all study respondents, AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Form Number: N/A. the average estimated time per response Secretary for Policy Development and Description of the need for the is 0.36 hours. Research, HUD. information and proposed use: To Frequency of Response: Once. ACTION: Notice. assess the cost-effectiveness of factory- Estimated Total Annual Burden built housing as a potential affordable Hours: 45 hours. SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from housing option in urban and suburban Estimated Total Annual Cost: The the Office of Management and Budget communities, HUD seeks to better only cost to respondents is that of their (OMB) for the information collection understand the regulatory barriers time estimated to be $1,740. described below. In accordance with the preventing or limiting the use of factory- Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is built housing. This study is framed by Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. requesting comment from all interested the general research question: What are Legal Authority: The survey is parties on the proposed collection of the main drivers or barriers to the conducted under Title 12, United States information. The purpose of this notice financing, siting and development of Code, Section 1701Z and Section 3507 is to allow for 60 days of public factory-built housing systems in various of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, comment. communities? A significant portion of 44, U.S.C., 35, as amended.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8605

Number of Frequency of Responses Burden hour Annual burden Hourly cost Information collection respondents response per annum per response hours per response Cost

Outreach Efforts ...... 90 1 90 0.21 19 $36.65 $696 In-Depth Interviews ...... 30 1 30 0.75 22 36.65 806 In-Depth Interviews (Manufacturers/Deal- ers) ...... 5 1 5 0.75 4 59.56 238

Total ...... 125 1 125 0.36 45 38.67 1,740

B. Solicitation of Public Comment must be dated March 6, 2020 and ethics in recreational fishing and This notice is soliciting comments mailed submissions must be boating. e. Recommending policies or from members of the public and affected postmarked. programs to stimulate angler and boater parties concerning the collection of ADDRESSES: Please address your participation in the conservation and information described in Section A on nomination letters to Ms. Aurelia restoration of aquatic resources through the following: Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Submit your outreach and education. (1) Whether the proposed collection f. Advising how the Secretary can nomination letters via email, U.S. mail, of information is necessary for the foster communication and coordination or hand-delivery to Linda Friar, proper performance of the functions of among government, industry, anglers, Designated Federal Officer; Sport the agency, including whether the boaters, and the public. information will have practical utility; Fishing and Boating Partnership g. Providing recommendations for (2) The accuracy of the agency’s Council; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; implementation of Secretary’s Order estimate of the burden of the proposed 5275 Leesburg Pike, Mailstop 3C016A– 3347—Conservation Stewardship and collection of information; FAC; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803, _ Outdoor Recreation, and Secretary’s (3) Ways to enhance the quality, linda [email protected]. Order 3356—Hunting, Fishing, utility, and clarity of the information to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife be collected; and Linda Friar, at the above address, via Conservation Opportunities and _ (4) Ways to minimize the burden of email at linda [email protected], or by Coordination with States, Tribes, and the collection of information on those telephone at (703) 358–2056. Territories. who are to respond, including through SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The h. Providing recommendations for the use of appropriate automated Council advises the Secretary, through implementation of regulatory reform collection techniques or other forms of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife initiatives and policies specified in information technology, e.g., permitting Service, on aquatic conservation section 2 of Executive Order 13777— electronic submission of responses. endeavors that benefit recreational Reducing Regulation and Controlling HUD encourages interested parties to fishery resources and recreational Regulatory Costs; Executive Order submit comment in response to these boating and that encourage partnerships 12866—Regulatory Planning and questions. among industry, the public, and Review, as amended; and section 6 of Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork government. The Council conducts its Executive Order 13563—Improving Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. operations in accordance with the Regulation and Regulatory Review. provisions of the Federal Advisory Dated: February 3, 2020. Council Makeup Seth D. Appleton, Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). The Council functions solely as an advisory The Director of the U.S. Fish and Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Wildlife Service, and the President of and Research. body. Four current members’ terms expire April 1, 2020. the Association of Fish and Wildlife [FR Doc. 2020–03063 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Agencies are ex officio members. The BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Council Duties Council may consist of no more than 18 The Council’s duties and members and up to 16 alternates responsibilities, where applicable, are as appointed by the Secretary for a term DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR follows: not to exceed 3 years. Appointees will a. Providing advice that will assist the be selected from among, but not limited Fish and Wildlife Service Secretary in carrying out the authorities to, the following national interest [FWS–HQ–FAC–2019–N173] of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. groups: b. Fulfilling responsibilities a. State fish and wildlife resource Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership established by Executive Order 12962: management agencies (two members— Council; Call for Nominations (1) Monitoring specific Federal one a Director of a coastal State, and one activities affecting aquatic systems and a Director of an inland State); AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the recreational fisheries they support. b. Saltwater and freshwater Interior. (2) Reviewing and evaluating the recreational fishing organizations; ACTION: Call for nominations. relation of Federal policies and c. Recreational boating organizations; activities to the status and conditions of d. Recreational fishing and boating SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the recreational fishery resources. industries; Interior is seeking nominations for c. Recommending policies or e. Recreational fishery resources individuals to be considered for programs to increase public awareness conservation organizations; membership on the Sport Fishing and and support for the Sport Fish f. Tribal resource management Boating Partnership Council (Council). Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. organizations; DATES: Nominations can be submitted d. Recommending policies or g. Aquatic resource outreach and by email or mail. Email submissions programs that foster conservation and education organizations; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8606 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

h. The tourism industry. Director signed the ROD on February 7, resource and multiple-use needs within 2020, which constitutes the BLM’s final the Haines planning area. It also Nomination Method and Eligibility decision and makes the ROD effective evaluated an Area of Critical Members will be senior-level immediately. Environmental Concern, as required by representatives of recreational fishing, ADDRESSES: The ROD is available on the the Ring of Fire RMP ROD. In addition, boating, and aquatic resources BLM ePlanning website at https:// this planning effort considered the conservation organizations, and must go.usa.gov/xpuEW. Click on the results of a multi-year, BLM-funded have the ability to represent their Documents and Reports link to find the study of goat and bear habitat in the designated constituencies. Nominations electronic version of these materials. Haines area by the Alaska Department of should include a resume that provides Hard copies of the ROD are available for Fish and Game, completed in 2017. This contact information and a description of public inspection at the following amendment revises the applicable the nominee’s qualifications that would locations: portions of the Ring of Fire RMP and enable the Department of the Interior to • provides a plan which is consistent with make an informed decision regarding BLM Glennallen Field Office, the candidate’s suitability to serve on Milepost 186.5 Glenn Highway, evolving law, regulations, and policy. the Council. Current members whose Glennallen, Alaska 99588; BLM Alaska The BLM prepared an EIS in terms are expiring April 1, 2020 are Public Information Center, Federal accordance with the National Building, 222 West 7th Avenue, eligible to be renominated and Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to Anchorage, Alaska 99513; reappointed to the Council. Any analyze the direct, indirect, and • Haines Borough Public Library, 111 nominee may also submit the name and cumulative environmental impacts 3rd Avenue Haines, Alaska 99827; resume of a person on their associated with the proposed action and • Municipality of Skagway Borough, organization’s staff who they would like the alternatives. The ROD approves the 700 Spring Street, Skagway, Alaska to be considered as their alternate. Agency Preferred Alternative identified Public Disclosure: Before including 99840; • in the Final EIS. The BLM issued the your address, phone number, email BLM Anchorage District Office, 4700 BLM Road, Anchorage, Alaska ROD based on compliance with relevant address, or other personal identifying laws, regulations, policies, and plans, information in your nomination, you 99507; and • Alaska Resources Library and including those guiding agency should be aware that your entire decisions that may have an impact on nomination—including your personal Information Services, 3211 Providence resources and their values, services, and identifying information—may be made Drive, Suite 111, Anchorage, Alaska functions. publicly available at any time. While 99507. you can ask us to withhold your FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On Oct. 7, 2019, the Notice of personal identifying information from Bruce Loranger, BLM Anchorage District Availability (NOA) for the Haines public review, we cannot guarantee that Office, telephone: 907–267–1221, email: Amendment to the Ring of Fire RMP we will be able to do so. [email protected]. People who use a and Final EIS was published in the Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. telecommunications device for the deaf Federal Register. The publication of the (TDD) may call the Federal Relay NOA initiated a 30-day protest period David Hoskins, Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to for the proposed land-use-planning Assistant Director, Fish and Aquatic contact the above individual during decision. NOA publication also initiated Conservation, USFWS. normal business hours. The FRS is a simultaneous 60-day review by the [FR Doc. 2020–03020 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Governor of Alaska to identify BILLING CODE 4333–15–P to leave a message or question with the inconsistencies with State or local above individual. You will receive a plans, policies, or programs. reply during normal business hours. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR At the close of the protest period three SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The protests (of which two were found to Bureau of Land Management Haines planning area is located in have standing) were received. These Southeast Alaska, bounded by the protests were resolved by the BLM [20X.LLAKA02000.L16100000.DS0000. Canadian Border to the north and west, LXSS043L0000.241A] Director; individual protest response Glacier Bay National Park to the letters were sent to all protesting parties. southwest, and the Tongass National Notice of Availability of the Record of Protest resolution is contained in the Forest to the south and east. This Decision and Final Environmental Director’s Protest Summary Report, planning area consists mainly of steep Impact Statement for the Haines which is available online at https:// and remote mountainous terrain, with Amendment to the Ring of Fire www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and- Resource Management Plan bedrock and glaciers that restrict road and trail access. Of the approximately nepa/public-participation/protest- resolution-reports. The Alaska AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 920,000 total acres within the planning Interior. area, the BLM manages approximately Governor’s review found that the RMP Amendment is consistent with state ACTION: Notice of availability. 317,000 acres. The size of the planning area has changed since signing of the plans, policies, and programs. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Ring of Fire RMP Record of Decision (Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3120(a); 40 CFR Management (BLM) announces the (ROD) in 2008 due to the conveyance of 1506.6(b)) availability of the Record of Decision several sections of BLM-managed lands (ROD) and Approved Haines to the State of Alaska. Chad B. Padgett, Amendment to the Ring of Fire The purpose of this planning effort State Director, Alaska. Resource Management Plan (RMP) for was to identify which designations, [FR Doc. 2020–03010 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] the BLM-managed public lands in the associated management practices, and BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P Haines area of Alaska. The State implementation actions best fulfill the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8607

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR message or question. You will receive a comments received from the public, reply during normal business hours. cooperating agencies and internal BLM Bureau of Land Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The review. [LLMTB010–L16100000–DQ0000] Missoula Proposed RMP provides a Before including your address, phone single, comprehensive land use plan number, email address, or other Notice of Availability of the Missoula that guides management of BLM lands personal identifying information in your Proposed Resource Management Plan on approximately 163,000 acres of BLM- protest, you should be aware that your and Associated Final Environmental managed public lands and 267,000 acres entire protest—including your personal Impact Statement, Montana of Federal mineral estate in western identifying information—may be made Montana in Flathead, Granite, Lake, publicly available at any time. While AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, you can ask us in your protest to Interior. Ravalli, and Sanders counties. Over 99 withhold your personal identifying ACTION: Notice of availability. percent of the BLM-managed public information from public review, we lands are in Granite, Missoula and cannot guarantee that we will be able to SUMMARY: In accordance with the do so. National Environmental Policy Act of Powell counties. The planning area is 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the currently managed under the Garnet (Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 1610.2) Federal Land Policy and Management Resource Area RMP (1986). This Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the planning effort would update John Mehlhoff, management guidance from the Garnet Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Director. Missoula Field Office has prepared a Resource Area RMP, as amended, and create a new Missoula RMP. [FR Doc. 2020–02880 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Proposed Resource Management Plan BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P (RMP) with an associated Final The Proposed RMP/Final EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates three alternatives in detail. for BLM public lands and resources Alternative A is the No Action DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR managed by the Missoula Field Office, Alternative, which is a continuation of and by this notice is announcing the current management in the existing Bureau of Land Management opening of the protest period. Garnet Resource Area RMP (1986). The agency Proposed Plan alternative [LLMTL060–L16100000–DQ0000] DATES: BLM planning regulations state is Alternative B, with a few that any person who meets the Notice of Availability of the Lewistown modifications, including the addition of Proposed Resource Management Plan conditions as described in the three Backcountry Conservation Areas regulations may protest the BLM’s and Associated Final Environmental (BCAs) and one Research Natural Area Impact Statement, Montana Proposed RMP. To ensure that protests (RNA). Alternative B focuses on active will be considered, the BLM must forest management and allows for the AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, receive any protests on the Proposed broadest range of management tools to Interior. RMP on or before the 30th day following provide forest products and meet forest ACTION: Notice of availability. the date the Environmental Protection management objectives. Alternative B Agency publishes its Notice of provides for moving forest vegetative SUMMARY: In accordance with the Availability of the Final EIS in the communities to the natural range of National Environmental Policy Act of Federal Register. variability to provide for priority 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the ADDRESSES: Copies of the Proposed RMP wildlife habitat and sustainable forest Federal Land Policy and Management and Final EIS are available at the products at a greater rate with increased Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Missoula Field Office, 3255 Fort forest treatments. Alternative B allows Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59804, or more lands to be available for livestock Lewistown and Butte Field Offices have may be viewed online at: https:// grazing as a management tool. The prepared a Proposed Resource go.usa.gov/xmyyG. Proposed Plan focuses on recreation Management Plan (RMP) with an All protests on the Proposed RMP opportunities, including some Special associated Final Environmental Impact must be in writing and submitted by any Recreation Management Areas and Statement (EIS) for BLM public lands of the following methods: Backcountry Conservation Areas. and resources managed by the Website: https://go.usa.gov/xmyyG. Alternative C emphasizes priority Lewistown Field Office, and a portion of Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), areas for wildlife habitat and vegetation, the Butte Field Office in northern Lewis Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. Box while allowing for modest development and Clark County, Montana, and by this 71383, Washington, DC 20024–1383. of forest resources. Alternative C aims to notice are announcing the opening of Overnight Delivery: BLM Director move forested ecosystems towards the the protest period. (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 20 natural range of variability with an DATES: BLM planning regulations state M Street SE, Room 2134LM, emphasis on natural processes and less that any person who meets the Washington, DC 20003. active management (lower amounts of conditions as described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: forest treatments). Alternative C focuses regulations may protest the BLM’s Maggie Ward, RMP Project Manager, on wildlife-dependent recreation. Proposed RMP. To ensure that protests Missoula Field Office, telephone: (406) The Missoula Draft RMP/Draft EIS will be considered, the BLM must 329–3914, and at the mailing address public comment period began on May receive any protests on the Proposed and website listed earlier. Persons who 17, 2019, and ended on August 15, RMP on or before the 30th day following use a telecommunications device for the 2019. The BLM held one public open the date the Environmental Protection deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay house meeting in Missoula, Montana, Agency publishes its Notice of Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to during the public comment period on Availability of the Final EIS in the contact Ms. Ward during normal the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. The BLM Federal Register. business hours. The FRS is available 24 considered and incorporated in the ADDRESSES: Copies of the Proposed RMP hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a proposed plan, as appropriate, and Final EIS are available at the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8608 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Lewistown Field Office, 920 NE Main modifications, including the addition of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Street, Lewistown, MT 59457, or may be two BCAs and two Areas of Critical viewed online at: https://go.usa.gov/ Environmental Concerns (ACECs), and Bureau of Land Management xUPsP. adjustments to oil and gas stipulations [LLWY921000, L71220000.EU0000, All protests on the Proposed RMP to be consistent with surrounding BLM LVTFK1999070, 20X, WYW165375] must be in writing and submitted by any field offices. Alternative C emphasizes of the following methods: resource uses on BLM-administered Notice of Realty Action: Non- Website: https://go.usa.gov/xUPsP. lands and mineral estate targeting social Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), and economic outcomes while Land in Big Horn County, Wyoming Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. Box protecting land health. The Proposed (Paint Rock) 71383, Washington, DC 20024–1383. Plan employs fewer special management Overnight Delivery: BLM Director AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, designations for resource-use objectives, (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 20 Interior. M Street SE, Room 2134LM, but does emphasize wildlife-dependent ACTION: Notice of realty action. Washington, DC 20003. recreation through the allocation of two BCAs. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Management (BLM) proposes a non- Brunkhorst, RMP Project Manager, Alternative D emphasizes resource uses and a variety of management competitive (direct) sale of 58.54 acres Lewistown Field Office, at telephone: of public land in Big Horn County, prescriptions (e.g., recreation (406) 538–1981, and at the mailing Wyoming, to Paint Rock Angus Ranch, management areas, ACECs, Visual address and website listed earlier. Inc., for the purpose of resolving an Resource Management, etc.) to address Persons who use a telecommunications inadvertent unauthorized use of public device for the deaf (TDD) may call the the use and conservation of natural and lands. The non-competitive, direct sale Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– cultural resources, while sustaining and will be subject to the applicable 877–8339 to contact Mr. Brunkhorst enhancing forest and range health across provisions of the Federal Land Policy during normal business hours. The FRS the landscape. Management Act of 1976, as amended is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a The Lewistown Draft RMP/Draft EIS (FLPMA), and BLM regulations. The week, to leave a message or question. public comment period began on May sale will be for no less than the You will receive a reply during normal 17, 2019, and ended on August 15, appraised fair market value (FMV) of business hours. 2019. The BLM held three public open $40,000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The house meetings in Winnett, Lewistown, Lewistown Proposed RMP provides a DATES: Submit written comments and Great Falls, Montana, during the single, comprehensive land use plan regarding the sale parcel and associated public comment period on the Draft that guides management of BLM lands Environmental Assessment (EA) until RMP/Draft EIS. The BLM considered on approximately 651,200 acres of BLM- March 30, 2020. managed public lands and 1,196,800 and incorporated in the proposed plan, ADDRESSES: Mail written comments acres of Federal mineral estate in central as appropriate, comments received from concerning this direct sale to Field Montana in Cascade, Fergus, Judith the public, cooperating agencies and Manager, BLM, Worland Field Office, Basin, Meagher, Petroleum, Pondera, internal BLM review. 101 South 23rd Street, Worland, Teton, Chouteau, and Lewis and Clark Before including your address, phone Wyoming 82401. counties. These lands and minerals are number, email address, or other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: managed by two BLM offices located in personally identifiable information in Connie Craft, Realty Specialist, BLM, Lewistown and Butte, Montana. The your protest, be aware that your entire Worland Field Office, at the above RMP will fulfill the needs and protest—including your personally address, telephone: 307–347–5233, obligations set forth by NEPA, FLPMA, identifiable information—may be made email: [email protected]. Persons who and BLM management policies. The publicly available at any time. While use a telecommunications device for the RMP will reflect the changing needs of you can ask us in your protest to deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay the planning area over the next several withhold your personal identifying Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339. The decades, and will replace the current information from public review, we FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days Headwaters and Judith RMPs, as cannot guarantee that we will be able to a week, to leave a message or question amended, that were developed in 1984 with Ms. Craft. You will receive a reply do so. and 1994, respectively. during normal business hours. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS (Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The evaluates four alternatives in detail. 1610.2) following-described public land in Big Alternative A is the No Action Theresa M. Hanley, Horn County, Wyoming, has been Alternative, which is a continuation of Acting State Director. examined and found suitable for sale current management direction in the under the authority of Section 203 of the existing Judith and Headwaters RMPs. [FR Doc. 2020–02881 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] FLPMA: Alternative B emphasizes managing BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P habitats for priority plant, wildlife, and Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming fish species while providing modest T. 50 N., R. 90 W., development of resource uses. Sec. 34, Parcel A; Alternative B emphasizes hunting, Sec. 35, Parcel A. fishing, and other recreation through The areas described aggregate 58.54 Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCAs) acres. and management of lands with The sale is in conformance with the wilderness characteristics. BLM Worland Approved Resource The agency Proposed Plan alternative Management Plan (September 18, 2015), is Alternative C with a few which identifies these parcels of public

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8609

land as suitable for disposal on page 104 Upon publication of this Notice, the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and management action 6009. FLPMA BLM will no longer accept land use Section 203 allows for the disposal of applications affecting these public Office of the Secretary public lands if they meet the following lands, except applications for the disposal criteria: ‘‘Such tract, because of amendment of previously filed rights-of- Agency Information Collection its location or other characteristics, is way applications or existing Activities; Submission for OMB difficult and uneconomic to manage as authorizations to increase the term of Review; Comment Request; Provider part of the public lands, and is not the grants in accordance with 43 CFR Enrollment Form suitable for management by another 2807.15 and 43 CFR 2886.15. ACTION: Notice of availability; request Federal department or agency.’’ The The conveyance document, if issued, for comments. subject parcels meet this criteria will be subject to the following terms, because the existing structures and the conditions, and reservations: SUMMARY: The Department of Labor change in the character of the lands 1. A rights-of-way thereon for ditches (DOL) is submitting the Office of associated with agricultural ranching or canals constructed by the authority of Workers’ Compensation Programs operations make the lands difficult to the United States, Act of August 30, (OWCP) sponsored information manage as public lands. 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); collection request (ICR) titled, ‘‘Provider A parcel-specific EA, document Enrollment Form,’’ to the Office of 2. All mineral deposits in the lands so Management and Budget (OMB) for numbered DOI–BLM–WY–R010–2019– conveyed and to it, or persons 0017–EA, was prepared in connection review and approval for use in authorized by it, the right to prospect accordance with the Paperwork with this sale. A copy of the EA, for, mine and remove such deposits Finding of No Significant Impact and Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public from the same under applicable law and comments on the ICR are invited. Decision Record are available online at: regulations to be established by the DATES: The OMB will consider all https://go.usa.gov/xmQfd. Secretary of the Interior, together with written comments that agency receives The parcels are not identified as all necessary access and exit rights; and access points for recreation in on or before March 16, 2020. 3. All valid existing rights issued accordance with Secretary’s Order ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with prior to conveyance. 3373—Evaluating Public Access in applicable supporting documentation; Bureau of Land Management Public The BLM will publish this Notice in including a description of the likely Land Disposals and Exchanges. There the Basin Republican Rustler newspaper respondents, proposed frequency of are no anticipated impacts from the once each week for 3 consecutive response, and estimated total burden BLM-managed public land disposal on weeks. Only written comments may be obtained free of charge from the recreational access to adjacent tracts of submitted by postal service or overnight RegInfo.gov website at http:// publicly accessible lands. mail will be considered as properly www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ In accordance with 43 CFR 2710–0– filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202002-1240-001 6(c)(3)(iii) and 43 CFR 2711.3–3(a), a telephone comments will not be (this link will only become active on the direct sale may be appropriate to resolve considered. day following publication of this notice) inadvertent, unauthorized use of the Any adverse comments regarding the or by contacting Frederick Licari by land or to protect existing equities in the sale will be reviewed by the BLM telephone at 202–693–8073, TTY 202– land. In this case, a competitive sale is Wyoming State Director or other 693–8064, (these are not toll-free not appropriate because the subject authorized official of the Department of numbers) or sending an email to DOL_ lands contain improvements that the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or [email protected]. directly support the adjoining ranch modify this realty action in response to Submit comments about this request property, owned by Paint Rock Angus such comments. In the absence of any by mail to the Office of Information and Ranch, Inc., rendering the land unusable timely filed objections, this realty action Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk by the public. The minimal acreage was will become the final determination of Officer for DOL–OWCP, Office of considered to create a manageable the Department of the Interior. Management and Budget, Room 10235, boundary that included the lands Before including your address, phone 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC needed to protect the existing irrigation number, email address, or other 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is improvements and resolve inadvertent personal identifying information in your not a toll-free number); or by email: unauthorized use. The public’s interest comment, you should be aware that [email protected]. is best served by resolving the your entire comment—including your Commenters are encouraged, but not inadvertent unauthorized use and personal identifying information—may required, to send a courtesy copy of any receiving payment at FMV for the public be made publicly available at any time. comments by mail or courier to the U.S. lands. While you can ask us in your comment Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of Upon publication of this Notice in the to withhold your personal identifying the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Federal Register, the public lands information from public review, we Departmental Information Compliance described above will be segregated from cannot guarantee that we will be able to Management Program, Room N1301, all forms of appropriation under the do so. Comments, including names and 200 Constitution Avenue NW, public land laws, including the mining street addresses of respondents, will be Washington, DC 20210; or by email: _ _ laws, except for the sale provisions of available for public review at the BLM DOL PRA [email protected]. the FLPMA. The temporary segregation Worland Field Office during regular FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: will terminate upon, (1) Issuance of a business hours, except holidays. Frederick Licari by telephone at 202– conveyance document, (2) Publication (Authority: 43 CFR 2711) 693–8073, TTY 202–693–8064, (these in the Federal Register terminating the are not toll-free numbers) or sending an segregation, or (3) On February 14, 2022, Duane Spencer, email to [email protected]. unless extended by the BLM Wyoming Acting State Director, Wyoming. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ICR State Director, in accordance with 43 [FR Doc. 2020–03036 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] seeks approval under the PRA for CFR 2711.1–2(d). BILLING CODE 4310–22–P revisions to the Provider Enrollment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8610 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Form (Form OWCP–1168). The form The OMB is particularly interested in producing additional measures of requests profile information on comments that: poverty. The Working Group has providers that enroll in one or more of • Evaluate whether the proposed developed a consensus interim report OWCP’s benefit programs so its billing collection of information is necessary that details its considerations to date. contractor can pay them for services for the proper performance of the The Working Group’s interim report is rendered to beneficiaries using its functions of the agency, including summarized in the SUPPLEMENTARY automated bill processing system. In whether the information will have INFORMATION section below and available addition to the enrollment form practical utility; in full on www.regulations.gov. The information collection, the OWCP bill • Evaluate the accuracy of the interim report outlines the history of processing contractor currently collects agency’s estimate of the burden of the poverty measurement in the U.S., electronic data interchange (EDI) proposed collection of information, describes the Working Group’s information from the provider only if including the validity of the considerations of an extended income- the provider chooses a data exchange methodology and assumptions used; based poverty measure and a submission method. Once the new • Enhance the quality, utility, and consumption-based poverty measure, OWCP–1168 form is in place, the clarity of the information to be and identifies other areas worthy of existing EDI template will no longer be collected; and future research. It also identifies applicable. The current EDI template • Minimize the burden of the questions for public comment, toward collects information that is duplicative collection of information on those who the goal of helping to inform the to information collected on Form are to respond, including through the remaining discussions of the Working OWCP–1168, such as names, addresses, use of appropriate automated, Group, and meet their charge of and NPI. Collecting EDI information electronic, mechanical, or other identifying whether or not to with the enrollment information in one technological collection techniques or recommend to the Chief Statistician of form will improve efficiency in other forms of information technology, the United States that one or more new collecting the information from e.g., permitting electronic submission of measures of poverty be developed and providers, reduce the time required for responses. published. The Working Group’s processing by operational staff, and will Agency: DOL–OWCP. interim report reflects considerations to significantly reduce errors associated Title of Collection: Provider date, but does not reflect with mismatching provider enrollments Enrollment Form. recommendations or decisions. This to their EDI information. This OMB Control Number: 1240–0021. interim report and the Working Group’s information collection will be submitted Affected Public: Private Sector, questions are being published to solicit to OMB under the emergency processing Business or other for-profits. input from the public. request procedures, as outlined by 5 Total Estimated Number of DATES: To ensure consideration of CFR part 1320 Section 13, to allow for Respondents: 64,325. comments on this Notice, comments implementation of the revisions to the Total Estimated Number of must be provided in writing no later Provider Enrollment Form as soon as Responses: 64,325. than 60 days from the publication date possible, and to incorporate regulatory Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: of this notice. Because of delays in the updates implementing the Black Lung 32,162.5 hours. receipt of regular mail related to benefits Act which becomes applicable Total Estimated Annual Other Costs security screening, respondents are on April 26, 2020. Once OMB has Burden: $37,309. encouraged to send comments approved the emergency processing Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). electronically (see ADDRESSES, below). request, a separate 60-day Federal Dated: February 7, 2020. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be Register Notice will be published to Frederick Licari, addressed to: Office of the Chief again solicit public comments. _ _ Departmental Clearance Officer. Statistician, OMB, email US Chief This information collection is subject [email protected], fax number [FR Doc. 2020–02961 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] to the PRA. A Federal agency generally (202) 395–7245. Comments may be sent cannot conduct or sponsor a collection BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P via www.regulations.gov—a Federal E- of information, and the public is Government website that allows the generally not required to respond to an public to find, review, and submit information collection, unless it is OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND comments on documents that agencies approved by the OMB under the PRA BUDGET have published in the Federal Register and displays a currently valid OMB Request for Comment on and that are open for comment. Simply Control Number. In addition, type ‘‘OMB–2019–0007’’ (in quotes) in notwithstanding any other provisions of Considerations for Additional Measures of Poverty the Comment or Submission search box, law, no person shall generally be subject click Go, and follow the instructions for to penalty for failing to comply with a AGENCY: Office of Information and submitting comments. Comments collection of information that does not Regulatory Affairs, Office of received by the date specified above display a valid Control Number. See 5 Management and Budget, Executive will be included as part of the official CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. Office of the President. record. Interested parties are encouraged to ACTION: Notice of solicitation of Comments submitted in response to send comments to the OMB, Office of comments. this notice may be made available to the Information and Regulatory Affairs at public and are subject to disclosure the address shown in the ADDRESSES SUMMARY: Office of Management and under the Freedom of Information Act. section within thirty (30) days of Budget (OMB) requests comment on the For this reason, please do not include in publication of this notice in the Federal questions posed by the Interagency your comments information of a Register. In order to help ensure Technical Working Group on Evaluating confidential nature, such as sensitive appropriate consideration, comments Alternative Measures of Poverty personal information or proprietary should mention OMB Control Number (Working Group) to help inform the information. If you send an email 1240–0021. Working Group’s recommendations on comment, your email address will be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8611

automatically captured and included as Advisers proposed initial poverty and understanding poverty, particularly part of the comment that is placed in the definitions that defined approximately in the context of changes in the U.S. public docket; however, 20 percent of the population as poor and society, economy, and public policy. www.regulations.gov does include the used an absolute standard for adjusting NAS released a report entitled option of commenting anonymously. thresholds historically.1 In 1965, the Measuring Poverty: A New Approach in Please note that responses to this public Office of Economic Opportunity 1995. comment request containing any routine adopted a set of now basic poverty In 2009, OMB’s Chief Statistician notice about the confidentiality of the definitions developed by economist and formed an Interagency Technical communication will be treated as public statistician Mollie Orshansky, which Working Group on Developing a comments that may be made available to were based on the cost of nutritionally Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM the public notwithstanding the adequate diet and were similar to those Development Working Group). The SPM inclusion of the routine notice. of the Council of Economic Advisers, as Development Working Group asked the Electronic Availability: Federal a working definition of poverty for Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Register notices are available statistical planning.2 In 1968, the Statistics to develop a Supplemental electronically at Census Bureau published its first full Poverty Measure (SPM) that could be www.federalregister.gov/. report on the subject of poverty.3 Since used to improve understanding of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 1969, these poverty estimates have been economic well-being of consumers, information about this request for based on absolute living standards with families, and households living in the comments, contact Kerrie Leslie, OMB, adjustments to the poverty thresholds U.S., and the impact of federal policies 9215 New Executive Office Building, based on increases in the Consumer on poverty statistics. In 2010, the SPM 4 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC Price Index. In 1978, OMB issued Development Working Group issued a 20503, telephone (202) 395–1093. Statistical Policy Directive No. 14 series of suggestions that included a specifying the definition of poverty for resource measure that accounted for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the statistical purposes.5 (Issuance of taxes and some in-kind benefits, with Budget and Accounting Procedures Act Statistical Policy Directives is one way thresholds based on recent consumption of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 1104(d)) and the in which OMB coordinates the patterns. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 decentralized U.S. Federal statistical In November 2011, the Census Bureau U.S.C. 3504(e)), OMB is issuing a system. These Directives are issued released the first SPM report, providing request for comment on the questions when a system-wide need has been SPM estimates for 2009 and 2010. At the posed by the Interagency Technical identified to ensure consistent statistical same time, BLS released SPM Working Group on Evaluating standards and guidelines are used thresholds for reference consumer units Alternative Measures of Poverty across the decentralized system.) The by household tenure (renters, owners (Working Group). official poverty measure (OPM), as with mortgages, and owners without In its role as coordinator of the defined in OMB Statistical Policy mortgages). From 2011 to 2019, the Federal statistical system under the Directive No. 14, continues to be Census Bureau has released the SPM Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB, among produced and updated every year. report with estimates on an annual other responsibilities, is required to In 1992, the National Academy of basis, with the most recent report ensure the system’s efficiency and Sciences (NAS) convened a Panel on (September 2019) containing 2018 effectiveness. A key method used by Poverty and Family Assistance to estimates. BLS produced the SPM OMB to achieve this responsibility is analyze statistical issues in measuring thresholds during this timeframe. The the promulgation, maintenance, and SPM does not replace the official oversight of Government-wide 1 Council of Economic Advisers. 1964. ‘‘The poverty measure, and the SPM is not the principles, policies, standards, and Problem of Poverty in America.’’ In Economic measure used to estimate eligibility for guidance concerning the development, Report of the President. Washington: U.S. government programs. Instead, the SPM Government Printing Office. Available at https:// presentation, and dissemination of fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/ERP/ is designed as an experimental measure Federal statistical products. OMB’s 1964/ERP_1964.pdf. that defines income thresholds and Office of the Chief Statistician, within 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. resources in a manner consistent with the Office of Information and Regulatory 2000. ‘‘Reasons for Measuring Poverty in the United the 1995 NAS report. This purpose States in the Context of Public Policy—A Historical Affairs (OIRA), relies on public Review: 1916–1995. Office of the Assistant differs from that of the official poverty comment and subject matter expertise Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. June 1. measure, and with differences in both across the Federal government to Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/reasons- the resource measure and thresholds, identify areas where existing OMB measuring-poverty-united-states-context-public- the two measures are not directly policies or guidance may be out of date, policy-historical-review-1916-1995. comparable. 3 U.S. Census Bureau. 1968. ‘‘The Extent of lacking clarity, or insufficient for Poverty in the United States: 1959 to 1966.’’ Series Since the issuance of the first SPM, efficient coordination of Federal P–60, No. 54. May 31. Available at https:// OMB convened a separate interagency statistics. www2.census.gov/library/publications/1968/ technical working group (SPM Accordingly, OMB is seeking public demographics/p60-54.pdf. Implementation Working Group) to 4 ‘‘Definition of Poverty for Statistical Purposes.’’ advise on challenges and opportunities comment on questions (see DESIRED Exhibit L. Circular No. A–46. Available at https:// FOCUS OF COMMENTS, below) posed www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86- the Census Bureau and BLS identify by the Working Group to help inform 00244R000300400009-1.pdf and U.S. Census concerning data sources, estimation, the Working Group’s recommendations Bureau. 2017. ‘‘Office of Management and Budget survey production, and processing (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14 (May activities for development, on producing additional measures of 1978).’’ Available at https://www.census.gov/topics/ poverty. income-poverty/poverty/about/history-of-the- implementation, publication, and poverty-measure/omb-stat-policy-14.html. improvement of the SPM. I. Background 5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. ‘‘Office of Currently, the SPM Implementation In 1964, President Johnson’s ‘‘War on Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Working Group is reviewing potential Directive 14 (May 1978).’’ Available at https:// Poverty’’ increased public interest in www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/ changes to implement in 2021, the 10- poverty measures in the United States. about/history-of-the-poverty-measure/omb-stat- year anniversary of the first SPM report. That year, the Council of Economic policy-14.html. Potential changes to the SPM would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8612 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

presented and discussed at conferences Group outlined in the DESIRED FOCUS pre-tax cash income to include some in- and expert meetings and posted on the OF COMMENTS section below. A kind transfers and account for taxes and Census Bureau’s SPM website summary of the interim report follows: tax credits, much like the SPM resource (www.census.gov/topics/income- Since the establishment of the U.S. measure. In addition, the Working poverty/supplemental-poverty- official poverty measure (OPM) more Group is considering whether and how measure.html). The SPM than fifty years ago, there has been to incorporate the value of health Implementation Working Group plans to continuing research on poverty insurance benefits and implicit flows announce any potential changes in Fall measurement. Alternative estimates of from non-financial assets (e.g., vehicles, 2020 that would be implemented in the poverty have been published for more owner occupied housing, other September 2021 SPM report. than three decades by the Census properties). An extended income As nearly a decade has passed since Bureau, and in 2011 the Census Bureau resource measure may also integrate the SPM Development Working Group in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor administrative data with household provided initial observations for the Statistics (BLS) began publishing the survey income information, taking SPM, it is an opportune time to evaluate Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). advantage of recent research on the use possible additional alternative measures Existing and previous measures of and the increased availability of of poverty distinct from the OPM and poverty produced by the Federal potentially more accurate administrative SPM. Recognizing the value of various government are income based and rely data. The Working Group is considering poverty and well-being measures for on surveys to capture the income data. other approaches for adjusting survey informing the public and the Federal Guidance issued by the Commission on data for misreporting as well. government, the Chief Statistician of the Evidence-based Policymaking, National A consumption-based resource United States chartered the Interagency Academy of Sciences reports, and OMB measure may more directly capture the Technical Working Group on Evaluating have recommended combining resources available to a family if they Alternative Measures of Poverty administrative data with survey data to record the consumption that was (Working Group) in 2019. The Working improve national statistics. In recent actually achieved. These measures begin Group’s purpose is to evaluate possible years, evidence has shown that there is by summing most categories of alternative measures of poverty, how survey misreporting of many income expenditures on goods and services. such measures might be constructed, sources. Recognizing the changing Certain categories of expenditures are and whether to publish those measures landscape and that alternative statistics often thought of as enhancing future along with the measures currently being can provide useful information, the consumption and are typically published. The Working Group includes Chief Statistician of the United States excluded, such as pension contributions career representatives from 11 Federal formed the Interagency Technical and education expenses. Health agencies and is chaired by OMB’s Office Working Group on Evaluating expenditures are less uniformly of the Chief Statistician. Additional Alternative Measures of Poverty excluded, since they have both poverty measures recommended by the (Working Group) to evaluate possible substantial investment and immediate Working Group and ultimately alternative measures of poverty, how consumption features. A flow of produced by any government agency such measures might be constructed, consumption resources is also typically will not be intended to replace the OPM and whether to publish those measures attributed to some owned durable or the SPM. Additional poverty along with current measures. goods, in particular vehicles and owner- measures would not be intended for use To provide context for the Working to estimate eligibility for government Group’s discussions of alternative occupied homes. programs. The OPM and the SPM would measures of poverty, the interim report Any final recommendation ultimately continue to be produced and updated discusses the history of poverty made by the Working Group would also every year. measurement in the U.S., including the consider implementation issues with, as The Working Group developed a development and implementation of the well as other advantages and limitations consensus interim report detailing its OPM and SPM. In addition, the Working of, proposed measures. The Working considerations to date. The interim Group identified some of the uses of the Group has discussed many report is available on OPM and SPM, as well as noted some implementation issues to date, www.regulations.gov with docket of the known concerns with each of the including the choice of survey data (for number ‘‘OMB–2019–0007’’. A final measures. example, choosing between the Current report is planned to be delivered to the To date, the Working Group has Population Survey Annual Social and Chief Statistician of the U.S. by the end primarily focused on single-dimensional Economic Supplement or the American of Spring 2020 that details the Working poverty measurement. Single- Community Survey) most appropriate Group’s set of final recommendations dimensional poverty measures have two for use in developing the measure, with regard to producing and publishing key parts: The resource measure (such which would have an effect on the alternative measure(s). as income or consumption) and the ability to produce estimates at different thresholds (the cutoffs to which the geographic levels, for example. In II. Considerations of the Working resource measure is compared). The addition, the Working Group has Group primary focus of the Working Group’s identified some advantages and In its interim report, the Working discussions have been on resource limitations of extended income- and Group laid out considerations to date to measures, leaving discussion of consumption-based resource measures. evaluate, and potentially produce, thresholds for future months. For example, for an income-based additional alternative measures of The Working Group is considering resource measure, annual income will poverty. OMB invites the public to read both extended income-based and not capture the standard of living of and offer comments on the approach consumption-based resource measures, individuals who draw upon savings or described in the Working Group’s as well as identifying other areas worthy borrow to fund their consumption. interim report, which can be found at of future research by the Federal However, an income-based resource www.regulations.gov. OMB is especially Statistical System. For an extended measure captures a household’s interested in receiving comments on the income resource measure, the Working command over resources, and set of questions posed by the Working Group is considering expanding beyond household income data are available in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8613

more datasets than a household’s Adjusting for different sharing unit consider using only those types of expenditures. sizes.) consumption that are reported with greater accuracy, while excluding less While the Working Group has not Resource Measures discussed thresholds in depth, the accurately measured types of Working Group acknowledges that 2. What standards should the group consumption? What are the tradeoffs in poverty thresholds are a key component use to determine which resource using only well-measured consumption of a poverty measure. Individuals with measures should be preferred? versus full consumption? (See resources that fall below the poverty Specifically, to what extent should the Accounting for Expenditure threshold are counted as poor, and group consider the following standards: Misreporting.) (i) Association with other measures of individuals with resources at or above Thresholds the poverty threshold are not counted as material hardship, (ii) conceptual poor. The Working Group has identified advantages, (iii) simplicity, (iv) 11. How should the thresholds be set several key considerations for setting feasibility (including data availability), initially? (See Setting poverty poverty thresholds, and plans to discuss (v) reproducibility? (See Advantages/ thresholds in a baseline year.) each of those considerations in the Disadvantages of Income and 12. How should they be updated over coming months, as well as other Consumption Resource Measures. See time? (See Adjusting poverty thresholds concepts related to thresholds. also Multi-Dimensional Poverty over time.) 13. Should thresholds be adjusted for Finally, while the Working Group is Measurement and Individual Indicators geographic areas? If so, how? (See focused on the extended income-based of Well-Being.) Adjusting poverty thresholds across and consumption-based measures, the 3. Should the value of health insurance be incorporated? And if so, geographic areas.) Working Group has also identified other 14. How should a sharing unit’s size topics worthy of further research by the how? (See Alternative versions of income measures with different values and composition be accounted for? (See Federal Statistical System. These topics Adjusting for different sharing unit include multi-dimensional poverty of health insurance.) 4. Should the value of education be sizes.) measurement and individual indicators Thank you for your thoughts on these of well-being, and populations such as incorporated? And if so, how? (See Treatment of Education.) and other important questions those experiencing homelessness that associated with the Working Group’s are not included in the surveys on For a Potential Income Resource discussion of Alternative Measures of which the Working Group has focused. Measure Poverty. OMB and the Working Group Desired Focus of Comments 5. What income sources should be look forward to your insights and included (aside from health insurance, feedback. OMB is particularly interested in which is addressed by question 3)? If so, Paul J. Ray, receiving comments on the questions how? (See Income Measures Using the posed by the Working Group. To be CPS ASEC and American Community Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. most useful to the Working Group in Survey.) their ongoing deliberations and 6. What expenses, if any, should be [FR Doc. 2020–02858 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] ultimately to OMB in reviewing the subtracted from income? For example, BILLING CODE 3110–01–P Working Group’s final how should medical out of pocket recommendations, responders should (MOOP) expenditures be treated in a read the Working Group’s interim report new measure? Should other expenses NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND before addressing the posed questions. such as childcare and commuting costs SPACE ADMINISTRATION Responses should be concise, include be subtracted? (See Income should be [Notice: (20–013)] citations if summarizing or depending defined more broadly than pre-tax cash on published work, and any links to income currently used for the OPM.) NASA Advisory Council; Human related research. In addition, responses 7. How should the Working Group Explorations and Operations should clearly identify which question address the problem of survey Committee; Meeting is being addressed. misreporting of income in household Questions posed below are those the surveys? (See Correcting Survey Data for AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Working Group deemed most significant Misreporting and Improving Tax Space Administration. and relevant to the Working Group’s Estimates.) ACTION: Notice of meeting. remaining discussions. The questions have been sorted into broad categories For a Potential Consumption Resource SUMMARY: In accordance with the for ease of review. In addition, a pointer Measure Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space to related discussion within the interim 8. What types of spending should be Administration (NASA) announces a report follows each question. The included as consumption (aside from meeting of the Human Exploration and Working Group’s interim report titled spending on health care or insurance, Operations Committee of the NASA ‘‘Interim Report of the Interagency which is addressed by question 3)? If so, Advisory Council (NAC). This Technical Working Group on how? (See Consumption Measures Committee reports to the NAC. Alternative Poverty Measures’’ is Using the Consumer Expenditure available as a supplemental document Interview Survey.) DATES: Tuesday, March 3, 2020, 1:00 on www.regulations.gov in docket 9. How should vehicles and housing p.m.–6:00 p.m.; and Wednesday, March number ‘‘OMB–2019–0007’’. be included? (See Consumption 4, 2020, 8:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m. All times Measures Using the Consumer listed are Eastern Time. Definitions Expenditure Interview Survey.) ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room 1. How should a sharing unit be 10. How should the Working Group 8Q40, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC defined? A sharing unit is meant to address the problem of survey 20546. reflect the set of people sharing misreporting of consumption in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. resources in a household. (See household surveys? Should the group Bette Siegel, Human Exploration and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8614 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Operations Mission Directorate, NASA It is imperative that the meeting be The agenda for the meeting includes the Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, held on this date to accommodate the following topics: (202) 358–2245, or bette.siegel@ scheduling priorities of the key nasa.gov. participants. —Earth Science Division Update —Earth Science Decadal Survey SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Patricia Rausch, Implementation meeting will be open to the public up Advisory Committee Management Officer, to the seating capacity of the room. This National Aeronautics and Space —Earth Venture Class, Designated meeting is also available telephonically Administration. Observables (DO) Studies and and by WebEx. You must use a touch- [FR Doc. 2020–02956 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Incubation Studies tone phone to participate in this BILLING CODE 7510–13–P —Research and Applications Cross- meeting. Any interested person may dial Benefits the USA toll-free conference call number 1–800–593–9971 or toll number NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND —Commercial Data Buy. 1–517–308–9316, passcode: 4648477, to SPACE ADMINISTRATION The agenda will be posted on the participate in the meeting on both days. [Notice: (20–015)] ESAC web page: https:// The WebEx link is https:// science.nasa.gov/researchers/nac/ nasaenterprise.webex.com; the meeting NASA Earth Science Advisory science-advisory-committees/esac. number is 900 509 394, password is Committee; Meeting Exploration2020# (case sensitive) for Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA both days. AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Headquarters security requirements, The agenda for the meeting includes Space Administration. including the presentation of a valid the following topics: ACTION: Notice of meeting. picture ID to Security before access to —Human Exploration and Operations NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals Update SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the attending this meeting will be required —Budget National Aeronautics and Space to provide a copy of their passport and —Advanced Exploration Systems Administration (NASA) announces a visa in addition to providing the —Gateway meeting of the Earth Science Advisory following information no less than 10 —Exploration Systems Development Committee (ESAC). This Committee days prior to the meeting: Full name; —International Space Station functions in an advisory capacity to the gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; Commercial Crew Attendees will be Director, Earth Science Division, in the passport information (number, country, requested to sign a register and to NASA Science Mission Directorate. The telephone); visa information (number, comply with NASA Headquarters meeting will be held for the purpose of type, expiration date); employer/ security requirements, including the soliciting, from the scientific affiliation information (name of presentation of a valid picture ID to community and other persons, scientific institution, address, country, Security before access to NASA and technical information relevant to telephone); title/position of attendee. To Headquarters. Foreign nationals program planning. expedite admittance, attendees with attending this meeting will be required U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents DATES: Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 8:30 (green card holders) may provide full to provide a copy of their passport and a.m.–5:00 p.m.; and Wednesday, March visa in addition to providing the name and citizenship status no less than 11, 2020, 8:30 a.m.–3:00 p.m. All times 3 working days in advance by following information no less than 10 listed are Eastern Time. days prior to the meeting: Full name; contacting Ms. KarShelia Henderson via ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room gender; date/place of birth; citizenship, email at [email protected] or by fax 6H41 (on Tuesday, March 10) and Room at (202) 358–2779. passport information (number, country, 5H41 (on Wednesday, March 11); 300 E telephone); visa information (number, Street SW, Washington, DC 20546. Note: As a precaution, individuals type, expiration date); employer/ returning from China will not be allowed into FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. affiliation information (name of NASA Headquarters until the 14 days of institution, address, country, telephone) KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission observation and self-care period has expired, title/position of the position of attendee. Directorate, NASA Headquarters, and they are determined not to be infectious. To expedite admittance, U.S. citizens Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–2355, Attendees to the Earth Science Advisory and Permanent Residents (green card fax (202) 358–2779, or khenderson@ Committee meeting who are returning from holders) are requested to provide full nasa.gov. China should only participate virtually through the provided dial-in audio and name and citizenship status no less 3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The WebEx, until the 14 days of observation and working days in advance. meeting will be open to the public up self-care period has expired. Note: As a precaution, individuals to the capacity of the meeting room. returning from China will not allowed This meeting is also available It is imperative that the meeting be into NASA Headquarters until the 14 telephonically and by WebEx. You must held on this date to accommodate the days of observation and self-care period use a touch-tone phone to participate in scheduling priorities of the key has expired, and they are determined this meeting. Any interested person may participants. not to be infectious. Attendees to the call the USA toll free number 1–800– NAC Human Explorations and 369–1949 or toll number 1–517–308– Operations Committee meeting who are 9360, passcode 4877306, for both days, Patricia Rausch, returning from China should only to participate in this meeting by Advisory Committee Management Officer, participate virtually through the telephone. The WebEx link is https:// National Aeronautics and Space provided dial-in audio and WebEx, until nasaenterprise.webex.com/; the meeting Administration. the 14 days of observation and self-care number is 903 089 345, password is [FR Doc. 2020–02957 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] period has expired. WhbJkp?6 (case sensitive) for both days. BILLING CODE 7510–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8615

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room SPACE ADMINISTRATION passport information (number, country, 5H41, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC telephone); visa information (number, 20546. [Notice (20–012)] type, expiration date); employer/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. NASA Planetary Science Advisory affiliation information (name of KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Committee; Meeting institution, address, country, Directorate, NASA Headquarters, telephone); title/position of attendee. To Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–2355, AGENCY: National Aeronautics and expedite admittance, U.S. citizens and fax (202) 358–2779, or khenderson@ Space Administration. Permanent Residents (green card nasa.gov. holders) are requested to provide full ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a name and citizenship status no less than SUMMARY: In accordance with the revised and resubmitted Federal 3 working days in advance. Information Register notice to add additional Federal Advisory Committee Act, the should be sent to Ms. KarShelia National Aeronautics and Space coronavirus-related information. See Henderson, via email at khenderson@ below. All other previously published Administration (NASA) announces a nasa.gov or by fax at (202) 358–2779. meeting of the Planetary Science information regarding this meeting Note: As a precaution, individuals remains the same. Advisory Committee. The meeting will returning from China will not be be held for the purpose of soliciting, Ref: Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 24/ allowed into NASA Headquarters until Wednesday, February 5, 2020/Notices; from the scientific community and other the 14 days of observation and self-care persons, scientific and technical page 6582. period has expired, and they are The meeting will be open to the information relevant to program determined not to be infectious. public up to the capacity of the room. planning. Attendees to the Planetary Science The meeting will be available DATES: Monday, March 9, 2020, 8:30 Advisory Committee meeting who are telephonically and by WebEx. You must a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Tuesday, March 10, returning from China should only use a touch-tone phone to participate in 2020, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and participate virtually through the this meeting. Any interested person may Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 8:30 a.m. provided dial-in audio and WebEx, until dial the USA toll-free conference call to 12:00 p.m. All times listed are Eastern the 14 days of observation and self-care number 1–877–922–4779 or toll number Time. period has expired. It is imperative that 1–312–470–7379, passcode 5276208, to ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room the meeting be held on these dates to participate in this meeting by telephone 9H40, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC accommodate the scheduling priorities on both days. The WebEx link is https:// 20546. of the key participants. nasaenterprise.webex.com/; the meeting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Patricia Rausch, number on March 5 is 903 962 989, KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Advisory Committee Management Officer, password is ApAC356#; and the Directorate, NASA Headquarters, National Aeronautics and Space meeting number on March 6 is 908 705 Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–2355, Administration. 648, password is ApAC356#. fax (202) 358–2779, or khenderson@ [FR Doc. 2020–02954 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] The agenda for the meeting includes nasa.gov. BILLING CODE 7510–13–P the following topics: —Astrophysics Division Update SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The —Updates on Specific Astrophysics meeting will be open to the public up NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Missions to the capacity of the room. The meeting SPACE ADMINISTRATION —Reports from the Program Analysis will be available telephonically and by Groups WebEx. Any interested person may call —Reports from Specific Research and [Notice: (20–014)] the USA toll free conference call Analysis Programs number 1–800–779–9966 or toll number The agenda will be posted on the 1–517–645–6359, passcode 5255996, on NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Meeting Astrophysics Advisory Committee web all three days, to participate in this page: https://science.nasa.gov/ meeting by telephone. The WebEx link AGENCY: National Aeronautics and researchers/nac/science-advisory- is https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/; Space Administration. committees/apac. the meeting number is 904 133 236 and ACTION: Notice of meeting. Attendees will be requested to sign a the password is PAC@March91011 (case register and to comply with NASA sensitive) on all three days. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Headquarters security requirements, The agenda for the meeting includes Federal Advisory Committee Act, the including the presentation of a valid the following topics: National Aeronautics and Space picture ID to Security before access to —Planetary Science Division Update Administration (NASA) announces a NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals —Planetary Science Division Research meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory attending this meeting will be required and Analysis Program Update Committee. This Committee reports to to provide a copy of their passport and Attendees will be requested to sign a the Director, Astrophysics Division, visa in addition to providing the register and to comply with NASA Science Mission Directorate, NASA following information no less than 10 Headquarters security requirements, Headquarters. The meeting will be held days prior to the meeting: Full name; including the presentation of a valid for the purpose of soliciting, from the gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; picture ID to Security before access to scientific community and other persons, passport information (number, country, NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals scientific and technical information telephone); visa information (number, attending this meeting will be required relevant to program planning. type, expiration date); employer/ to provide a copy of their passport and DATES: Thursday, March 5, 2020, 9:00 affiliation information (name of visa in addition to providing the a.m.–5:00 p.m.; and Friday, March 6, institution, address, country, following information no less than 10 2020, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. All times telephone); title/position of attendee. To days prior to the meeting: Full name; listed are Eastern Time. expedite admittance, attendees with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8616 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents include information of a proprietary or NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (green card holders) may provide full confidential nature, including technical name and citizenship status no less than information; and information on Proposal Review Panel for 3 working days in advance by personnel. These matters are exempt International Science and Engineering; contacting Ms. KarShelia Henderson via under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Notice of Meeting email at [email protected] or by fax Government in the Sunshine Act. In accordance with the Federal at (202) 358–2779. Dated: February 10, 2020. Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Note: As a precaution, individuals Crystal Robinson, 463, as amended), the National Science returning from China will not allowed into Committee Management Officer. Foundation (NSF) announces the NASA Headquarters until the 14 days of following meeting: National Science Foundation, 2415 observation and self-care period has expired, Name and Committee Code: Proposal and they are determined not to be infectious. Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 Review Panel for Office of International Attendees to the Astrophysics Advisory Science and Engineering—PIRE: High Committee meeting who are returning from Partnerships for International Research Temperature Ceramic Fibers: Polymer- China should only participate virtually and Education (PIRE) through the provided dial-in audio and Based Manufacturing, Nanostructure, WebEx, until the 14 days of observation and Reverse Site Visit Agenda and Performance (10749)—Reverse Site self-care period has expired. Visit. PIRE (PI: Frolov) Date and Time: March 12, 2020 8:00 It is imperative that the meeting be NSF Room E3410 a.m.–5:00 p.m. held on this date to accommodate the Place: National Science Foundation, scheduling priorities of the key Date: March 13, 2020 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, participants. 8:00am Panelists arrive. Coffee/light VA 22314. Type of Meeting: Part-open. Patricia Rausch, refreshments available. Advisory Committee Management Officer, Contact Person: Maija Kukla, PIRE National Aeronautics and Space 8:15am–8:45am Panel Orientation Program Manager, National Science Administration. (CLOSED) Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, [FR Doc. 2020–02955 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] PIRE Rationale and Goals Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone 703/ BILLING CODE 7510–13–P Charge to Panel 292–7250. Purpose of Meeting: NSF reverse site 8:45am PIs Arrive/Introductions visit to conduct a review during year 3 9:00am–11:00am PIRE Project NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION of the five-year award period. To Presentation conduct an in-depth evaluation of Proposal Review Panel for Overview of the Project and Project performance, to assess progress towards International Science and Engineering; Management goals, and to provide recommendations. Notice of Meeting Research Accomplishments and Agenda: See attached. Impacts to Date Reason for Closing: Topics to be In accordance with the Federal discussed and evaluated during closed Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Benefits of International Partnerships portions of the reverse site review will 463, as amended), the National Science Integrating Research and Education include information of a proprietary or Foundation (NSF) announces the Educational Impact on Students confidential nature, including technical following meeting: information; and information on Research Plan and Future Activities to Name and Committee Code: Proposal personnel. These matters are exempt Achieve the Projects Goals Review Panel for Office of International under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Science and Engineering—PIRE: Hybrid 11:00am–11:30am Questions and Government in the Sunshine Act. Materials for Quantum Science and Answers Dated: February 10, 2020. Engineering (HYBRID) (10749)—Reverse 12:00pm–1:30pm Working Lunch— Crystal Robinson, Site Visit. Panel Discussion (CLOSED) Committee Management Officer. Date and Time: March 13, 2020 8:00 1:30pm–2:00pm Student recruitment a.m.–5:00 p.m. National Science Foundation, 2415 Diversity Place: National Science Foundation, Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Communication and Outreach 22314 VA 22314. Evaluation and Assessment Partnerships for International Research Type of Meeting: Part-open. Institutional Support and Education (PIRE) Contact Person: Maija Kukla, PIRE Program Manager, National Science 2:00pm–3:00pm Initial Feedback to Reverse Site Visit Agenda, PIRE (PI: Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, the PIRE Project Team (CLOSED) Singh) Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone 703/ 3:00pm PIRE Project Team is NSF Room E3410 292–7250. dismissed Purpose of Meeting: NSF reverse site 3:00pm–4:30pm Panel Meets to Date: March 12, 2020 visit to conduct a review during year 3 Prepare Reverse Site Visit Report 8:00 a.m. Panelists arrive. Coffee/light of the five-year award period. To (CLOSED) refreshments available. conduct an in-depth evaluation of 4:30pm–4:45pm Panel Meets with NSF 8:15 a.m.–8:45 a.m. Panel Orientation performance, to assess progress towards Staff to Discuss the Report (CLOSED) goals, and to provide recommendations. (CLOSED) PIRE Rationale and Goals Agenda: See attached. Charge to Panel Reason for Closing: Topics to be 5:00pm End of Reverse Site Visit 8:45 a.m. PIs Arrive/Introductions discussed and evaluated during closed [FR Doc. 2020–02959 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 9:00 a.m.–11:00 a.m. PIRE Project portions of the reverse site review will BILLING CODE 7555–01–P Presentation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8617

Overview of the Project and Project Week of March 9, 2020—Tentative STATUS: This meeting will be closed to Management There are no meetings scheduled for the public. Research Accomplishments and the week of March 9, 2020. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Impacts to Date Commissioners, Counsel to the Benefits of International Partnerships Week of March 16, 2020—Tentative Commissioners, the Secretary to the Integrating Research and Education There are no meetings scheduled for Commission, and recording secretaries Educational Impact on Students the week of March 16, 2020. will attend the closed meeting. Certain Research Plan and Future Activities to Week of March 23, 2020—Tentative staff members who have an interest in Achieve the Projects Goals the matters also may be present. 11:00 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Questions and There are no meetings scheduled for In the event that the time, date, or Answers the week of March 23, 2020. location of this meeting changes, an 12:00 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Working CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: announcement of the change, along with Lunch—Panel Discussion For more information or to verify the the new time, date, and/or place of the (CLOSED) status of meetings, contact Denise meeting will be posted on the 1:30 p.m.–2:00 p.m. Student McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email Commission’s website at https:// recruitment at [email protected]. The www.sec.gov. Diversity schedule for Commission meetings is The General Counsel of the Communication and Outreach subject to change on short notice. Commission, or his designee, has Evaluation and Assessment The NRC Commission Meeting certified that, in his opinion, one or Institutional Support Schedule can be found on the internet more of the exemptions set forth in 5 2:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. Initial Feedback to at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) the PIRE Project Team (CLOSED) public-meetings/schedule.html. and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), 3:00 p.m. PIRE Project Team is The NRC provides reasonable (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and dismissed accommodation to individuals with (a)(10), permit consideration of the 3:00 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Panel Meets to disabilities where appropriate. If you scheduled matters at the closed meeting. Prepare Reverse Site Visit Report need a reasonable accommodation to The subject matters of the closed (CLOSED) participate in these public meetings or meeting will consist of the following 4:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m. Panel Meets with need this meeting notice or the topics: NSF Staff to Discuss the Report transcript or other information from the Institution and settlement of (CLOSED) public meetings in another format (e.g., injunctive actions; 5:00 p.m. End of Reverse Site Visit braille, large print), please notify Anne Institution and settlement of [FR Doc. 2020–02958 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Silk, NRC Disability Program Specialist, administrative proceedings; BILLING CODE 7555–01–P at 301–287–0745, by videophone at Litigation matters; 240–428–3217, or by email at Resolution of litigation claims; and [email protected]. Determinations on Other matters relating to enforcement requests for reasonable accommodation proceedings. NUCLEAR REGULATORY will be made on a case-by-case basis. At times, changes in Commission COMMISSION Members of the public may request to priorities require alterations in the receive this information electronically. [NRC–2020–0001] scheduling of meeting agenda items that If you would like to be added to the may consist of adjudicatory, Sunshine Act Meetings distribution, please contact the Nuclear examination, litigation, or regulatory Regulatory Commission, Office of the matters. Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– TIME AND DATE: Weeks of February 17, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 24, March 2, 9, 16, 23, 2020. 415–1969), or by email at [email protected] or Tyesha.Bush@ For further information; please contact PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference nrc.gov. Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, The NRC is holding the meetings of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400. Maryland. under the authority of the Government Dated: February 12, 2020. STATUS: Public. in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Vanessa A. Countryman, Week of February 17, 2020 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day Secretary. There are no meetings scheduled for of February 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–03116 Filed 2–12–20; 4:15 pm] the week of February 17, 2020. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Denise L. McGovern, Week of February 24, 2020—Tentative Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. Tuesday, February 25, 2020 [FR Doc. 2020–03186 Filed 2–12–20; 4:15 pm] DEPARTMENT OF STATE 9 a.m. Overview of Accident Tolerant BILLING CODE 7590–01–P [Public Notice 10989] Fuel Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Luis Betancourt: 301–415– 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information 6146) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Collection: Birth Affidavit This meeting will be webcast live at COMMISSION the Web address—https://www.nrc. ACTION: Notice of request for public Sunshine Act Meetings gov/. comment. Week of March 2, 2020—Tentative TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, SUMMARY: The Department of State is February 19, 2020. seeking Office of Management and Thursday, March 5, 2020 PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Budget (OMB) approval for the 10 a.m. Briefing on NRC International Commission’s headquarters, 100 F information collection described below. Activities (Closed—Ex. 1 & 9) Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. In accordance with the Paperwork

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8618 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Reduction Act of 1995, we are • Minimize the reporting burden on DEPARTMENT OF STATE requesting comments on this collection those who are to respond, including the [Public Notice:11034] from all interested individuals and use of automated collection techniques organizations. The purpose of this or other forms of information Imposition of Nonproliferation notice is to allow 60 days for public technology. Measures Against Foreign Persons, comment preceding submission of the Please note that comments submitted Including a Ban on U.S. Government collection to OMB. in response to this notice are public Procurement DATES: The Department will accept record. Before including any detailed comments from the public up to April AGENCY: Bureau of International personal information, you should be Security and Nonproliferation, State. 14, 2020. aware that your comments as submitted, ACTION: Notice. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments including your personal information, by any of the following methods: will be available for public review. SUMMARY: A determination has been • Web: Persons with access to the made that a number of foreign persons internet may comment on this notice by Abstract of Proposed Collection have engaged in activities that warrant going to regulations.gov. You can search the imposition of measures pursuant to for the document by entering ‘‘Docket Form DS–10, Birth Affidavit, is Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Number: DOS–2019–0044’’ in the search submitted in conjunction with an Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Act field, clicking the ‘‘Comment Now’’ application for a U.S. passport, and is provides for penalties on foreign entities button, and completing the comment used by Passport Services to collect and individuals for the transfer to or form. information for the purpose of • Email: [email protected]. establishing the U.S. nationality of a acquisition from Iran since January 1, • Regular Mail: Send written passport applicant who has not 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from comments to: PPT Forms Officer, U.S. submitted an acceptable United States Syria since January 1, 2005; or the Department of State, Bureau of Consular birth certificate with his/her passport transfer to or acquisition from North Korea since January 1, 2006, of goods, Affairs, Passport Services, Office of application. The Secretary of State is services, or technology controlled under Program Management and Operational authorized to issue U.S. passports under multilateral control lists (Missile Support, 44132 Mercure Cir., P.O. Box 22 U.S.C. 211a et seq, 8 U.S.C. 1104, and Technology Control Regime, Australia 1199, Sterling, VA 20166–1199. Executive Order 11295 (August 5, 1966). Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, You must include the DS form Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 212 and 22 CFR number (if applicable), information Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar 51.2, only U.S. nationals may be issued Arrangement) or otherwise having the collection title, and the OMB control a U.S. passport. Most passport number in any correspondence. potential to make a material applicants show U.S. nationality by contribution to the development of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: providing a birth certificate showing the • weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or Title of Information Collection: applicant was born in the United States. Birth Affidavit. cruise or ballistic missile systems. The • Some applicants, however, may have latter category includes items of the OMB Control Number: 1405–0132. been born in the United States (and • Type of Request: Revision of a same kind as those on multilateral lists subject to its jurisdiction), but were Currently Approved Collection. but falling below the control list • Originating Office: Department of never issued a birth certificate. Form parameters when it is determined that State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DS–10 is a form affidavit for completion such items have the potential of making Passport Services, Office of Program by a witness to the birth of such an a material contribution to WMD or Management and Operational Support applicant; it collects information cruise or ballistic missile systems, items (CA/PPT/S/PMO/CR). relevant to establishing the identity of on U.S. national control lists for WMD/ • Form Number: DS–10. the affiant, and the birth circumstances missile reasons that are not on • Respondents: Individuals. of the passport applicant. If credible, the multilateral lists, and other items with • Estimated Number of Respondents: affidavit may permit the applicant to the potential of making such a material 5,183. show U.S. nationality based on the contribution when added through case- • Estimated Number of Responses: applicant’s birth in the United States, by-case decisions. 5,183. despite never having been issued a U.S. DATES: The imposition of measures • Average Time per Response: 40 birth certificate. We use the information pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North minutes. collected on the person completing the • Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act Total Estimated Burden Time: 3,455 affidavit to confirm that individual’s described in this notice went into effect hours. identity, which is relevant to confirming • February 3, 2020. Frequency: On Occasion. his or her relationship to the applicant • Obligation to Respond: Required to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On and the likelihood that the affiant has general issues: Pam Durham, Office of Obtain a Benefit. actual knowledge of the circumstances We are soliciting public comments to Missile, Biological, and Chemical of the applicant’s birth. permit the Department to: Nonproliferation, Bureau of • Evaluate whether the proposed Methodology International Security and information collection is necessary for Nonproliferation, Department of State, the proper functions of the Department. When needed, a form DS–10, Birth Telephone (202) 647–4930. For U.S. • Evaluate the accuracy of our Affidavit is completed at the time a Government procurement ban issues: estimate of the time and cost burden for person applies for a U.S. passport. Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement this proposed collection, including the Executive, Department of State, validity of the methodology and Florence Fultz, Telephone: (703) 875–4079. assumptions used. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On • Enhance the quality, utility, and Passport Services. February 3, 2020, the U.S. Government clarity of the information to be [FR Doc. 2020–03040 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] applied the measures authorized in collected. BILLING CODE 4710–06–P Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8619

Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109– under the Arms Export Control Act are • Fax: 202–647–0292, Attention: 353) against the following foreign terminated; and Medical Clearance Director. persons identified in the report 4. No new individual licenses shall be You must include the DS form submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of granted for the transfer to these foreign number (if applicable), information the Act: persons of items the export of which is collection title, and the OMB control Baoding Shimaotong Enterprises controlled under the Export number in any correspondence. Services Company Limited (China) and Administration Act of 1979 or the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary Export Administration Regulations, and Direct requests for additional thereof; any existing such licenses are information regarding the collection Dandong Zhensheng Trade Co., Ltd. suspended. listed in this notice, including requests (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or These measures shall be implemented for copies of the proposed collection subsidiary thereof; by the responsible departments and instrument and supporting documents, Gaobeidian Kaituo Precise Instrument agencies of the United States should be sent to Karl Field, Director of Co. Ltd (China) and any successor, sub- Government and will remain in place Medical Clearances at 202–663–1591 or unit, or subsidiary thereof; for two years from the effective date, [email protected]. Luo Dingwen (Chinese individual); except to the extent that the Secretary of Shenzhen Tojoin Communications SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: State may subsequently determine • Title of Information Collection: Technology Co. Ltd (China) and any otherwise. successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary Medical Clearance Update. Choo S. Kang, • OMB Control Number: 1405–0131. thereof; • Shenzhen Xiangu High-Tech Co., Ltd Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Type of Request: Revision of a International Security and Nonproliferation, Currently Approved Collection. (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or • subsidiary thereof; Department of State. Originating Office: Bureau of Wong Myong Son (individual in [FR Doc. 2020–02993 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Medical Services (MED). • Form Number: DS–3057. China); BILLING CODE 4710–25–P • Wuhan Sanjiang Import and Export Respondents: Contractors and Co., Ltd (China) and any successor, sub- eligible family members. • unit, or subsidiary thereof; DEPARTMENT OF STATE Estimated Number of Respondents: Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) 7,205. • (Iraq) and any successor, sub-unit, or [Public Notice 11027] Estimated Number of Responses: subsidiary thereof; 7,205. Kumertau Aviation Production 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information • Average Time per Response: 30 Enterprise (Russia) and any successor, Collection: Medical Clearance Update minutes. sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof; • Total Estimated Burden Time: 3,603 Instrument Building Design Bureau ACTION: Notice of request for public hours. (KBP) Tula (Russia) and any successor, comment. • Frequency: As needed. • Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof; SUMMARY: The Department of State is We are soliciting public comments to Scientific Production Association seeking Office of Management and permit the Department to: Mashinostroyeniya (NPOM) (Russia) Budget (OMB) approval for the • Evaluate whether the proposed and any successor, sub-unit, or information collection described below. information collection is necessary for subsidiary thereof; In accordance with the Paperwork the proper functions of the Department. Eren Carbon Graphite Industrial Reduction Act of 1995, we are • Evaluate the accuracy of our Trading Company, Ltd. (Turkey) and requesting comments on this collection estimate of the time and cost burden for any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary from all interested individuals and this proposed collection, including the thereof. organizations. The purpose of this Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of validity of the methodology and notice is to allow 60 days for public the Act, the following measures are assumptions used. comment preceding submission of the imposed on these persons: • Enhance the quality, utility, and collection to OMB. 1. No department or agency of the clarity of the information to be United States Government may procure DATES: The Department will accept collected. or enter into any contract for the comments from the public up to April • Minimize the reporting burden on procurement of any goods, technology, 14, 2020. those who are to respond, including the or services from these foreign persons, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments use of automated collection techniques except to the extent that the Secretary of by any of the following methods: or other forms of information State otherwise may determine; • Web: Persons with access to the technology. 2. No department or agency of the internet may comment on this notice by Please note that comments submitted United States Government may provide going to www.Regulations.gov. You can in response to this Notice are public any assistance to these foreign persons, search for the document by entering record. Before including any detailed and these persons shall not be eligible ‘‘Docket Number: DOS–2020–0003’’ in personal information, you should be to participate in any assistance program the Search field. Then click the aware that your comments as submitted, of the United States Government, except ‘‘Comment Now’’ button and complete including your personal information, to the extent that the Secretary of State the comment form. will be available for public review. otherwise may determine; • Email: [email protected]. 3. No United States Government sales • Regular Mail: Send written Abstract of Proposed Collection to these foreign persons of any item on comments to: Medical Director, Office of Form DS–3057 is designed to collect the United States Munitions List are Medical Clearances, Bureau of Medical medical information to provide medical permitted, and all sales to these persons Services, 2401 E Street NW, SA–1, providers with current and adequate of any defense articles, defense services, Room L–101, Washington, DC 20522– information to base decisions on or design and construction services 0101. whether contractors and eligible family

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8620 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

members will have sufficient medical Railroad LLC, which operates in Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD resources at a diplomatic mission Florida; (5) Florida Midland Railroad 21204. abroad to maintain the health and Company, Inc., which operates in According to the verified notice, this fitness of the individual and family Florida; and (6) Florida Northern action is categorically excluded from members. Railroad Company, Inc., which operates environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation Methodology in Florida (collectively, the Subsidiary Railroads).3 3i RR and Regional Rail reporting requirements under 49 CFR The respondent will obtain the DS– certify that the proposed transaction 1105.8(b). 3057 form from their human resources does not involve an interchange Board decisions and notices are representative or download the form commitment. available at www.stb.gov. from a Department website. The The verified notice states that: (1) Decided: February 10, 2020. respondent will complete and submit CLNA does not connect with the the form offline. By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Subsidiary Railroads; (2) the acquisition Office of Proceedings. Karl Field, of control of CLNA is not intended to Kenyatta Clay, Director of Medical Clearances. connect with any other railroads in 3i Clearance Clerk . RR’s corporate family; and (3) the [FR Doc. 2020–03037 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2020–03031 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–36–P proposed transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed BILLING CODE 4915–01–P transaction is therefore exempt from the SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2). [Docket No. FD 36383] The earliest this transaction may be [Docket No. FD 36378] consummated is March 1, 2020, the The Mahoning Valley Railway 3i RR Holdings GP LLC, 3i Holdings effective date of the exemption (30 days Company—Acquisition and Partnership L.P., 3i RR LLC, Regional after the verified notice was filed). The Operation—L.W.R., Inc. and OHI-Rail Rail Holdings, LLC, and Regional Rail, verified notice states that the parties Corp. LLC—Control Exemption—Carolina intend to consummate the transaction Coastal Railway, Inc. on or after March 1, 2020. The Mahoning Valley Railway 3i RR Holdings GP LLC, 3i Holdings Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board Company (MVRY), a Class III rail Partnership L.P., 3i RR LLC, and may not use its exemption authority to carrier, has filed a verified notice of Regional Rail Holdings, LLC relieve a rail carrier of its statutory exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to (collectively, 3i RR), and Regional Rail, obligation to protect the interests of its acquire from L.W.R., Inc. (LRW) and LLC (Regional Rail), all noncarriers, employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) OHI-Rail Corp. (OHI-Rail) and operate have filed a verified notice of exemption does not provide for labor protection for approximately 44.7 miles of the under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to acquire transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and following lines of railroad in Carroll, from Douglas S. Golden the stock and 11325 that involve only Class III rail Stark, Columbiana, Jefferson, and control of the Carolina Coastal Railway, carriers. Because this transaction Harrison Counties, Ohio: (1) The Inc. (CLNA), a Class III rail carrier that involves Class III rail carriers only, the Tuscarawas Industrial Track LC 40– operates in North Carolina and South Board, under the statute, may not 2427, from milepost 0.0 at the point of Carolina.1 According to the verified impose labor protective conditions for connection to the Bayard siding in notice, the proposed transaction will this transaction. Bayard to milepost 2.9, located 175 feet allow Regional Rail to acquire direct If the verified notice contains false or west of Grant Street in Minerva, control, and 3i RR to acquire indirect misleading information, the exemption including an operating easement control, of CLNA.2 is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the between mileposts 2.7 and 2.9; (2) the According to the verified notice, 3i RR exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) Piney Fork Industrial Track LC 40–2446, Holdings GP LLC controls 3i Holdings may be filed at any time. The filing of from milepost 40.9 in Minerva to Partnership L.P., which controls 3i RR a petition to revoke will not milepost 43.5 including all track, LLC, which controls Regional Rail automatically stay the effectiveness of facilities, and property comprising Holdings, LLC, which controls Regional the exemption. Petitions to stay must be Minerva Yard; (3) the Horn Track, a Rail. Regional Rail is a holding company filed no later than February 21, 2020 (at short connecting track between the that directly controls the following six least seven days before the exemption Tuscarawas Industrial Track and the Class III rail carriers: (1) East Penn becomes effective). Piney Fork Industrial Track, between Railroad, LLC, which operates in All pleadings, referring to Docket No. Grant Street and Sandy Creek Bridge; (4) Delaware and Pennsylvania; (2) FD 36383, must be filed with the a continuous line of track from the Middletown & New Jersey Railroad, Surface Transportation Board either via Minerva Yard limits at milepost 43.50 in LLC, which operates in New York; (3) e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Minerva to Hopedale Junction at Tyburn Railroad LLC, which operates in Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. milepost 77.50; (5) the Wolf Run Branch Pennsylvania; (4) the Florida Central In addition, a copy of each pleading LC 2449, beginning in Springfield must be served on applicants’ Township (Phillips), Jefferson County, 1 The verified notice states that CLNA operates representative, Louis E. Gitomer, Law at milepost 0.0 and extending in a generally between: (1) Chocowinity, N.C., and general southerly direction to its end at Raleigh, N.C.; (2) Phosphate Junction, N.C., and Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Plymouth, N.C.; (3) Rocky Mount, N.C., and Spring milepost 3.8; and (6) the Tuscarawas Hope, N.C.; (4) Belhaven, N.C., and Pinetown, N.C.; 3 See Regional Rail Holdings, LLC—Acquis. of Secondary Track LC 2427 beginning in (5) Morehead City, N.C., and Radio Island, N.C.; and Control Exemption—Regional Rail, LLC, FD 35945 Minerva at a point approximately 175 (6) Blacksburg, S.C., and Kings Creek, S.C. (STB served Aug. 7, 2015); 3i RR Holdings GP feet west of milepost 2.7 and extending 2 On January 31, 2020, 3i RR and Regional Rail LLC—Control Exemption—Regional Rail Holdings, filed a motion for protective order under 49 CFR LLC, FD 36289 (STB served Apr. 19, 2019); 3i RR in a general westerly direction through 1104.14(b), which will be addressed in a separate Holdings GP LLC—Control Exemption—Fla. Cent. Pekin to its ending in Pekin at milepost decision. R.R., FD 36365 (STB served Nov. 22, 2019). 4.3 (collectively, the Lines). According

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8621

to MVRY, segments (1), (2), and (3) are By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, within the three years of December 1 of owned by LWR and operated by OHI- Office of Proceedings. the current year and must pass a federal Rail, and MVRY will acquire the Eden Besera, tax compliance check and a Federal segments by purchase, while segments Clearance Clerk. Bureau of Investigation criminal (4), (5), and (6) are leased by OHI-Rail [FR Doc. 2020–03006 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] background investigation. Applicants from the State of Ohio, Ohio Rail BILLING CODE 4915–01–P who practice before the IRS must be in Development Commission, and MVRY good standing with the IRS (meaning will acquire the segments by assignment not currently under suspension or of the lease (Leased Lines).1 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY disbarment). Federally-registered lobbyists cannot be members of the MVRY certifies that its projected Internal Revenue Service TAP. The IRS is seeking members or annual revenues as a result of this alternates in the following locations: transaction will not exceed those that Recruitment Notice for the Taxpayer Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier Advocacy Panel DC, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, and will not exceed $5 million AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, annually. MVRY further certifies that Treasury. Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, the acquisition does not involve an Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, ACTION: Notice. interchange commitment. New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Under 49 CFR 1150.42(b), a change in SUMMARY: Notice of Open Season for North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, operator requires that notice be given to Recruitment of IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, shippers. MVRY states that notice of the Panel (TAP) Members. Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, proposed transaction was provided to DATES: February 18, 2020 through March 30, 2020. Wyoming. shippers on the Leased Lines on January TAP members are a diverse group of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 31, 2020. citizens who represent the interests of Billups at 214–413–6523 (not a toll-free taxpayers, from their respective The transaction may be consummated call). on or after March 1, 2020, the effective geographic locations as well as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is date of the exemption (30 days after the taxpayers overall. Members provide hereby given that the Department of the verified notice was filed).2 feedback from a taxpayer’s perspective Treasury and the Internal Revenue on ways to improve IRS customer If the verified notice contains false or Service (IRS) are inviting individuals to service and administration of the federal misleading information, the exemption help improve the nation’s tax agency by tax system, by identifying grassroots is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the applying to be members of the Taxpayer taxpayer issues. Members should have exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) Advocacy Panel (TAP). The mission of good communication skills and be able may be filed at any time. The filing of the TAP is to listen to taxpayers, to speak to taxpayers about TAP and its a petition to revoke will not identify issues that affect taxpayers, and activities, while clearly distinguishing automatically stay the effectiveness of make suggestions for improving IRS between TAP positions and their the exemption. Petitions to stay must be service and customer satisfaction. The personal viewpoints. filed no later than February 21, 2020 (at TAP serves as an advisory body to the Interested applicants should visit the least seven days before the exemption Secretary of the Treasury, the TAP website at www.improveirs.org for becomes effective). Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and more information about TAP. the National Taxpayer Advocate. TAP Applications may be submitted online All pleadings, referring to Docket No. members will participate in at www.usajobs.gov. For questions about FD 36378, must be filed with the subcommittees that channel their TAP membership, call the TAP toll-free Surface Transportation Board either via feedback to the IRS through the Panel’s number, 1–888–912–1227 and select e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E parent committee. prompt 5. Callers who are outside of the Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. The IRS is seeking applicants who U.S. should call 214–413–6523 (not a In addition, a copy of each pleading have an interest in good government, a toll-free call). must be served on MVRY’s personal commitment to volunteer The opening date for submitting representative, Eric M. Hocky, Clark approximately 200 to 300 hours a year, applications is February 18, 2020 and Hill, PLC, Two Commerce Square, 2001 and a desire to help improve IRS the deadline for submitting applications Market St., Suite 2620, Philadelphia, PA customer service. As a federal advisory is March 30, 2020. Interviews will be 19103. committee, TAP is required to have a held. The Department of the Treasury fairly balanced membership in terms of Board decisions and notices are will review the recommended the points of view represented. Thus, available at www.stb.gov. candidates and make final selections. TAP membership represents a cross- New TAP members will serve a three- Decided: February 10, 2020. section of the taxpaying public with at year term starting in December 2020. least one member from each state, the (Note: highly-ranked applicants not 1 The verified notice states that MVRY is a District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in selected as members may be placed on subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (GWI). It addition to one member representing a roster of alternates who will be eligible further states that GWI, LWR, and OHI-Rail have international taxpayers. For application executed an Asset Purchase Agreement (Agreement) to fill future vacancies that may occur for the Lines, and that, prior to consummating the purposes, ‘‘international taxpayers’’ are on the Panel.) acquisition, GWI will assign its rights and defined broadly to include U.S. citizens Questions regarding the selection of obligations under the Agreement to MVRY. As a working, living, or doing business TAP members may be directed to Lisa result, MVRY states, GWI will not acquire the Lines abroad or in a U.S. territory. Potential Billups, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, and is not the applicant here. candidates must be U.S. citizens, not a Internal Revenue Service, 1111 2 Because MVRY supplemented its verified notice on January 31, 2020, that date will be considered current employee of any Bureau of the Constitution Avenue NW, TA:TAP the filing date for the purpose of calculating the Treasury Department or have worked for Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224, or effective date of the exemption. any Bureau of the Treasury Department 214–413–6523 (not a toll-free call).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8622 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Dated: February 11, 2020. business of the Financial Research DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Kevin Brown, Advisory Committee are invited to AFFAIRS Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. submit written statements by any of the [FR Doc. 2020–03043 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] following methods: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit BILLING CODE 4830–01–P • Electronic Statements. Email the Review Board, Notice of Meeting Committee’s Designated Federal Officer at [email protected]. The Department of Veterans Affairs DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY • Paper Statements. Send paper (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that a meeting Open Meeting of the Financial statements in triplicate to the Financial of the Rehabilitation Research and Research Advisory Committee Research Advisory Committee, Attn: Melissa Avstreih, Office of Financial Development Service Scientific Merit AGENCY: Office of Financial Research, Research, Department of the Treasury, Review Board will he held Wednesday, Department of the Treasury. 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, March 4, 2020, by teleconference. The ACTION: Notice of open meeting. Washington, DC 20220. meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 1:30 p.m. EST. The meeting will be The OFR will post statements on the SUMMARY: The Financial Research partially closed to the public from 1:10 Committee’s website, http:// Advisory Committee for the Treasury’s p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST for the discussion, www.financialresearch.gov, including Office of Financial Research (OFR) is examination, and reference to the any business or personal information convening for its fifteenth meeting on research applications and scientific provided, such as names, addresses, Thursday, February 27, 2020, in the review. Discussions will involve email addresses, or telephone numbers. Cash Room, Main Treasury, 1500 reference to staff and consultant The OFR will also make such statements Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC critiques of research proposals. available for public inspection and 20220, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Discussions will deal with scientific copying in the Department of the Time. The meeting will be open to the merit of each proposal and Treasury’s library, Annex Room 1020, public and limited seating will be qualifications of personnel conducting 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, available. the studies, the disclosure of which Washington, DC 20220 on official would constitute a clearly unwarranted DATES: The meeting will be held on business days between the hours of 8:30 invasion of personal privacy. Thursday, February 27, 2020, beginning a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. You Additionally, premature disclosure of at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. may make an appointment to inspect research information could significantly ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in statements by telephoning (202) 622– obstruct implementation of proposed the Cash Room, Main Treasury, 1500 0990. All statements, including agency action regarding the research Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC attachments and other supporting proposals. As provided by subsection 20220. The meeting will be open to the materials, will be part of the public 10(d) of Public Law 92–463, as amended public. A limited number of seats will record and subject to public disclosure. by Public Law 94–409, closing the be available for those interested in You should submit only information committee meeting is in accordance attending the meeting in person, and that you wish to make available with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). those seats would be on a first-come, publicly. The objective of the Board is to first-served basis. Because the meeting Tentative Agenda/Topics for provide for the fair and equitable will be held in a secured facility, Discussion: The Committee provides an selection of the most meritorious members of the public who plan to opportunity for researchers, industry research projects for support by VA attend the meeting MUST contact the leaders, and other qualified individuals research funds and to offer advice for OFR by email at OFR_FRAC@ to offer their advice and research program officials on program ofr.treasury.gov by 5:00 p.m. Eastern recommendations to the OFR, which, priorities and policies. The ultimate Time on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, to among other things, is responsible for objective of the Board is to ensure that inform the OFR of their desire to attend collecting and standardizing data on the VA Rehabilitation Research and the meeting and to receive further financial institutions and their activities Development program promotes instructions about building clearance. and for supporting the work of Financial functional independence and improves FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stability Oversight Council. the quality of life for impaired and Melissa Avstreih, Designated Federal This is the fifteenth meeting of the disabled Veterans. Officer, Office of Financial Research, Financial Research Advisory Board members advise the Director, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Committee. Topics to be discussed Rehabilitation Research and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, among all members include features of Development Service and the Chief DC 20220, (202) 927–8032 (this is not a the financial system where increased Research and Development Officer on toll-free number), or OFR_FRAC@ transparency can further financial the scientific and technical merit, the ofr.treasury.gov. Persons who have stability and strategies that can better mission relevance, and the protection of difficulty hearing or speaking may align private-sector incentives to human and animal subjects of access this number via TTY by calling improve market discipline. For more Rehabilitation Research and the toll-free Federal Relay Service at information on the OFR and the Development proposals. The Board does 800–877–8339. Committee, please visit the OFR website not consider grants, contracts, or other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of at http://www.financialresearch.gov. forms of extramural research. this meeting is provided in accordance Members of the public who wish to with the Federal Advisory Committee Dated: February 6, 2020. attend the open portion of the Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), through Alex Pollock, teleconference session from 1:00 p.m. to implementing regulations at 41 CFR Principal Deputy Director, Research and 1:10 p.m. EST may dial 1 (800) 767– 102–3.150, et seq. Analysis and Data. 1750, participant code 95056. Public Comment: Members of the [FR Doc. 2020–03003 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Written comments from the public public wishing to comment on the BILLING CODE P must be sent to Tiffany Asqueri,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices 8623

Designated Federal Officer, Services Research and Development ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Rehabilitation Research and program. on the collection of information through Development Service, at Department of Board members advise the Director, www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Veterans Affairs (10X2R), 810 Vermont Health Services Research and Information and Regulatory Affairs, Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or Development Service and the Chief Office of Management and Budget, Attn: email [email protected] prior to Research and Development Officer on VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW, the meeting. Those who plan to attend the scientific and technical merit, the Washington, DC 20503 or sent through the open portion of the meeting must mission relevance, and the protection of electronic mail to oira_submission@ contact Ms. Asqueri at least five days human subjects of Health Services omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB before the meeting. For further Research and Development proposals. Control No. 2900–0778’’ in any information, please call Mrs. Asqueri at The Board does not consider grants, correspondence. (202) 443–5757. contracts, or other forms of extramural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: February 11, 2020. research. Danny S. Green, Enterprise Records Jelessa M. Burney, Members of the public who wish to Service (005R1B), Department of attend the open portion of the Federal Advisory Committee Management Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue Officer. teleconference session from 11:45 a.m. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 421– to 12:00 p.m. EST may dial 1 (800) 767– 1354 or email [email protected]. [FR Doc. 2020–02990 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 1750, participant code 66422. Written BILLING CODE 8320–01–P Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– comments from the public must be sent 0778’’ in any correspondence. to Liza Catucci, Designated Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Officer, Health Services Research and Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–21. AFFAIRS Development Service, at Department of Title: Disability Benefits Veterans Affairs (10X2H), 810 Vermont Questionnaire (Group 3). Health Services Research and Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or OMB Control Number: 2900–0778. Development Service Scientific Merit email [email protected] prior to the Type of Review: Reinstatement of a Review Board, Notice of Meeting meeting. Those who plan to attend the currently approved collection. open portion of the meeting must Abstract: VA Form 21–0960 series The Department of Veterans Affairs contact Ms. Catucci at least five days called Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA) gives notice under the Federal before the meeting. For further (Group 3) gathers necessary information Advisory Committee Act that a meeting information, please call Ms. Catucci at from a claimant’s treating physician of the Health Services Research and (202) 443–5797. regarding the results of medical Development Service Scientific Merit Dated: February 11, 2020. examinations. VA will gather medical Review Board will he held March 12, Jelessa M. Burney, information related to the claimant that 2020, by teleconference. The meeting Federal Advisory Committee Management is necessary to adjudicate the claim for will begin at 11:45 a.m. and end at 1:00 Officer. VA disability benefits. The Disability p.m. EST. The meeting will be partially [FR Doc. 2020–02992 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Benefit Questionnaires (Group 3) is closed to the public from 12:00 p.m. to BILLING CODE P comprised of 17 forms. Each DBQ title 1:00 p.m. EST for the discussion, includes the names of the specific examination, and reference to the disability for which it gathers research applications and scientific DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS information. VAF 21–0960C–5, Central review. Discussions will involve AFFAIRS Nervous System and Neuromuscular reference to staff and consultant Diseases Disability Benefits critiques of research proposals. Questionnaire, gathers information [OMB Control No. 2900–0778] Discussions will deal with scientific related to the claimant’s diagnosis of a merit of each proposal and Agency Information Collection Activity central nervous system disease; VAF qualifications of personnel conducting Under OMB Review: Disability Benefits 21–0960C–8, Headaches (Including the studies, the disclosure of which Questionnaire (Group 3) Migraine Headaches) Disability Benefits would constitute a clearly unwarranted Questionnaire, gathers information invasion of personal privacy. AGENCY: Veterans Benefits related to the claimant’s diagnosis of Additionally, premature disclosure of Administration, Department of Veterans headaches; VAF 21–0960C–9, Multiple research information could significantly Affairs Sclerosis (MS) Disability Benefits obstruct implementation of proposed ACTION: Notice. Questionnaire, gathers information agency action regarding the research related to the claimant’s diagnosis of proposals. As provided by subsection SUMMARY: In compliance with the multiple sclerosis; VAF 21–0960G–1, 10(d) of Public Law 92–463, as amended Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of Esophageal Disorders (including GERD, by Public Law 94–409, closing the 1995, this notice announces that the Hiatal Hernia, and Other Esophageal committee meeting is in accordance Veterans Benefits Administration, Disorders) Disability Benefits with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Department of Veterans Affairs, will Questionnaire, gathers information The objective of the Board is to submit the collection of information related to the claimant’s diagnosis of provide for the fair and equitable abstracted below to the Office of any esophageal disorders; VAF 21– selection of the most meritorious Management and Budget (OMB) for 0960G–2, Gall Bladder and Pancreas research projects for support by VA review and comment. The PRA Conditions Disability Benefits research funds and to offer advice for submission describes the nature of the Questionnaire, gathers information research program officials on program information collection and its expected related to the claimant’s diagnosis of priorities and policies. The ultimate cost and burden and it includes the any gall bladder and pancreas objective of the Board is to ensure the actual data collection instrument. condition; VAF 21–0960G–3, Intestinal high quality and mission relevance of DATES: Comments must be submitted on Conditions (Other than Surgical or VA’s legislatively mandated Health or before March 16, 2020. Infectious) Including Irritable Bowel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 8624 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Notices

Syndrome, Crohn’s Disease, Ulcerative Disability Benefits Questionnaire, gathers information related to the Colitis, and Diverticulitis Disability gathers information related to the claimant’s diagnosis of an ear disease. Benefits Questionnaire, gathers claimant’s diagnosis of any surgical An agency may not conduct or information related to the claimant’s intestinal condition; VAF 21–0960H–2, sponsor, and a person is not required to diagnosis of any intestinal conditions Rectum and Anus Conditions (Including respond to a collection of information unrelated to surgery or infection; VAF Hemorrhoids) Disability Benefits unless it displays a currently valid OMB 21–0960G–4, Infectious Intestinal Questionnaire, gathers information control number. The Federal Register Disorders (including Bacterial and related to the claimant’s diagnosis of Notice with a 60-day comment period Parasitic Infections) Disability Benefits any rectum or anus condition, which soliciting comments on this collection Questionnaire, gathers information includes hemorrhoids; VAF 21–0960K– of information was published at 84 FR related to the claimant’s diagnosis of 1, Breast Conditions and Disorders 234 on December 5, 2019, pages 66706 any infectious intestinal condition; VAF Disability Benefits Questionnaire, and 66707. 21–0960G–5, Hepatitis, Cirrhosis and gathers information related to the Affected Public: Individuals or other Liver Conditions Disability claimant’s diagnosis of a breast Benefits Questionnaire, gathers condition or disorder; VAF 21–0960K– Households. information related to the claimant’s 2, Gynecological Conditions Disability Estimated Annual Burden: 77,500 diagnosis of any liver condition; VAF Benefits Questionnaire, gathers hours 21–0960G–6, Peritoneal Adhesions information related to the claimant’s Estimated Average Burden per Disability Benefits Questionnaire, diagnosis of a gynecological condition; Respondent: 19.4 minutes. gathers information related to the VAF 21–0960L–2, Sleep Apnea Frequency of Response: One time. claimant’s diagnosis of peritoneal Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Estimated Number of Respondents: adhesions; VAF 21–0960G–7, Stomach gathers information related to the 250,000. and Duodenum Conditions (Not claimant’s diagnosis of sleep apnea; Including GERD or Esophageal VAF 21–0960M–11, Osteomyelitis By direction of the Secretary. Disorders) Disability Benefits Disability Benefits Questionnaire, Danny S. Green, Questionnaire, gathers information gathers information related to the VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, related to the claimant’s diagnosis of claimant’s diagnosis of osteomyelitis; Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of any stomach or duodenum conditions; and VAF 21–0960N–1, Ear Conditions Veterans Affairs. VAF 21–0960G–8, Intestinal Surgery (Including Vestibular and Infectious) [FR Doc. 2020–02977 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] (Bowel Resection, Colostomy, Ileostomy) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM 14FEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Vol. 85 Friday, No. 31 February 14, 2020

Part II

Department of Energy

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8626 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 (202) 586–7432. Email: Francine.Pinto@ and 13777 10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 hq.doe.gov. C. Economic Analysis D. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility [EERE–2017–BT–STD–0062] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Act RIN 1904–AD38 Table of Contents E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 I. Summary of the Final Rule Energy Conservation Program for F. Review Under the National II. Introduction Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Appliance Standards: Procedures for A. Authority G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Use in New or Revised Energy B. Background on the Process Rule H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Conservation Standards and Test C. General Comments on DOE’s Process I. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Procedures for Consumer Products Rule Proposal Reform Act of 1995 and Commercial/Industrial Equipment III. Discussion of Specific Revisions to the J. Review Under the Treasury and General Process Rule Government Appropriations Act, 1999 AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and A. The Process Rule Will Be Binding on the K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 Renewable Energy (EERE), Department Department of Energy L. Review Under the Treasury and General of Energy. B. The Process Rule Will Apply to Both Government Appropriations Act, 2001 ACTION: Final rule. Consumer Products and Commercial M. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Equipment N. Review Consistent With OMB’s SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of C. The Application of the Process Rule to Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Energy is updating and modernizing ASHRAE Equipment Review aspects of its current rulemaking D. Priority Setting O. Congressional Notification E. Coverage Determinations V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary method for considering new or revised F. Early Stakeholder Input To Determine energy conservation standards for the Need for Rulemaking I. Summary of the Final Rule consumer products and certain types of a. Early Assessment Review The United States Department of industrial equipment. The rule clarifies b. Other Avenues for Early Stakeholder Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or, in context, ‘‘the the process DOE will follow with Input in the Rulemaking Process Department’’) generally uses the respect to its application to these items, G. Decision-Making Process for Issuing a procedures set forth in its ‘‘Procedures, makes the specified rulemaking Determination Not To Issue a New or Amended Energy Conservation Standard Interpretations, and Policies for procedures binding on DOE, and revises Consideration of New or Revised Energy certain provisions to bring consistency or an Amended Test Procedure H. Significant Savings of Energy Threshold Conservation Standards for Consumer with existing statutory requirements. 1. Comments on the Proposed Threshold Products’’ (‘‘Process Rule’’), see 10 CFR Other changes include expanding early Approach part 430, subpart C, appendix A, when opportunities for public input on the A. Comments Supporting the Proposed prescribing energy conservation Appliance Program’s priority setting Threshold Approach standards for both consumer products and rulemaking activities, setting a B. Comments Opposing the Proposed and commercial equipment pursuant to significant energy savings threshold for Threshold Approach the Energy Policy and Conservation Act updating standards, establishing a C. Comments Regarding DOE’s Notice of Data Availability of 1975 (Pub. L. 94–163, codified at 42 window between test procedure final U.S.C. 6291, et seq.), as amended rules and standards proposals, and 2. Response to Comments on the Proposed Thresholds (‘‘EPCA’’). In this document, DOE is delineating procedures for rulemaking A. Response to Comments Supporting the updating and modernizing its Process under the separate direct final rule and Proposed Threshold Approach Rule in the following major topics: (1) negotiated rulemaking authorities. B. Response to Commenters Opposing Requiring that the procedures outlined DATES: The effective date of this rule is DOE’s Proposed Use of Thresholds in the Process Rule are binding on the April 14, 2020. C. Response to Comments on the Notice of agency; (2) formalizing DOE’s past ADDRESSES: The docket for this Data Availability practice of applying the Process Rule to I. Finalization of Test Procedures Prior to rulemaking, which includes Federal Issuance of a Standards NOPR both consumer products and Register notices, public meeting J. Adoption of Industry Standards commercial equipment; (3) clarifying attendee lists and transcripts, K. Direct Final Rules the Process Rule’s application with comments, and other supporting 1. DOE’s Authority Under the DFR regard to equipment covered by documents/materials, is available for Provision ASHRAE Standard 90.1; (4) expanding review at https://www.regulations.gov. 2. Interested Persons Fairly Representative the Process Rule to include test All documents in the docket are listed of Relevant Points of View procedure rulemakings, as well as in the https://www.regulations.gov 3. Adverse Comments energy conservation standards index. However, not all documents L. Negotiated Rulemaking rulemakings; (5) committing to both an M. Other Revisions and Issues listed in the index may be publicly 1. DOE’s Analytical Methodologies, ‘‘early look’’ process and other robust available, such as information that is Generally methods for early stakeholder input; (6) exempt from public disclosure. a. Peer Review defining a significant energy savings The docket web page can be found at: b. Walk-Down threshold that must be met before DOE https://www.regulations.gov/ c. Other will update an energy conservation docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0062. 2. Cumulative Regulatory Burden standard; (7) clarifying DOE’s The docket web page contains 3. Should DOE conduct retrospective commitment to publish a test procedure instructions on how to access all reviews of the energy savings and costs six months before a related standards documents, including public comments, of energy conservation standards? NOPR; (8) articulating DOE’s authority in the docket. 4. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement (CCE)-Related Issues under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 5. Other Issues and EPCA’s direct final rule (‘‘DFR’’) Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review provision, while clarifying that Energy, Office of the General Counsel, A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 negotiated rulemakings and DFRs are GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, and 13563 two separate processes with their own

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8627

sets of requirements; and (9) addressing certain industrial equipment (42 U.S.C. of a final rule on July 15, 1996, titled, other miscellaneous issues. 6311–6317, as codified), added by ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations and At this time DOE is not finalizing its Public Law 95–619, Title IV, § 441(a).3 Policies for Consideration of New or prior proposal concerning the process Under EPCA, DOE’s energy Revised Energy Conservation Standards by which DOE selects among alternative conservation program for covered for Consumer Products.’’ (61 FR 36974) energy efficiency standards under EPCA products consists essentially of four This document was codified at 10 CFR (also known as the ‘‘walk-down’’ parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the part 430, subpart C, appendix A,4 and approach). In a separate but related establishment of Federal energy became known colloquially as the action, DOE is publishing in this issue conservation standards; and (4) ‘‘Process Rule.’’ of the Federal Register, a proposed rule certification and enforcement The Process Rule was designed to to amend this process, such that those procedures. The Federal Trade provide guidance to stakeholders as to standards achieve the ‘‘maximum Commission (‘‘FTC’’) is primarily how DOE would implement its improvement in energy efficiency, or in responsible for labeling, and DOE rulemaking responsibilities under EPCA the case of showerheads, faucets, water implements the remainder of the for the Appliance Program. As part of closets, or urinals, water efficiency, program. Subject to certain criteria and this enhanced process, supplementing which the Secretary determines is conditions, DOE is required to develop the traditional notice-and-comment technologically feasible and test procedures to measure the energy rulemaking process under the economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. efficiency, energy use, or estimated Administrative Procedure Act 5 (APA), 6295(o)(2)(A)). In response to the annual operating cost of each covered DOE has invited and promoted concerns and requests for further product and covered equipment. (42 extensive stakeholder involvement in its explanation related to the economically U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314) energy conservation standards and test rational consumer mentioned in DOE’s Manufacturers of covered products and procedure rulemakings. An important prior proposal, DOE is: (1) Clarifying covered equipment must use the legacy of the Process Rule has been both how impacts are considered in prescribed DOE test procedure as the to educate and learn from the many determining economic justification basis for certifying to DOE that their stakeholders who participate in DOE’s through the seven factors specified in products and equipment comply with appliance rulemaking efforts. Some of EPCA; and (2) explaining that the the applicable energy conservation the successes that have resulted from requirement to determine economic standards adopted under EPCA and the Process Rule include: (1) Greater justification based on comparisons when making any other representations involvement from a wider variety of across the full range of trial standard to the public regarding the energy use or stakeholders in DOE’s appliance levels (TSLs) is consistent with EPCA. efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. rulemaking process; (2) improved This proposal will respond to public 6293(c), 42 U.S.C. 6295(s), 42 U.S.C. technical analyses in support of the comments requesting further clarity on 6314(a), and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) appliance rules due to enhanced input DOE’s initial proposal that in making Similarly, DOE must use these test from stakeholders at an early stage of the determination of economic procedures to determine whether the the rulemaking process; (3) improved justification, DOE would choose one products comply with standards solutions to issues and problems TSL over other feasible TSLs after adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. because of increased stakeholder considering all relevant factors, In addition, pursuant to EPCA, any involvement; and (4) more open including, but not limited to, energy new or amended energy conservation dialogue and improved relationships savings, efficacy, product features, and standard for covered products (and at between stakeholders and also between life-cycle costs. least certain types of equipment) must stakeholders and DOE. DOE continues to contemplate be designed to achieve the maximum While there have been many positive additional topics regarding its process improvement in energy efficiency that is results from the Process Rule, DOE came for undertaking appliance standards technologically feasible and to understand through the intervening rulemakings that may lead to additional economically justified. (42 U.S.C. years that the Appliance Program might rulemaking proceedings to update the 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) benefit from additional improvements to Process Rule. In particular, DOE Furthermore, the new or amended the Process Rule, as reflected in this continues to think about potential standard must result in a significant document. These amendments address: changes to its analytical methodologies conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. (1) Processes that may no longer track and models for assessing the costs and 6295(o)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), and the current legal requirements of EPCA; benefits of appliance standards 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and comply with any (2) processes that do not take into rulemakings. other applicable statutory provisions. account the maturation of DOE’s II. Introduction appliance program to the point that B. Background on the Process Rule modernization is necessary; (3) that in A. Authority DOE conducted a formal effort many instances DOE has not rigorously In overview, the Department of between 1995 and 1996 to improve the followed the Process Rule; (4) the need Energy’s Process Rule was developed to process it follows to develop energy for regulatory reform to reduce the costs guide implementation of the Appliance conservation standards for covered and burdens of rulemaking; and (5) the Standards Program, which is conducted appliance products. This effort involved need to clarify that the Process Rule pursuant to Title III, Part B 1 of the many different stakeholders, including applies to commercial/industrial Energy Policy and Conservation Act manufacturers, energy-efficiency equipment. In evaluating and seeking to (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 94– advocates, trade associations, state 4 163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), agencies, utilities, and other interested This final rule that amends the Process Rule is 2 a legislative rule and therefore subject to the notice for consumer products, and Part C for parties. The result was the publication and comment requirements in the APA. (5 U.S.C. 553) Accordingly, DOE has conducted a ‘‘notice and 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 3 All references to EPCA in this document refer comment’’ proceeding as evidenced by two public U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. to the statute as amended through America’s Water meetings and webinars and a robust period for 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270 written comments. U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. (Oct. 23, 2018). 5 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8628 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

expand the positive impacts of the issues raised at the January 2018 public (14) cumulative regulatory burden; (15) Process Rule, as well as remedying the meeting, DOE published a notice of retrospective reviews of energy savings above-described negative developments, proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) and costs for past standards; (16) this final rule addresses the changed regarding the Process Rule in the certification, compliance, and landscape of the rulemaking process Federal Register on February 13, 2019. enforcement issues, and (17) any other under EPCA, and endeavors to (84 FR 3910) This document responded issues or topics raised by stakeholders. modernize the Process Rule.6 to the RFI comments and proposed However, due to the large number of On December 18, 2017, DOE issued an amendments to the Process Rule in a matters to be addressed and the RFI (December 2017 RFI) to address variety of areas, as discussed significant public interest, DOE potential improvements to the Process subsequently. Comments on the Process determined it necessary to carry over Rule so as to achieve meaningful burden Rule NOPR were due by April 15, 2019. the public meeting to a second day and reduction while continuing to achieve To facilitate discussion of the issues to extend the public comment period, the Department’s statutory obligations in the February 2019 NOPR, DOE held actions which were announced in a in the development of appliance energy a public meeting on March 21, 2019 in Federal Register notice published on conservation standards and test Washington, DC. The meeting was April 2, 2019. (84 FR 12527) procedures. (82 FR 59992) Originally, widely attended, both in person and via Accordingly, a continuation of the the comment period for this RFI was webinar. At the public meeting, NOPR public meeting was held on April scheduled to end on February 16, 2018. numerous topics were discussed, 11, 2019, and the comment period on However, several stakeholders requested including, but not limited to: (1) Making the NOPR was extended to May 6, 2019. a 30-day extension to file comments.7 the Process Rule binding on DOE; (2) Overall, DOE experienced a high level Consequently, DOE extended the making the Process Rule applicable to of engagement from stakeholders and comment period until March 2, 2018. both consumer products and the interested public regarding potential (83 FR 5374 (Feb. 7, 2018)) commercial/industrial equipment; (3) changes to the Process Rule. Such Subsequently, DOE posted a notice on explaining application of the Process comments provided important input to its website on March 2, 2018, which Rule to ASHRAE equipment; (4) DOE’s final rule to modernize and refine stated that the comment period was priority-setting; (5) the process for the Process Rule. The issues raised in further extended until March 5, 2018, coverage determinations; (6) early the NOPR public comments are due to a brief closure of the Federal assessment review for energy addressed subsequently in this government in the Washington, DC area. conservation standard and test document. Through the amendments To explore the issues in the December procedure rulemakings; (7) adopted in this final rule, DOE expects 2017 RFI, DOE convened a public consideration of a significant savings of that its revised Process Rule will meeting on January 9, 2018, which was energy threshold; (8) finalizing test increase transparency, foster public attended by a wide range of procedures 180 days before issuance of engagement, and achieve meaningful stakeholders. The Department also a standards NOPR; (9) adoption of burden reduction, while at the same simultaneously hosted a webinar, which consensus standards as DOE test time continuing to meet the was attended by approximately 150 procedures; (10) direct final rules; (11) Department’s statutory obligations additional persons. negotiated rulemakings; (12) analytical under EPCA. After carefully reviewing the methodologies and peer review; (13) Commenters who provided written numerous public comments submitted potential changes to the ‘‘walk-down comments in response to DOE’s NOPR on the December 2017 RFI and the approach’’ for assessing standard levels; consisted of the following parties:

TABLE OF COMMENTERS

Commenter(s) Affiliation Acronym, identifier

A.O. Smith ...... Manufacturer ...... A.O. Smith. Acuity Brands ...... Manufacturer ...... Acuity. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... AHRI. Alliance to Save Energy ...... Advocacy Group ...... ASE. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ...... Advocacy Group ...... ACEEE. American Efficient ...... Energy Efficiency Consultancy ...... AE. American Gas Association ...... Utility Trade Group ...... AGA. American Lighting Association ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... ALA. American Public Gas Association ...... Utility Trade Group ...... APGA. American Public Power Association ...... Utility Trade Group ...... APPA. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Condi- Technical Society ...... ASHRAE. tioning Engineers. Appliance Standards Awareness Project ...... Advocacy Group ...... ASAP, et al. (Joint Comments filed with ACEEE, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, National Consumer Law Cen- ter, NRDC, and NEEA).

6 In November 2010, DOE also issued a statement procedures. As a result, this final rule supersedes (‘‘AHRI’’), the Association of Home Appliance intended to expedite its rulemaking process. The those portions of the November 2010 statement Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’), and the National statement is currently available at http:// pertaining to the elimination of these early Electrical Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’), to _ www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance rulemaking steps. DOE will revise its statement so John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office standards/pdfs/changes_standards_process.pdf. As as to conform to the amendments contained in this of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, reflected in this final rule, DOE has undertaken a _ thorough review of its Process Rule to determine final rule. Buildings Technologies Program. [EERE–2017 BT– the procedures it will follow in considering new or 7 See letter dated January 29, 2018 from Air- STD–0096, No. 17, p. 1] amended energy conservation standard and test Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8629

TABLE OF COMMENTERS—Continued

Commenter(s) Affiliation Acronym, identifier

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 2 ...... Advocacy Groups ...... ASAP, et al. 2. (Joint Comments filed with ACEEE, the California Energy Commission, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), and NEEA). Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, State, Local Governments ...... AG Joint Commenters. Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York. Bradford White Corporation ...... Manufacturer ...... BWC. Burnham Holdings, Inc. (dba U.S. Boiler Company) ...... Manufacturer ...... BHI. California Energy Commission ...... State ...... CEC. California Investor-Owned Utilities ...... Utilities ...... Cal-IOUs. Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection State ...... CT–DEEP. Consumer Technology Association ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... CTA. Earthjustice ...... Advocacy Group ...... Earthjustice. GE Appliances ...... Manufacturer ...... GEA. George Mason University—Antonin Scalia Law School, Admin- Academic Institution ...... GMU Law. istrative Law Clinic. George Washington University—Regulatory Studies Center ..... Academic Institution ...... GWU. Hearth Products and Barbecue Association ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... HPBA. Ingersoll Rand ...... Manufacturer ...... Ingersoll Rand. Joint Industry Commenters ...... Manufacturer Trade Groups ...... Joint Commenters. Lennox International ...... Manufacturer ...... Lennox. Lutron ...... Manufacturer ...... Lutron. Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... MHARR. Manufactured Housing Institute ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... MHI. New Buildings Institute ...... Advocacy Group ...... NBI. New York University School of Law—Institute for Policy Integ- Academic Institution ...... NYU Law. rity. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers Manufacturer Trade Group ...... NAFEM. National Electrical Manufacturers Association ...... Manufacturer Trade Group ...... NEMA. National Propane Gas Association ...... Utility Trade Group ...... NPGA. Natural Resources Defense Council ...... Advocacy Group ...... NRDC. Northwest Power and Conservation Council ...... Interstate Compact ...... NPCC. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ...... Advocacy Group ...... NEEA. Rheem ...... Manufacturer ...... Rheem. Robert Bosch, LLC ...... Manufacturer ...... Bosch. Samsung ...... Manufacturer ...... Samsung. Sierra Club ...... Advocacy Group ...... Sierra Club. Signify ...... Manufacturer ...... Signify. Southern Co...... Utility ...... Southern. Spire, Inc...... Utility ...... Spire. Steinberg, Linda ...... None ...... Steinberg. United Cool Air ...... Manufacturer ...... UCA. Zero Zone ...... Manufacturer ...... Zero Zone.

C. General Comments on DOE’s Process in proposing an updated Process Rule A number of commenters expressed Rule Proposal was to increase transparency and public general support for DOE’s Process Rule engagement and achieve meaningful proposal. (Zero Zone, No. 102 at p. 1; As explained in further detail in burden reduction, while at the same Rheem, No. 101 at pp. 1–2; APGA, No. section II.B of this final rule, DOE’s time continuing to meet DOE’s statutory 106 at p. 2; BWC, No. 103 at p. 1) More Process Rule was originally designed to obligations under EPCA. (84 FR 3910, specifically, AHRI praised DOE’s provide guidance to stakeholders as to 3911–3912 (Feb. 13, 2019)) Not responsiveness to stakeholder how DOE would implement its surprisingly, DOE’s proposal was met comments and adherence to the rulemaking responsibilities under EPCA with a wide variety of viewpoints. The statutory principles of EPCA that it for the Appliance Standards Program, paragraphs that follow summarize these believes the agency had previously set including extensive opportunities for stakeholder comments,8 followed by aside. (AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public stakeholder involvement in energy DOE’s response. conservation standards and test into its own comments. (GEA, No. 125 at p. 1) procedure proceedings. While many 8 When submitting their own individual NEMA stated that it supports the detailed Joint benefits arose from the 1996 Process comments, a number of organizations also explicitly Comments of AHAM, AHRI, NEMA, and others. Rule, DOE determined that further signaled their endorsement of the comments (NEMA, No. 107 at p. 2) Rheem supported the improvements are possible since prepared by others. Specifically, the ALA stated detailed comments provided by AHRI and the Joint that it supports the detailed comments provided by Commenters. (Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1) NRDC stated circumstances have changed since it the Joint Commenters. (ALA, No. 104 at p. 1) GEA that it signs onto and supports the comments was developed 25 years ago, as reflected expressed support for the comments of the Joint submitted by the Appliance Standards Awareness in the agency’s proposal. DOE’s intent Commenters and incorporated them by reference Project and Earthjustice. (NRDC, No. 131 at p. 3)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8630 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Meeting Transcript at pp. 234) APGA transparency, and predictability in rulemakings, and remove the prospect stated that DOE’s comprehensive and DOE’s promulgation of test procedures of negotiations leading to direct final transparent proposal would improve the and amended rules, a point echoed by rules. Instead, ASE stressed the need for way the Department fulfills its Rheem. (Joint Commenters, No. 112 at p. a program that is transparent, responsibilities under EPCA. (APGA, 1; Rheem, No. 101 at pp. 1–2) predictable, robust, steady, and meets No. 106 at p. 2) BWC suggested that NEMA stated its understanding that its statutory deadlines. (ASE, No. 108 at DOE’s proposed Process Rule changes the Process Rule NOPR did not add any pp. 1–2) have the potential to make the steps to the rulemaking process, and The AGs Joint Comment opposed rulemaking process more objective and added that concerns raised by certain DOE’s Process Rule proposal, arguing improve its execution. (BWC, No. 103 at other stakeholders about meeting that it would unlawfully impede DOE’s p. 1) deadlines can be addressed by energy conservation standards According to GEA, the proposed appropriate project management rulemakings and frustrate the purpose of Process Rule should help alleviate many solutions. (NEMA, No. 107 at p. 2) EPCA. Furthermore, the AGs Joint unnecessary regulatory burdens on both Finally, while supporting the Process Comment stated that DOE’s proposed the regulated community and the DOE. Rule proposal generally, Lennox revisions to the Process Rule are GEA suggested that the following expressed concern that the proposed unnecessary, counterproductive, and portions of the proposed Process Rule Process Rule revisions may have likely to slow or halt energy efficiency are of particular importance: (1) That all weakened certain protections against rulemakings, while exposing DOE to processes in the rule are binding on regulations that are not economically frequent litigation. The AGs then argued DOE; (2) the proposed early assessment justified. The commenter stated that in that in its proposal, DOE has process; and (3) the requirement to the prior version of the Process Rule, misinterpreted factors which EPCA demonstrate significant energy savings presumptions had existed against requires DOE to consider and has before a revised standard is set. (GEA, regulations such as those that: (1) Result favored elements of industry which No. 125 at p. 2) in a negative return on investment for oppose energy efficiency standards. In their overall assessment, the the industry or would significantly These commenters also stated that Administrative Law Clinic at George reduce the value of the industry; (2) DOE’s allocation of resources to an Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law would be the direct cause of plant unnecessary Process Rule NOPR, which School (GM Law) found the proposed closures, significant losses in domestic introduces obstacles and new changes to DOE’s Process Rule to be manufacturer employment, or procedural hurdles to meeting EPCA’s consistent with good regulatory significant losses of capital investment core statutory requirements in a timely principles and all governing law. GM by domestic manufacturers; or (3) would manner, is contrary to the statute Law supported the proposal as sound have a significant adverse impact on the because it puts the agency further regulatory policy by promoting environment or energy security. Lennox behind on its statutorily-mandated stakeholder input, predictability, and argued that these presumptions against deadlines for energy conservation transparency. Furthermore, GM Law regulation have been eliminated in the standards. The AGs Joint Comment also found DOE’s proposal to comport with revised Process Rule, which now only argued that the Process Rule NOPR the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. identifies these as ‘‘considerations.’’ proposes to add unnecessary procedural Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1372–73 (Compare ‘‘Considerations in assessing steps for the establishment of standards (D.C. Cir. 1985), and it characterized economic justification’’ in current and adding administrative barriers other commenters’ suggestions to the Process Rule section 5(e)(3)(i)(A)–(C) which make it more difficult to contrary as unfounded. (GM Law, No. versus proposed Process Rule section complete the rulemaking process. These 105 at pp. 1–2) 7(e)(2)(i)(A)–(C)). Lennox recommended commenters found this to be The Joint Commenters expressed that these presumptions against particularly troubling when DOE is support for DOE’s proposal as regulation should be re-instituted and already behind on so many rulemakings. representing the Department’s renewed protections strengthened for avoiding Consequently, the AGs recommended commitment to sound procedural these obviously deleterious impacts, that DOE withdraw its proposal. (AGs practices that will increase regulatory because doing so provides valuable Joint Comment, No. 111 at pp. 1–2, 4– efficiency, provide all interested transparency and regulatory 5) stakeholders with a common predictability regarding DOE decision- Overall, NRDC’s comments opposed understanding regarding DOE regulatory making. (Lennox, No. 133 at p. 8) DOE’s proposed revisions to the Process process, and ensure appropriate and Other commenters opposed DOE’s Rule as jeopardizing issuance of cost- reasonable investment of resources into proposed Process Rule changes for a effective energy conservation standards. DOE’s important energy efficiency variety of reasons. For example, while NRDC stated that although all initiatives. Overall, the Joint ASE acknowledged that there are some stakeholders agree that the standards Commenters offered support for the goal improvements associated with the process should be transparent, of EPCA’s appliance efficiency program Process Rule NOPR, it stated that most predictable, and flexible, DOE’s (i.e., maximizing improvements in of the proposed changes would likely proposal does not advance those goals. energy savings that are technologically complicate the program, add (NRDC, No. 131 at p. 2) Instead, NRDC feasible and economically justified). redundancy, remove flexibility, and stated that the proposed changes to the However, to succeed, these commenters make it more difficult to comply with Process Rule, when considered together, stated that DOE should act on a statutory deadlines. More specifically, would make it substantially more consistent and predictable procedural ASE expressed concerns that many of difficult for DOE to set standards. The basis and have an analytical structure the proposed provisions of the Process commenter argued that DOE has not that accounts for practical and Rule NOPR could have the effect of shown why additional steps are technological realities, while ensuring making it more difficult for DOE to necessary, how they would improve the regulatory transparency, consistency, follow the law, because they would program, or how the extended process and rationality. The Joint Commenters likely slow the program down, remove could be completed in the timeframe stated their belief that the proposed rule flexibility to respond to stakeholders required by law, particularly in light of will provide greater certainty, and make course corrections during the number of statutorily-mandated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8631

rulemaking deadlines that the requirements. DOE acknowledges the consumer products, there has been little Department has already missed. (NRDC, many comments suggesting that the opposition to DOE’s past application of No. 131 at pp. 3–4) Along the same Department’s Process Rule proposal the Process Rule to covered commercial lines, the Cal-IOUs posed two key makes substantial progress in advancing and industrial equipment. Moreover, questions for DOE to address: (1) How these objectives, gains which the agency DOE has gained significant rulemaking will adopting these [proposed] Process seeks to fully realize through experience under the Appliance Rule provisions help DOE meet EPCA promulgation of this final rule. DOE Standards Program over the past 25 requirements, specifically with respect proposed these changes to address years since the Process Rule was first to rulemaking timelines? (2) How do the identified shortfalls in its adopted. Accordingly, amendments to provisions in the NOPR regarding implementation of the Process Rule in the Process Rule present a natural and industry test procedures help DOE recent years. Consequently, as NEMA logical evolution of DOE’s rulemaking independently assess the pointed out, DOE did not add a host of process. representativeness and enforceability of cumbersome new steps to its DOE likewise does not agree with DOE test procedures? (Cal-IOUs, No. rulemaking process, but it is instead comments that the Department’s Process 124 at p. 2) adopting a narrowly tailored update to Rule proposal would complicate or add NRDC argued that it is premature and the Process Rule. In its only new redundancy to the regulatory process. inappropriate for DOE to move forward procedural step, DOE has added an With the exception of the early with the Process Rule because its early assessment provision to gauge assessment and associated comment proposal was unclear on a number of whether there are sufficiently changed period, the amended Process Rule key issues (e.g., ordering and timeframe circumstances to justify moving forward reflected in this final rule contains the for various rulemaking steps, how DOE with an energy conservation standards same basic elements found in the 1996 would comply with statutory deadlines, or test procedure rulemaking. The early Process Rule. Take again, the example of how test procedures would be assessment process would add, at most, ensuring that a test procedure change is established, details around the one brief additional comment period, finalized prior to issuance of an energy significant energy savings threshold, but in cases where technologies and conservation standards NOPR, which and changes to the ‘‘walk-down’’ costs have not significantly changed was also a provision in the previous methodology), thereby depriving NRDC since the last rulemaking, there is the Process Rule. While some commenters and others an adequate opportunity to potential to obviate the need for might consider that a complication, comment. (NRDC, No. 131 at p. 3) additional rulemaking, thereby allowing others could rightly call that an Similarly, PG&E argued that it is resources to be rapidly channeled to important procedural safeguard. As premature for DOE to move to a final other rulemakings where economically explained in detail elsewhere in this rule, because the Process Rule NOPR justified and significant energy savings document, the procedural changes to poses too many unknowns and has are possible. Otherwise, this final rule the Process Rule adopted in this final sparked too much confusion, a situation largely reflects a faithful rule are intended to address identified which could lead to litigation. Instead, implementation of provisions already in problems, not to complicate or PG&E urged DOE to provide further place, albeit with certain modifications unnecessarily delay DOE’s rulemaking clarification and an additional intended to facilitate operation of the process. Although several commenters opportunity for stakeholders comment Appliance Standards Program and to asserted that the proposed changes to on the clarified proposal in order to address changes in the statute since the allow for meaningful input. (PG&E, DOE’s Process Rule would negatively original Process Rule was promulgated. April 11, 2019 Public Meeting impact the agency’s ability to complete Transcript at p. 227) For the reasons that follow, DOE finds rulemakings and meet statutory Southern California Edison the concerns raised by opponents of the deadlines, DOE disagrees. DOE is encouraged DOE to use its discretion to Process Rule NOPR to be theoretical, cognizant of its legal obligations under see what to improve, but it also stated and unpersuasive. DOE needs a clear EPCA, and the Department anticipates that it does not want DOE to lose its and effective process to facilitate being able to fulfill the requirements of flexibility. (Southern California Edison, execution of its statutory mandate for both the statute and the Process Rule. April 11, 2019 Public Meeting energy conservation standards and test The amended Process Rule has the Transcript at pp. 222–223) ACEEE procedures under EPCA. Many potential to streamline DOE’s stated that it was surprised that the commenters have expressed the need for rulemaking through the use of the early revised Process Rule does not updates to DOE’s Process Rule, a assessment, which can better enable the incorporate regulatory review position the agency has acknowledged Department to satisfy its statutory time requirements from Congress, and it also and with which it agrees. For example, constraints. By meeting its obligations suggested that any general rulemaking in recent years, DOE frequently failed to within the allotted timeframes, DOE timeline envisioned by DOE should meet the Process Rule’s guidance that would not need commenters’ include test procedures as well as ‘‘[f]inal, modified test procedures will recommended flexibility to waive the standards. (ACEEE, March 21, 2019 be issued prior to the NOPR on procedural safeguards of the Process Public Meeting Transcript at p. 143, proposed standards.’’ (See section 7(c) Rule. Thus, commenters’ arguments that 206) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix DOE’s Process Rule proposal would In response, DOE appreciates the A) There is general agreement that the cause the Department to miss statutory many comments expressing a deep preferred regulatory approach in this deadlines and improperly delay interest in its Process Rule proposal, context is to have a final test procedure rulemakings are speculative, at best. through which the Department strives to in place to inform the accompanying In response to the AGs Joint Comment simultaneously increase transparency standard-setting rulemaking, but DOE that DOE has misinterpreted the statute, and predictability, foster public has frequently deviated from the Process the Department disagrees and has participation, reduce unnecessary Rule and conducted test procedure and addressed specific claims to that effect burdens, and conserve scarce public and standards rulemakings concurrently. at appropriate places elsewhere in this private resources, all while ensuring Likewise, while the Process Rule document. Regarding the AGs Joint compliance with applicable statutory applied only to rulemakings for Comment’s assertion that the Process

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8632 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Rule proposal has incorporated anticipates a decreased incidence of that is transparent, predictable, robust, provisions favoring industry, DOE once litigation. And rather than frustrating steady, and which meets its statutory again disagrees. In many ways, DOE has the purpose of EPCA, DOE believes that deadlines, just as ASE suggested. merely updated the Process Rule to this Process Rule final rule advances the III. Discussion of Specific Revisions to better reflect its current practice, and in purpose of EPCA by having better and the Process Rule other areas, it has made modifications to more efficient procedures in place that faithfully meet the requirements of the allow the Department to better target its A. The Process Rule Will Be Binding on statute, to increase public participation, resources to those rulemakings which the Department of Energy and to institute procedural safeguards to are technologically feasible, In the December 2017 RFI, DOE asked the benefit of all stakeholders. economically justified, and save a stakeholders whether DOE should make Regarding assertions of that significant amount of energy. compliance with the Process Rule Regarding the particular point made commenters’ confusion necessitates mandatory. (82 FR 59992, 59997) At the by Lennox about the Process Rule’s further proceedings, DOE notes that January 9, 2018, Process Rule public considerations in assessing economic most commenters on the Process Rule meeting, most stakeholders agreed that justification, DOE notes that in NOPR did not make such claims in the Process Rule should be binding on reorganizing the regulatory text, it did response to the agency’s proposal. the Department, that is, the Department not intend to make substantive changes Instead, such confusion was limited to should be held accountable for in this area regarding the analysis of a small number of commenters who complying with its own procedures so economic justification criteria, nor did it generally opposed DOE’s proposal. DOE that the public will have confidence in discuss such action in the NOPR. DOE published a Process Rule RFI, convened the transparency and fairness of DOE’s an interactive public meeting on the maintained the substance of those criteria, but it deleted a clear statement regulatory process. Others RFI, published a Process Rule NOPR, recommended that any amended convened two interactive public of the consequences that would flow from situations implicating those Process Rule retain flexibility for DOE meetings on the NOPR, published a so that the agency is not restricted in its Notice of Data Availability (‘‘NODA’’) criteria (i.e., deleting language stating ‘‘that standard level will be presumed ability to respond to the circumstances on the topic of its significant energy of each rulemaking and to avoid savings calculations, and accepted not to be economically justified unless the Department determines that increased litigation risk. public comments through all of those Similarly, in response to the NOPR, mechanisms. In total, the Department specifically identified expected benefits of the standard would outweigh this and most commenters support DOE’s has hosted three public meetings and inclusion of a provision providing for solicited public comments for 197 days any other expected adverse effects’’). Although DOE’s streamlined version of the mandatory nature of the Process (i.e., longer than 6 months) on potential Rule to the Department to hold DOE changes to the Process Rule. DOE the regulatory text was not proposing to change how those criteria are applied, accountable to its own procedures, believes it articulated clearly the thereby increasing public confidence in changes to the Process Rule that it was the Department understands that the absence of the deleted language could the fairness of the regulatory process. proposing and finds that there has been Those commenters are as follows: thorough discussion and opportunity for be misinterpreted as indicating a substantive change in approach. AHAM March 21, 2019 Public Meeting comment on virtually all the subjects Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 68–69; AHRI, mentioned by NRDC and PG&E.9 In fact, Accordingly, DOE is reinserting the regulatory text language raised by March 21, 2019 Public Meeting the lengthy and detailed comments on Transcript, No. 87 at p.10; AGA, March all of the topics raised in the proposed Lennox in its comments. In response to ACEEE’s suggestion 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. Process Rule submitted by the very that DOE incorporate regulatory review 87, at pp. 18–19; AGA, No. 114, at pp. parties claiming confusion belie that requirements from Congress in its 7–8; ALA, No. 104 at p. 2; APGA, March assertion. DOE recognizes that it may proposal, the agency believes that a 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. never be possible to explain its detailed and comprehensive recitation 87, at p. 14; APGA, No. 106 at p. 3; proposals to the complete satisfaction of of applicable statutory requirements in ASHRAE, No. 109 at p. 3; BWC, No. 103 every stakeholder, but given its the Process Rule is unnecessary. Those at p. 1; CTA, No. 136 at p. 2; Danfoss, numerous publications and statutory requirements are a given, so March 21, 2019 Public Meeting opportunities for public engagement on instead, DOE endeavored to focus on the Transcript, No. 87, at p. 40; GEA, No. the Process Rule, as well as the detailed procedures it will follow to meet those 125 at p. 2; GM Law, No. 105 at pp. 2, nature of the comments received, the requirements. Regarding ACEEE’s 4; GWU, No. 132 at p. 3; Joint agency has concluded that stakeholders suggestion that any general rulemaking Commenters, No. 112 at p. 2; Lennox, were afforded an adequate opportunity timeline envisioned by DOE should No. 133, at p. 2; Lutron, No. 137 at p. to comment on the topics contained in include test procedures as well as 2; NPCC, No. 94, at p. 4; NPGA, No. 110 this final rule. standards, DOE believes that the at pp. 1–2; Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1; Regarding comments that DOE’s regulatory text of the Process Rule Southern Company, March 21, 2019 amended Process Rule would invite adequately addresses the topic of test Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. increased litigation, the Department procedures, and DOE has already made 70; Southern Company, April 11, 2019 believes the opposite to be true. By clear the key timing provision that any Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at having a transparent process with test procedure rulemaking is to be p.233; Spire, March 21, 2019 Public increased opportunity for public input completed prior to publication of a Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 37; that operates on a predictable schedule standards NOPR. Consequently, DOE Spire, No. 139, at p. 2; BHI, No. 135, at (e.g., completion of test procedure prior has determined that no further p. 1; and Westinghouse, March 21, 2019 to proposing standards), DOE clarifications are required on these Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 72–75; CTA, No. 136 at p. 2) 9 topics. The one exception involved the proposed Specifically, APGA added that if DOE changes to the ‘‘walk-down’’ methodology. DOE In sum, DOE has determined that the agrees that that topic will require further study changes to the Process Rule adopted in merely makes changes to the before making a decision to move forward. this final rule will provide for a program ‘‘voluntary’’ guidelines, there is no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8633

change to the status quo in which there take away important flexibility that Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at pp. 232– are no consequences for not following benefits all stakeholders and increases 233) In CEC’s opinion, making the the Process Rule. (APGA, No. 106 at p. the potential for litigation. ASAP stated Process Rule binding will prevent DOE 3) that at a minimum, it should include a from responding quickly and effectively Conversely, also in response to the ‘‘good cause’’ exception as was included when it is in the interest of all NOPR, other stakeholders oppose in DOE’s draft NOPR provided to OIRA. stakeholders to do so and may make requiring that the Process Rule be However, any ‘‘good cause exception’’ DOE more vulnerable to litigation mandatory to the Department for three should not be restricted but should challenges. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 2) reasons. First, commenters state that provide DOE with the necessary Pointing to other instances where DOE such a provision would deprive the flexibility to address specific situations needed to make modifications to its Department of needed flexibility during that arise. (ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp. processes, the CEC noted that these the rulemaking process; second, 1–3) Other commenters, including changes brought about more effective commenters state that such a provision ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 3) and means for gathering stakeholder input— could lead to additional litigation, CT–DEEP (CT–DEEP, No. 93, at p. 2) e.g. shifting from using an ANOPR to thereby causing delay in the rulemaking agreed that a ‘‘good cause exception’’ other vehicles such as RFIs, Framework process, and third, commenters state should be included in the Process Rule Documents, and NODAs. (CEC, No. 121, that there may be cases where if it is a mandatory requirement. at p. 2) The CEC emphasized that DOE adherence to the Process Rule creates a Earthjustice suggested that if the Process needs this flexibility to fit the conflict with the statute. Rule is going to be binding, there should appropriate process to the appliance For those commenters concerned that be a procedure to deviate from the standard or test procedure at issue. the Department would lose flexibility Process Rule. (Earthjustice, March 21, (CEC, No. 121, at p. 2) By making the during the rulemaking process, some 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87, Process Rule binding, the CEC asserted recommended a ‘‘limited or good cause at p. 76) Westinghouse took the position that DOE would be inviting stakeholders exception’’ that the Department could that the Process Rule should be who are opposed to regulations to sue use in certain circumstances. For mandatory but also that flexibility DOE for procedural violations that instance, A.O. Smith stated the a should be provided. (Westinghouse, would not have changed the outcome of ‘‘limited exception’’ clause would grant March 21, 2019 Public Meeting DOE’s determination related to a given the Department limited authority to Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 72–75) efficiency standard—which will in turn deviate from its Process Rule under Several additional stakeholders lead to delays in implementing the certain criteria such as: Consensus voiced their concern that mandatory standard, lost energy savings to agreements; negotiated rulemakings; test application of the Process Rule to the consumers, and regulatory uncertainty procedure rulemakings addressing Department will generate additional for manufacturers, distributors, and clarifications necessary to provide litigation, which could create retailers. (CEC, No. 121, at pp. 2–3) To clarity to the market, reduce uncertainty in the market. (A.O. Smith, the contrary, the Joint Commenters uncertainty, and provide a level playing No. 127, at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 123, at p. disagree that binding DOE to the Process field; and rulemakings completed to fix 3; ASE, No. 108 at pp. 2;; ASAP, et al., Rule will result in excessive litigation errors. A.O. Smith recommended that No. 126 at pp. 1–2; AGs Joint Comment, disrupting the goals of certainty and such criteria be proposed in a No. 111 at pp. 5–6; CEC, April 11, 2019 expediency. Most litigation stems from supplemental notice of proposed Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at substantive defects caused by rulemaking. Furthermore, A.O. Smith pp. 232–233; CEC, No. 121, at pp. 2–3; shortcutting the process and a binding explained that this limited exception Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at pp. 3–4; process will reduce procedural litigation would not be meant to circumvent the Earthjustice, No. 134, at p. 2) and result in better rules. (Joint integrity of the rulemaking process but Earthjustice believes that a mandatory Commenters, No. 112 at p. 2) AHRI also recognize circumstances where process Process Rule gives new leverage for disagrees that a mandatory Process Rule deviations are necessary and expediting parties seeking judicial review. would result in more litigation. (AHRI, the process is reasonable. (A.O. Smith, (Earthjustice, No. 134, at p. 2) Further, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting No. 127, at p. 2) Energy Solutions added that DOE would Transcript, No. 87 at p. 10) Another commenter, ASE opposed lose its discretion with mandatory making the Process Rule binding, binding requirements and wouldn’t be Next, ASAP, et al., the AG’s Joint because it would take away DOE’s able to address ‘‘one-off’’ issues. (Energy Comment, and Cal-IOUs raised the issue flexibility to respond to unforeseen Solutions, March 21, 2019 Public as to how to reconcile a mandatory developments during the rulemaking Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 72) Process Rule and DOE’s adherence to process and leave the Department More specifically, the AGs Joint the statutory requirements in EPCA. vulnerable to lawsuits filed by Comment argued that such litigation ASAP, et al. states that DOE compliance stakeholders opposed to standards would not only delay completion of the with the statute must take precedence based upon real or perceived departures rulemaking process, but simultaneously. over the Department’s self-imposed from procedure. ASE seemed to favor It would frustrate DOE’s stated restrictions in the Process Rule. (ASAP, adoption of a ‘‘good cause’’ exception to objectives of increasing predictability et al., No. 126 at pp. 1–3) ASAP does the Process Rule to provide the agency and consistency, and likely deprive not believe DOE is clear on how it with some flexibility. ASE also consumers and businesses the full and would resolve a conflict between the suggested that DOE consider timely benefits of energy and cost Process Rule and the statute. (ASAP, documenting any deviations from the savings associated with standards. (AGs March 21, 2019 Public Meeting Process Rule for public comment Joint Comment, No. 111 at pp. 5–6) Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 53, 62–63) throughout the rulemaking process, Another commenter, the CEC states Moreover, the AGs Joint Comment particularly but not limited to when a that if DOE continues to move forward stated strong opposition to making the statutory deadline was set to be missed. with a binding process rule, it should Process Rule binding, as opposed to (ASE, No. 108 at pp. 2–3) include provisions that allow for guidance, because that would preclude Furthermore, ASAP, et al. states that substantial compliance with the Process DOE from having the procedural making the Process Rule binding would Rule. (CEC, April 11, 2019 Public flexibility to take a different course of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8634 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

action when necessary to meet statutory provisions are binding on the agency. 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment as to requirements, and a rigid application of DOE believes that this approach will whether the agency should amend the the Process Rule would jeopardize promote confidence, consistency, Process Rule to clarify that it is equally DOE’s ability to meet its legal clarity, and transparency in the applicable to the consideration of obligations under EPCA. The AGs Joint rulemaking process that some feel has standards for commercial equipment. Comment opposed what it categorized been lacking in the past. Moreover, it (82 FR 59992, 59996) At the January 9, as unnecessary and time-consuming has been the rare instance, if at all, 2018, Process Rule public meeting, DOE procedural steps (e.g., coverage where all parties in a rulemaking also asked stakeholders how the agency determination or test procedure restart proceeding agreed that deviating from should treat equipment covered by the requirements) that could further the Process Rule was advisable. Rather, American National Standards Institute jeopardize DOE meeting its EPCA it is DOE’s experience that deviations (‘‘ANSI’’)/American Society of Heating, mandates. The AGs Joint Comment from normal process has resulted in one Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning argued that because DOE’s proposal or more parties raising issues that have Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’)/Illuminating failed to address how the Process Rule slowed the regulatory process. Even on Engineering Society of North America could be made mandatory while rulemaking matters DOE thought to be (‘‘IESNA’’) Standard 90.1 (‘‘ASHRAE meeting its statutory duties, it has failed relatively simple and straight-forward, Standard 90.1’’), if DOE were to amend to provide sufficient detail to allow for the same parties suggesting in comment the Process Rule to include commercial meaningful and informed comment, as that the Process Rule should provide for equipment. DOE pointed out that EPCA required under the APA. (AGs Joint flexibility have sought more procedural provides a separate set of procedural Comment, No. 111 at p. 6) The AGs steps and raised issues of DOE requirements and timelines for ASHRAE Joint Comment stated that if DOE does proceeding too quickly and without equipment that are different than those proceed to make the Process Rule appropriate stakeholder interaction. in the Process Rule. (DOE, January 9, binding, it should include a good cause Making the Process Rule binding on 2018 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. waiver, particularly for use in cases DOE should result in no party arguing 183–184) where the Process Rule requirements that the process used by DOE was unfair Commenters agree with the principle would conflict with the text or purposes or lacking. Furthermore, DOE believes that the Process Rule procedures should of EPCA. (AGs Joint Comment, No. 111 that the argument that a binding Process explicitly apply to both new and at p. 7) Rule will generate increased litigation is amended energy conservation standards The Cal-IOUs argued that the 1996 highly speculative and, accordingly, is for both covered consumer products and Process Rule had intended to be used as not an appropriate basis to reject the industrial and commercial covered guidance and urged that DOE be mandatory application of the amended equipment, but with modified mindful of this approach with respect to Process Rule. Clearly, it is in the best provisions specific to ASHRAE any new provisions or the interests of all stakeholders to work equipment. (Acuity, No. 95, at p. 2; ‘‘modernization’’ of the Process Rule, together during the rulemaking process AHRI, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting particularly with respect to any conflict so that DOE efforts to establish Transcript, No. 87, at p. 87; ASE, No. between it and EPCA. (Cal-IOUs, No. economically justified and 108 at p. 3; ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 1; 124, at p. 3) Another commenter, PG&E technologically feasible energy AGA, No. 114, at pp. 8–9; ASAP, March stated that making the Process Rule conservation standards and promote 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. mandatory will impose added burdens meaningful burden reduction in the 87, at p. 88; ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp on DOE and stakeholders which could context of standards setting, 1, 3; BWC, No. 103 at p. 1–2; CEC, No. prevent DOE from meeting its statutory compliance, and testing requirements 121, at p. 3; Edison Electric Institute, obligations. PG&E urged DOE to use its can be achieved. And lastly, the March 21, 2019 Public Meeting resources to first catch-up on amended Process Rule has been drafted Transcript, No. 87, at p. 87; GM Law, rulemakings that are past due and to closely follow and implement EPCA. No. 105 at p. 3; GWU, No. 132 at p. 3; finalize pre-publication or consensus As such, following the Process Rule will Joint Commenters, No. 112 at p. 2; term sheets before introducing new mean that DOE will conduct its Lennox, No. 133, at p. 2; NAFEM, No. procedures that will limit agency rulemaking activities to comply with all 122, at p. 2; NPCC, No. 94 at p. 4; discretion and create more regulatory EPCA requirements. NPGA, No. 110 at p.1; Cal-IOUs, No. burden. (PG&E, March 21, 2019 Public After years of debate as to the nature 124, at p. 4; Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1; Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 21– of DOE’s compliance with the current Spire, No. 139, at p. 24; BHI, No. 135, 22; PG&E, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting Process Rule, DOE believes it at p. 2) Only one commenter, the Cal- Transcript, No. 92, at p. 228) appropriate to increase public IOUs, supported expanding the scope of DOE has carefully considered all the confidence in the fairness and the Process Rule to include covered comments on this matter and has predictability of the rulemaking process. commercial and industrial equipment as determined that requiring mandatory Accordingly, DOE is adopting language long as the Process Rule is not binding. compliance on the part of DOE with its in this final rule making the application (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. 4) This own Process Rule would clearly of the Process Rule mandatory to the commenter did not explain the rationale promote a rulemaking environment that Department. for its position. is both predictable and consistent (i.e., DOE agrees with commenters that a one where all stakeholders know what B. The Process Rule Will Apply to Both modernized Process Rule should apply to expect during the rulemaking Consumer Products and Commercial to both consumer products and process). In the past, DOE has been Equipment industrial and commercial equipment, criticized by stakeholders for not By its terms (and specifically by its and that the Process Rule must contain following its Process Rule, and instead title), the 1996 Process Rule applies language that clarifies this coverage. exercising its discretion on a case-by- only to consumer products. However, in Historically, DOE has applied the case basis on procedural matters during practice, DOE has routinely followed Process Rule to both consumer and the rulemaking process. Today, DOE is the procedures set forth in the Process industrial and commercial rulemakings. affirming language in the amended Rule when establishing standards for The final rule makes clear that this Process Rule to make clear that its commercial equipment. In its December practice will continue. To promote a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8635

consistent process that reduces the more-stringent standard would result in outcome which the commenter regulatory burden of the rulemaking significant additional conservation of suggested would achieve the clear process, DOE will apply the same energy and is technologically feasible statutory intent of EPCA and would procedures in the Process Rule to both and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. result in a less costly and burdensome consumer products and industrial and 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)); 84 FR 3910, rulemaking process. (ASHRAE, April commercial equipment rulemakings, 3914 (Feb. 13, 2019) 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. except as discussed in section III.C for The Process Rule NOPR examined 92 at pp. 224, 226) The CEC also ASHRAE equipment. The Joint numerous topics, including the need to supported the inclusion of a means to Commenters clearly articulated the address ASHRAE equipment explicitly facilitate the adoption of ASHRAE 90.1 rationale for such a decision as follows, in the Process Rule, the level of levels for commercial equipment. (CEC, there are no cogent reasons for treating deference to be accorded to ASHRAE No. 121 at p. 3) Similarly, the AGA the rulemaking process for commercial (and the openness of that process), the expressed support for the Process Rule equipment differently than for ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ NOPR’s proposal that in the event that consumer products. The benefits of a standard for establishing standard levels DOE conducts a rulemaking to establish well-defined, consistent process apply more stringent than those adopted in more-stringent standards for covered regardless of product or equipment type. ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and DOE’s ASHRAE equipment, DOE would follow ASHRAE equipment holds unique interpretation of EPCA’s ASHRAE the procedures established in the status in EPCA and therefore must be trigger provisions (and related Process Rule, while still complying with considered separately. (Joint implementation). In response to the EPCA’s ASHRAE-specific deadlines. Commenters, No. 112 at p. 2) NOPR, several stakeholders expressed AGA also agreed with the Department’s Accordingly, DOE has concluded that their views as to how DOE should proposal in the NOPR to add a section formally applying the Process Rule to handle ASHRAE equipment, including into the Process Rule to clearly define commercial and industrial equipment concerns regarding each of the topics the process used to adopt ASHRAE 90.1 will enhance the consideration of such raised in the NOPR. Each of these equipment standards and also define a equipment by ensuring that there is matters will be addressed in the mechanism when a more-stringent proper time and information before the paragraphs that follow, including public equipment efficiency standard over the agency prior to promulgation of new or comments received and DOE’s ASHRAE level can be pursued. (AGA, amended regulations. responses. No. 114 at p. 10) The Joint Commenters C. The Application of the Process Rule The Need for ASHRAE Equipment To also supported the Department’s to ASHRAE Equipment Be Addressed Separately proposed approach to rulemakings for ASHRAE equipment, agreeing that the In the February 13, 2019 Process Rule In the Process Rule NOPR, DOE stated Process Rule should apply to NOPR, DOE explained its proposed that it tentatively determined that the commercial equipment covered by approach as to how the agency should amended Process Rule will contain a ASHRAE 90.1 standards only in the case treat ASHRAE equipment subject to new section that clearly delineates the where standards rulemakings for ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy procedure DOE will follow for ASHRAE equipment are prompted by a Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise evaluating amendments to ASHRAE six-year review or where DOE proposes Residential Buildings, in the event DOE Standard 90.1 and conducting related standard levels more stringent than were to amend the Process Rule so as to rulemakings. DOE noted that it would those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (Joint formally apply to commercial first reiterate its statutory obligations for Commenters, No. 112 at p. 2) equipment. (84 FR 3910, 3914–3916) As ASHRAE equipment in this new section ASHRAE expressed support for DOE’s statutory background, EPCA provides, of the Process Rule. In the event that inclusion of a new section in its in relevant part, that ASHRAE DOE determines that it is appropriate to proposed Process Rule that clearly equipment is subject to unique statutory conduct a rulemaking seeking to adopt delineates the procedure DOE will requirements and its own set of standards for ASHRAE equipment more follow for evaluating amendments to timelines. More specifically, pursuant to stringent than those in ASHRAE ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and conducting EPCA’s statutory scheme for covered Standard 90.1, all of the Process Rule related rulemakings with respect to ASHRAE equipment, DOE is required to requirements would apply. However, for equipment covered by ASHRAE consider amending the existing Federal the typical situation wherein DOE is Standard 90.1. ASHRAE lauded DOE’s energy conservation standards for adopting the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 decision to follow EPCA’s mandate and certain enumerated types of commercial level(s), DOE would follow the EPCA adopt the revised ASHRAE levels, and industrial equipment (generally, statutory requirements rather than the except in very limited circumstances. It commercial water heaters, commercial Process Rule requirements. (84 FR 3910, also agreed with DOE’s assessment that packaged boilers, commercial air- 3915 (Feb. 13, 2019)) adopting the amended ASHRAE conditioning and heating equipment, Many commenters supported (or did Standard 90.1 levels as its regular and packaged terminal air conditioners not object to) DOE’s proposal to have practice will result in reduced and heat pumps) when ASHRAE the Process Rule separately and regulatory burden on stakeholders and Standard 90.1 is amended with respect specifically address ASHRAE will promote consistency and simplicity to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. equipment. (AHRI, March 21, 2019 when DOE is addressing ASHRAE 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. equipment. (ASHRAE, No. 109 at pp. 2– equipment, EPCA directs that if 10, 95; Spire, March 21, 2019 Public 3) ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 100– However, several parties sought DOE must adopt amended energy 101; Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1; NRDC, No. clarification as to how DOE’s proposal conservation standards at the new 131 at pp. 14–15; Spire, No. 139 at p. would alter the agency’s historical efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 5; BHI, No. 135 at p. 2) For example, treatment of ASHRAE equipment and 90.1 as the uniform national standard ASHRAE expressed support for the expressed concern that the Department for such equipment, unless DOE clarification in DOE’s proposal would deviate from the relevant determines by rule, and supported by regarding the extent to which it would statutory requirements. For example, clear and convincing evidence, that a rely on ASHRAE Standard 90.1, an Danfoss argued that the Process Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8636 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

should not apply to ASHRAE rulemakings), and sections 13 to 17 (on related rulemaking. (AGs Joint equipment when DOE is adopting the engineering analyses, assessment of Comment, No. 111 at p. 12) standard levels in Standard 90.1 impacts on manufacturers and In contrast, the Joint Commenters because the ASHRAE process already consumers, considering non-regulatory expressed strong support for the has requirements for fairness and approaches, and cross-cutting analytical expectation that DOE would adopt transparency, but if DOE should decide assumptions, all again subject to the revised ASHRAE levels except in ‘‘very that a more-stringent standard is ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ limited circumstances,’’ because they warranted, then the Process Rule should standard). Because of the potentially argued that historically, when DOE has apply. (Danfoss, March 21, 2019 Public broader applicability of other Process exceeded the ASHRAE proposed levels, Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 40) Rule provisions beyond the ASHRAE- it has imposed disproportionate harm Lennox stated that the Process Rule specific section 9, the Process Rule on industry segments in pursuit of should apply to commercial equipment should include a clause whereby, or inconsequential energy efficiency except when it would conflict with otherwise clarify, the Process Rule benefits. (Joint Commenters, No. 112 at special statutory provisions specific to applies to ASHRAE equipment: (1) p. 2) commercial equipment rulemaking, Except when doing so would conflict Ingersoll Rand stated that it supports such as provisions for adopting with the ASHRAE-specific provisions alignment of overlapping product ASHRAE 90.1 industry standards. and (2) in the two limited circumstances energy efficiency requirements between Although it found section 2 of the mentioned above when DOE might go ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and DOE proposed Process Rule to be generally beyond ASHRAE-specified levels for appliance standards, in terms of both consistent with this principle, Lennox ASHRAE products (albeit subject to the stringency and effective dates. However, nonetheless urged DOE to clarify this ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ Ingersoll Rand acknowledged that EPCA point. For commercial equipment standard). (Lennox, No. 133 at p. 3) grants DOE some limited discretion covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Bosch stated that the DOE proposal to when considering amending appliance Lennox noted that DOE must adopt the adopt the revised ASHRAE levels for standards under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). industry standard unless ‘‘clear and standards as its regular practice, except Consequently, the commenter agreed convincing evidence’’ dictates otherwise in limited circumstances, represents a with the Department’s proposal that if (i.e., by supporting more-stringent significant change to the current standards established under ASHRAE standards). If DOE simply adopts rulemaking process, as DOE would be Standard 90.1 are adopted by DOE, the ASHRAE 90.1 standards, Lennox stated deferring a considerable portion of its rulemaking does not need to follow the that the additional provisions in the rulemaking work to a non-governmental Process Rule, but if the Department Process Rule are not necessary. organization. Instead, Bosch countered analyzes whether there is clear and However, Lennox suggested that that DOE has a clear and statutory convincing evidence to justify more- additional Process Rule processes and obligation to conduct a full and stringent standards, such rulemaking transparency enhancements may apply sufficient evaluation of proposed would need to abide by the Process to commercial equipment covered by ASHRAE amendments and not to Rule. However, Ingersoll Rand disagreed ASHRAE 90.1 standards where: (1) simply defer to a separate industry with the Department’s interpretation Energy conservation standard standards organization. The commenter that ASHRAE not acting to amend the rulemakings for such ASHRAE products argued that instead of reducing energy efficiency requirements for DOE- are prompted by a six-year review or (2) regulatory burden, DOE’s proposal to covered products is tantamount to a DOE proposes standard levels over-and- defer to ASHRAE would create new decision that the existing standards above those in ASHRAE 90.1, albeit in burdens for manufacturers by requiring remain in place. Ingersoll Rand stated either case subject to the ‘‘clear and companies to devote significant time that in this scenario, DOE has proposed convincing evidence’’ standard. Again, and resources to engaging in the to hold revisions to appliance standards Lennox stated that although this ASHRAE process. Also, Bosch stated under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) to the structure is consistent with section 9 of that the proposal does not adequately same ‘‘very high bar’’ as if ASHRAE had the proposed Process Rule and DOE address whether the levels set through revised the energy efficiency standards should clarify this in the final rule the ASHRAE standards-setting process for these products in Standard 90.1. The preamble. For instance, Lennox stated are sufficient or are updated within an commenter stated the while it expects that in the ‘‘very limited circumstances’’ appropriate period of time, unlike the ASHRAE to update these standards when DOE seeks to go beyond standards six-year EPCA look-back review, thereby when it is economically justified and established by ASHRAE 90.1 for hindering regulatory certainty. Based technologically feasible to do so, it is equipment covered by those standards, upon the foregoing reasoning, Bosch also conceivable that this process could relevant Process Rule provisions may requested that DOE reconsider this be delayed for procedural reasons, given include many of those in Process Rule portion of its proposal. (Bosch, No. 113 the nature of the ASHRAE consensus- section 1 (Objectives) and sections 6 and at pp. 3–4) Along these same lines, the based standards process. If the review of 7 (which provide details on selecting CA IOUs indicated that DOE’s proposal these standards is triggered by the 6- standards, albeit these would apply only with respect to deferring to industry year-lookback provision at 42 U.S.C. in those ‘‘very limited circumstances’’ standards—such as those promulgated 6313(a)(6)(C)(i), Ingersoll Rand when DOE considers going beyond by ASHRAE—would have the effect of encouraged DOE to consider standards ASHRAE standards and would be the agency ignoring its statutory for the appropriate equipment as it subject to the ‘‘clear and convincing mandate to critically assess whether a would any other standard under the evidence’’ standard). Lennox also given test procedure requires amending. Process Rule. Ingersoll Rand reasoned argued for the potential continued (CA IOUs, No. 124 at p. 5) The AGs Joint that such approach would ensure that applicability of section 8 (e.g., finalizing Comment similarly argued that DOE’s any new appliance standards remain a test procedure in advance of proposed modifications to its approach technologically feasible and considering any amended energy to regulating ASHRAE equipment economically justified per DOE’s conservation standard), sections 10 and amounts to an abdication of its duties to analysis (and including any ASHRAE 11 (on DFRs and negotiated assess Standard 90.1 and engage in analysis), without further delaying the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8637

appropriate updates to these standards. for implementing related statutory that are initiated pursuant to the 6-year- (Ingersoll Rand, No. 118 at p. 2) requirements, the agency anticipates lookback under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), Other commenters were more that it would improve consistency because in such cases, DOE is not skeptical of DOE’s proposed approach to across its ASHRAE rulemakings, thereby statutorily obligated to adopt a level set ASHRAE equipment in the Process Rule reducing burdens on manufacturers of by ASHRAE and may ultimately NOPR and raised a number of concerns. such equipment and increasing benefits determine that no new standard is ACEEE commented that applying the to consumers. warranted. full Process Rule to ASHRAE products DOE also seeks to make clear that is not workable. According to ACEEE, different procedures and timelines DOE disputes ACEEE’s assertion that DOE’s proposal states that all of the apply under EPCA, depending upon applying the Process Rule to Process Rule requirements would apply whether the Department is adopting the rulemakings that go beyond ASHRAE to a decision to go beyond ASHRAE levels contained in ASHRAE Standard Standard 90.1 levels is unworkable, levels, but it does not explain how an 90.1 or more-stringent standards. When because DOE has been successfully analysis and public comment period on ASHRAE 90.1 is amended with respect applying most of those provisions to its the ASHRAE levels followed by early to the standard level or design ASHRAE rulemakings already. The only assessment, framework, full analysis, requirements applicable under that new step DOE has added to the draft rule, and final rule, including three standard to specific products rulemaking process through its revised additional public comment periods, enumerated in EPCA, DOE is Process Rule is the ‘‘early assessment’’ would all be accomplished within the ‘‘triggered’’ to adopt those measures as (applicable only to ASHRAE 6-year- statutory limit of 30 months (i.e., the the uniform national standard (unless lookback rulemakings, not ASHRAE statutory time limit for adopting more- DOE finds clear and convincing ‘‘trigger’’ rulemakings). DOE sees no stringent standards). ACEEE argued that evidence that adoption of more stringent reason why through sound management ‘‘the law (i.e., EPCA) recognizes that levels for the product would result in principles and proper scheduling that it substantial analysis and public input significant additional energy savings cannot satisfy the applicable provisions occur in the ASHRAE process, and the and is technologically feasible and of the Process Rule while meeting procedure for setting modified economically justified). When DOE relevant statutory deadlines. In contrast requirements should reflect that.’’ determines to adopt the levels in to ACEEE’s view, DOE envisions this (ACEEE, No. 123 at p. 2) The CA IOUs ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as uniform final rule’s process improvements as contended that EPCA prescribed a national standards, it will generally increasing the opportunity for public specific set of conditions for DOE to follow the specific procedures and input and strengthening rulemaking follow with regard to setting standards timelines set forth in the statute (i.e., a analyses. for ASHRAE equipment and commented truncated process under EPCA which that DOE is required to follow EPCA. directs DOE to adopt ASHRAE’s DOE is not deferring its statutory (CA IOUs, No. 124 at p. 4–5) consensus standards within 18 months). duties for standard setting to an outside Finally, ASAP sought clarification as The other Process Rule procedures are organization (i.e., ASHRAE) through to whether ASHRAE equipment would generally not applicable to that specific these Process Rule amendments. The be subject to the early assessment case and will not be required. However, Department is committed to undertaking process under the proposed Process where DOE finds clear and convincing the necessary review, consistent with Rule. (ASAP, April 11, 2019 Public evidence to support more-stringent the EPCA timelines, to determine Meeting Transcript, No. 92 at p. 196) standards (as required either under whether more-stringent standards are In response, DOE recognizes its EPCA’s ASHRAE ‘‘trigger’’ or 6-year- appropriate, both under its ASHRAE specific obligations under EPCA vis-a`- lookback provisions), the statute’s trigger and 6-year-lookback authority, as vis ASHRAE equipment and makes analytical requirements and longer 30- it always has. DOE is making clear that clear that it is continually striving to month timeline are more akin to DOE’s in doing so, it must meet the statutory meet those obligations. And, the typical rulemaking process, so DOE requirement that the more-stringent Department must have a process for believes it appropriate to apply the standard level be supported by clear and doing so. As with other commercial Process Rule in such cases. DOE has convincing evidence. EPCA’s statutory equipment, DOE has applied the Process made a clarification to this effect in the structure demonstrates a strong Rule to ASHRAE equipment to the Process Rule’s regulatory text (see Congressional preference for adoption of extent permitted by statute, even though sections 2 and 9). ASHRAE levels, except in extraordinary 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix Specifically in response to ASAP, cases where a high evidentiary hurdle A technically applies to ‘‘consumer DOE would not apply the early has been surmounted. In this way, products.’’ DOE has found the assessment process to ASHRAE trigger principles embodied in the Process Rule rulemakings because DOE must Congress sought to ensure that more- to be beneficial to both stakeholders and undertake such rulemaking pursuant to stringent standards have objectively the agency, without distinction as to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), so the early recognized benefits that unquestionably whether a consumer product or assessment’s inquiry as to whether a justify their costs. DOE simply intends commercial/industrial equipment is at rulemaking is necessary would not be for the Process Rule to reflect these issue. After considering public relevant. Under the statutory process for statutory requirements, not deviate from comments, in this final rule, DOE has ASHRAE, DOE is obligated to publish a them or inappropriately shift decided to make its existing practice NODA presenting potential energy responsibility to ASHRAE. more clear and transparent by explicitly savings from the ASHRAE action. DOE Consequently, DOE will continue to addressing the applicability of the plans to use that vehicle to perform the perform all necessary review and Process Rule to ASHRAE equipment early assessment for ASHRAE regarding analyses consistent with its statutory and incorporating the key statutory whether there is potentially clear and obligations, and stakeholders should not timelines, as well as to clarify how DOE convincing evidence to adopt a more incur any additional responsibilities in will conduct rulemakings for ASHRAE stringent standard. In addition, DOE terms of either the DOE rulemaking or equipment. To the extent DOE can will conduct an early assessment for participation in the ASHRAE Standard articulate a clear and rational process rulemakings for ASHRAE equipment 90.1 process.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8638 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Openness of/Deference to the ASHRAE are typically the most vocal and have standards unless inconsistent with the Standards Development Process the most influence over whatever test law or impracticable. According to In the Process Rule NOPR, the procedures (or standards) are ultimately ASHRAE, since 1998, the Executive Department explained its tentative adopted by ASHRAE. (CA IOUs, No. 124 Office of the President has supported decision that going forward, DOE would at p. 5) PG&E added that ASHRAE this statute through issuing and re- anticipate adopting the revised ‘‘enforcement’’ requirements are less issuing Office of Management and ASHRAE levels as contemplated by rigorous than DOE enforcement Budget (OMB) Circular A–119, which EPCA, except in very limited requirements in terms of the tolerances mandates that administrative agencies circumstances. (42 U.S.C. put around the requirements in an rely on consensus standards. ASHRAE 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) DOE reasoned that ASHRAE test procedure versus a DOE concluded that EPCA and DOE’s its commitment to adopting the test procedure. (PG&E, March 21, 2019 proposal are consistent with these amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. directives. (ASHRAE, No. 109 at p. 3) 93–94) BWC expressed support for DOE’s as its regular practice would result in Energy Solutions stated that when adoption of revised standard levels set reducing the regulatory burden on there is an open ASHRAE Standard 90.1 by ASHRAE, as that organization is a stakeholders and would promote process or when there is an opportunity consensus body that permits a variety of consistency and simplicity when for public review of related documents, stakeholders to participate. (BWC, No. addressing ASHRAE equipment. 84 FR DOE should notify stakeholders of the 103 at p. 2) Similarly, BHI expressed 3910, 3915 (Feb. 13, 2019). Appliance Standards Program so that support for the Department’s approach There was considerable difference of interested parties will be better aware of to rulemakings for ASHRAE Standard opinion as to the openness of the such activities. (Energy Solutions, 90.1 equipment, as consistent with the ASHRAE standards development March 21, 2019 Public Meeting statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. process expressed by stakeholders both Transcript, No. 87 at p. 105) 6313. BHI also recommended adding a at the March 21, 2019 public meeting Other stakeholders offered a vigorous clear statement to the Process Rule and in written comments on the Process defense of the openness, fairness, and indicating that a DOE representative Rule NOPR. At the March 21, 2019 transparency of the ASHRAE process. will attend all ASHRAE 90.1 committee public meeting, various stakeholders ASHRAE itself stated that it stands meetings to: (1) Avoid unnecessary debated the level of access to behind its standards development delays in publishing the analysis of the participation in the ASHRAE process. process and believes that the results potential energy savings of the amended (March 21, 2019 Public Meeting generated by this process are robust. energy conservation standard, or (2) Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 99–108) Some According to ASHRAE, all proposed advocate for a more-stringent standard commenters suggested that despite the changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are when the Department has clear and technical expertise of ASHRAE open for public review, which allows convincing evidence of significant Standard 90.1 committees, there are interested parties to provide input into additional conservation of energy that is barriers to participation in that process development of the standard and reach technically feasible and technologically in terms of time and money, which consensus, thereby ensuring publication justified, or (3) avoid delays in stand in contrast to the DOE regulatory of a document that has been rigorously publishing a no-new-standard process. For example, NEEA argued that examined, questioned, and defended. notification if ASHRAE 90.1 is not although it does like certain aspects of The organization defended its amended. (BHI, No. 135 at p. 2) the ASHRAE process, on balance, it has consensus process as ensuring buy-in AGA stated that national codes and not found the ASHRAE process to be a and reflecting input from energy standards activities conducted by viable pathway for bringing forth advocates, building owners, design organizations such as ASHRAE and the innovative proposals, as they are professionals, utilities, manufacturers, International Code Council, among frequently blocked in committees. In and representatives from DOE, and others, are very important to the natural contrast, NEEA believes that DOE has an other materially-affected and interested gas industry. In recent history, the open process which allows all parties. ASHRAE refuted the criticism commenter pointed out that DOE has interested stakeholders to make a that DOE’s use of privately-developed become more involved in these non- meaningful contribution. Consequently, consensus standards such as ASHRAE’s governmental organizations, such as by NEEA encouraged DOE to consider relies too heavily on industry, which participating in standards and code alternative processes when seeking to may create potential conflicts of body proceedings as advocates of regulate ASHRAE equipment. interest. With respect to this criticism, requirements and generally becoming (Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, ASHRAE emphasized that one does not more active in these types of March 21, 2019 Public Meeting need to be an ASHRAE member to organizations. Although AGA Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 105–106) participate in the ASHRAE standards acknowledged that DOE’s governing Such commenters suggested that development process. In addition, the statute permits the Department to be while the ASHRAE process may appear organization argued that the 47 voting involved in such organizations, it to be open, the commenter expressed its members on the Standing Standards argued that such participation should be view that the deck is often stacked Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1 have limited to the presentation of peer- against their meaningful participation. broad representation, and of the 19 reviewed research/analysis and the Along these lines, PG&E disagreed with industry voting members, only nine review of codes. For example, it is DOE’s proposed approach, asserting that come from industries that have a appropriate for DOE to evaluate and ASHRAE is dominated by the material interest in equipment covered analyze codes, such as when the manufacturers that will benefit by test by potential DOE regulations. (ASHRAE, International Energy Conservation Code procedures made by that organization. No. 109 at pp. 2–3) issues codes to improve energy (PG&E, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting ASHRAE further pointed out that the efficiency in buildings, but such Transcript, No. 87 at p. 93) The CA National Technology Transfer and evaluations and related determinations IOUs indicated that ASHRAE decisions Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104– may appear less than arm’s length if the are based on a simple majority vote and 113) has directed Federal agencies to Department has had a role in creating that industry representative members adopt voluntary industry consensus the codes. In other words, AGA argued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8639

that to maintain the independent nature setting for the ASHRAE equipment with a rulemaking to potentially of DOE’s reviews of non-governmental subject to DOE regulation. Although establish more-stringent standards from codes and standards, it would be DOE participates in the ASHRAE those adopted by ASHRAE, DOE will prudent for the Department to step back committee process, it does not control seek, from interested parties and the and not be intimately involved in the that process and may not always be public, data and information to assist in creation of codes and standards that it aware of the complete or up to date making that determination, prior to may be called on to evaluate. (AGA, No. relevant information, so DOE does not publishing a proposed rule to adopt 114 at p. 31) find it feasible to assume responsibility more-stringent standards. DOE’s As these comments reflect, for the messaging role suggested by proposal further stated that ‘‘clear and commenters on DOE’s Process Rule Energy Solutions. However, DOE notes convincing evidence’’ would exist only NOPR offered a variety of opinions that ASHRAE’s website offers interested if: Given the circumstances, facts, and about the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 parties the opportunity to subscribe to data that exist for a particular ASHRAE review committee process. Although the listservers to be automatically notified amendment, DOE determines there is no technical expertise of the committee via email when activities and substantial doubt that the more- members was generally not questioned, information related to various project stringent standard would result in a there was considerable debate as to the committees are available. (Available at: significant additional conservation of openness, fairness, and transparency of https://www.ashrae.org/technical- energy and is technologically feasible the ASHRAE process. However, it is not resources/standards-and-guidelines/ and economically justified. In the DOE’s place to judge that process, options-to-stay-current.) DOE believes Process Rule NOPR, DOE stated that this because in EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. that the availability of such listservers high bar would mean that only in 6313(a)(6)(A)), Congress clearly and provides the notice of ongoing ASHRAE extraordinary circumstances would DOE explicitly assigned ASHRAE a role in activities sought by Energy Solutions in conduct a rulemaking to establish more- that regulatory regime, as discussed its comment. stringent standards for covered previously. Consequently, DOE does not DOE agrees with AGA’s cautionary ASHRAE equipment. 84 FR 3910, 3915 have authority to alter ASHRAE’s statement that the Department must be (Feb. 13, 2019). statutory role, but instead must follow careful to remain impartial in terms of Although the ‘‘clear and convincing the relevant statutory requirements, as its role in the ASHRAE committee evidence’’ requirement is explicitly set reflected in the Process Rule. process, particularly since DOE is forth in the statute, DOE’s proposal in Specifically, under the statute, DOE statutorily obligated to adopt ASHRAE the Process Rule NOPR to clarify that must adopt the standard levels in standards and test procedures, unless evidentiary standard drew considerable ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE they fail to meet other applicable discussion and debate. A number of finds clear and convincing evidence that statutory requirements. DOE may serve commenters welcomed the clarification adoption of more stringent levels for the a neutral role in ASHRAE proceedings regarding what some had viewed as an equipment would result in significant (e.g., analyzing or evaluating—but not opaque process with no indication that additional energy savings and is creating—drafts of ASHRAE standards a higher evidentiary standard had been technologically feasible and and test procedures, advising committee met. Other commenters were concerned economically justified. (42 U.S.C. members as to the requirements and about DOE’s proposed clarifications 6313(a)(6)(A) and (C)(i)) Similarly, DOE limitations imposed by EPCA), and will regarding ‘‘clear and convincing must adopt the test procedures for not inappropriately direct or coerce an evidence’’ and seemed to prefer the ASHRAE equipment specified in outcome. Department’s prior approach of simply ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and DOE must Finally, in response to BHI and as assessing the evidentiary basis for update those test procedures each time noted in the preceding paragraphs, DOE amended standards more stringent than the ASHRAE test procedures are participates in the standards review the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on amended, unless DOE has clear and process of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 a case-by-case basis. Still other convincing evidence to show that such Committee. Although not required by commenters posed follow-up questions test procedure amendments are not the statute, such participation helps to try to better understand how a ‘‘clear reasonably designed to produce test inform DOE’s ASHRAE-related and convincing evidence’’ standard results which reflect energy efficiency, rulemakings for both standards and test would be applied in this context. These energy use, and estimated operating procedures. As a result of its comments are summarized and costs of a type of industrial equipment participation, the Department does not addressed in the following paragraphs. (or class thereof) during a representative see a need to formally include such As noted, a number of commenters average use cycle (as determined by the provisions in the Process Rule or to supported the Process Rule NOPR’s Secretary) or are unduly burdensome to prescribe the appropriate participation proposed clarification of the ‘‘clear and conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(4)) DOE of the DOE representative. convincing evidence’’ standard in the notes that the statutory scheme, which context of DOE’s rulemaking process for directs DOE to adopt ASHRAE technical The ‘‘Clear and Convincing Evidence’’ ASHRAE equipment. (AHRI, March 21, standards and test procedures unless Standard for ASHRAE Equipment 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 further EPCA provisions command The Process Rule NOPR also at p. 12; Joint Commenters, No. 112 at otherwise, comports with the tentatively took the position that for pp. 2–3; NAFEM, No. 122 at p. 2; AGA, requirements of the National DOE to utilize its statutory authority to No. 114 at p. 10; ASHRAE, No. 109 at Technology Transfer and Advancement establish more-stringent standards than pp. 2–3) On this topic, AHRI stated that Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A–119. the amendments to ASHRAE Standard it agrees that a formal declaration of DOE understands Energy Solutions’ 90.1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. what ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ desire for stakeholders of the Appliance 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), DOE will be means and how it will be implemented Standards Program to be made aware of required to meet a very high bar to increases certainty by increasing open ASHRAE Standard 90.1 matters or demonstrate the ‘‘clear and convincing transparency and reflects the when there is an opportunity for public evidence’’ threshold that is articulated congressional intent expressed through review of related documents, in order to in that subsection. The NOPR stated that EPCA. (AHRI, March 21, 2019 Public more effectively participate in standard- when evaluating whether it can proceed Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 12)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8640 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Similarly, ASHRAE expressed technologically feasible and the NOPR DOE tried to clarify the appreciation for DOE’s position that it economically justified. (Spire, No. 139, matter by suggesting that there would be would only consider standards more at p. 19) ‘‘no substantial doubt’’ on the part of the stringent than the ASHRAE levels if In contrast to these viewpoints, decision-maker that such standards are such standards can meet a very high bar another group of commenters disfavored warranted. However, the AGs Joint to demonstrate the ‘‘clear and DOE’s proposed approach to applying Comment argued that such description convincing’’ evidence threshold the ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ is either the same as the statutory ‘‘clear mandated by EPCA. (ASHRAE, No. 109 standard in the ASHRAE context. A and convincing evidence’’ standard (in at pp. 2–3) The AGA commented that number of commenters challenged which case it is purposeless and the proposal makes it clear that DOE DOE’s attempted clarification as a legal arbitrary) or more restrictive (in which will adopt the action taken by ASHRAE matter, characterizing it as an improper case it would be contrary to EPCA and except in those circumstances where the reinterpretation of the relevant statutory improperly cede authority to ASHRAE). Department, pursuant to a defined provision. For example, Earthjustice (AGs Joint Comment, No. 111 at p. 13) process and parameters, determines a faulted DOE’s Process Rule NOPR for On this same point, NRDC stated that in more-stringent standard is appropriate. assert[ing]—without substantiation— its assessment, DOE’s statements about (AGA, No. 114 at p. 10) that the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ ‘‘no substantial doubt’’ and going The Joint Commenters and NAFEM threshold is only met when ‘there is no beyond ASHRAE ‘‘only in extraordinary concurred with the definition of ‘‘clear substantial doubt that the more stringent circumstances’’ appear to be more and convincing evidence’’ proposed by standard would result in a significant narrow and restrictive than Congress’s DOE with one minor edit, suggesting to additional conservation of energy, is intent. The commenter stated that it add the word ‘‘specific’’ before technologically feasible and does not find DOE’s attempts to define ‘‘circumstances, facts, and data.’’ economically justified.’ 84 FR 3915. ‘‘clean and convincing’’ to be either NAFEM sought this addition to clarify According to Earthjustice, the cited DOE necessary or helpful. NRDC also argued that DOE cannot make a determination language is a legal interpretation for the that DOE has failed to disclose where it on its general understanding, but statutory requirement for ‘‘clear and got this definition and on which legal instead must base its determination convincing evidence,’’ but the NOPR is authorities it is relying, thereby upon specific information related to the devoid of any statutory or case law frustrating the public’s ability to equipment class standards subject to authority supporting the proposition meaningfully comment on the proposal. ASHRAE revision. In seeking to justify that evidence is only ‘‘clear and (NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 14–15) NRDC more stringent standards than the convincing’’ when it leaves ‘‘no reminded DOE that it does not have the ASHRAE level, the Joint Commenters substantial doubt.’’ The commenter power to redefine ‘‘clear and expressed a similar rationale in support argued that the NOPR’s failure to convincing’’ so as to make it something of an evidentiary standard that requires provide a clear foundation (e.g., closer to a ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ demonstration of specific facts and discussing how the term ‘‘clear and standard. (NRDC, March 21, 2019 Public evidence to support a higher standard or convincing’’ has been interpreted in Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 121) that an industry consensus test other contexts) deprives stakeholders a The CEC also opposed DOE’s attempt procedure is demonstrably meaningful opportunity to comment on to clarify the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ unreasonable. (Joint Commenters, No. the claimed equivalency. For example, standard when pursuing standards more 112 at pp. 2–3; NAFEM, No. 122 at p. Earthjustice referenced a U.S. Court of stringent than those contained in 2) Appeal for the District of Columbia ASHRAE Standard 90.1. In the CEC’s Although Spire agreed with the Circuit case finding ‘‘[t]he clear and view, the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ direction of DOE’s approach, it convincing standard ‘generally requires standard has already been defined by suggested taking matters a step further. the trier of fact, in viewing each party’s case law, so further regulatory Rather than envisioning the possibility pile of evidence, to reach a firm that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels and conviction of the truth on the evidence clarification is irrelevant. The CEC also more-stringent DOE levels could each about which he or she is certain.’’’ Parsi argued that raising the evidentiary level save a significant additional amount of v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116, 131 (DC to meet this standard—as it alleged that energy and be technologically feasible Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. DOE has attempted to do—would leave and economically justified, Spire argued Montague, 40 F.3d 1251, 1255 (DC Cir. significant, cost-effective, and that the statute’s use of a ‘‘clear and 1994)). The commenter questioned technologically feasible energy savings convincing’’ standard should be whether one could arrive at a ‘‘firm on the table at a time when interpreted as a presumption that the conviction’’ while recognizing the manufacturers are already redesigning industry consensus standards are going existence of ‘‘substantial doubt.’’ equipment to meet ASHRAE 90.1. (CEC, to be adequate, unless there is clear Earthjustice argued that the Process No. 121 at p. 3) evidence that they are not, at which Rule NOPR does not answer that The CA IOUs claimed that DOE’s point such presumption is rebutted. question and leaves stakeholders proposal to interpret the phrase ‘‘clear (Spire, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting uncertain as to the extent to which the and convincing’’ to mean ‘‘no Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 114–115) In its proposed amendments to the Process substantial doubt’’ ignores historical written comments, Spire reiterated its Rule comply with EPCA. (Earthjustice, context for standard and test procedure point by suggesting that DOE’s approach No. 134 at p. 2; Earthjustice, March 21, improvements to the detriment of to application of the ‘‘clear and 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 consumers. (CA IOUs, No. 124 at p. 4) convincing’’ standard should be at pp. 125–126) The CA IOUs cited the 2016 commercial modified to clarify that DOE would only The AGs Joint Comment also unitary air conditioners (CUAC) direct go beyond the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 questioned DOE’s effort in the NOPR to final rule 10 (DFR) as an example of how levels when DOE determines (supported clarify what would constitute ‘‘clear and DOE properly applied the clear and by clear and convincing evidence) that convincing evidence,’’ as would justify convincing threshold previously. (CA ‘‘only’’ a more-stringent standard would the adoption of more-stringent IOUs, No. 124 at pp. 4–5) result in significant additional standards than those set forth in conservation of energy and is ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Specifically, in 10 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 15, 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8641

Other commenters focused on the are attempting to severely restrict the the statute. According to the potential practical effects of DOE’s Department’s ability to consider commenter, EPCA explicitly requires proposed clarification of the statute’s standards higher than the ASHRAE that clear and convincing evidence clear and convincing evidence levels, as the agency has appropriately support any determination to adopt a requirement in the context of ASHRAE and effectively done in the past. (ASAP, standard more stringent than an equipment. For example, ACEEE et al., No. 126 at pp. 2, 3–5) amended Standard 90.1 requirement criticized DOE’s attempt to clarify the CT–DEEP cautioned DOE from using (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. term ‘‘clear and convincing,’’ arguing the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ standard 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)), but the statute does that a new ‘‘no substantial doubt’’ prescribed by EPCA with respect to not apply this unique standard outside criterion for ASHRAE products would setting standards higher than those of that context (see 42 U.S.C. 6306 add uncertainty. As the commenter contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as (applying ‘‘substantial evidence’’ correctly pointed out, Congress required a means ‘‘to avoid the responsibility of standard to other DOE rules)). Instead, ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ for the evaluating the potential for more Earthjustice argued that when DOE Department to go beyond ASHRAE stringent standards by setting the bar at considers amending standards for levels for such equipment. ACEEE ‘no substantial doubt that the more equipment in the absence of ASHRAE characterized DOE’s change in stringent standard would result in a action, EPCA requires that DOE apply terminology from a legal term of art to significant additional conservation of the ‘‘criteria’’ imposed under 42 U.S.C. a financial term as more of a energy.’’’ (CT–DEEP, No. 93 at p. 3) 6313(a)(6)(A) if determining that substitution for, than an interpretation NPCC disagreed with DOE’’s standards do not need to be amended of, congressional intent, which would application of the ‘‘clear and convincing and the ‘‘criteria and procedures’’ introduce a new term that would need evidence’’ standard with respect to applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B) to be interpreted, and would likely be establishing energy conservation if proposing amended standards. (42 subject to litigation. If interpreted to be standards more stringent than the ones U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, the more stringent than the congressional adopted by ASHRAE, arguing that such commenter reasoned that the ‘‘criteria’’ requirement, ACEEE argued that it approach would mean that DOE could governing any determination not to would prevent the Department from only set more-stringent standards in amend the current standards for covered adopting standards or test procedures extraordinary circumstances. Instead, equipment are that adoption of a more- that best meet the legal requirements. NPCC urged DOE to use the seven stringent standard for the equipment Finally, ACEEE asserted that the existing EPCA criteria at 42 U.S.C. would not ‘‘result in significant Department has failed to demonstrate a 6295(o) when determining whether to additional conservation of energy and problem with the legislative language as establish more-stringent standards for [be] technologically feasible and would justify the need to change it. ASHRAE equipment, consistent with economically justified’’ (see 42 U.S.C. the approach to other products. (NPCC, (ACEEE, No. 123 at p. 4) 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). Under No. 94 at p. 4; NPCC, March 21, 2019 ASAP also questioned what it views Earthjustice’s theory, Congress’s Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. as the leap from an evidentiary decision to withhold the procedures requirement of ‘‘clear and convincing’’ 122–123) Finally and in contrast to the several applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) to ‘‘no substantial doubt,’’ and the from any determinations not to amend commenter expressed concern that DOE commenters who sought to validate DOE’s current process vis-a`-vis ‘‘clear in the context of a 6-year review means would adopt ASHRAE Standard 90.1 the evidentiary burden applicable under levels without consideration of other and convincing evidence,’’ the AGs 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) does not apply alternatives, thereby eliminating the Joint Comment asserted that DOE’s to 6-year reviews. (Earthjustice, No. 134, potential for negotiations and proposed revision improperly applied at pp. 2–3) cooperation among stakeholders, a point the clear and convincing evidence with which NEEA agreed. According to standard and ASHRAE deference when In response to these comments on the ASAP, DOE’s proposed language could it is conducting its six-year-lookback Process Rule NOPR, DOE emphasizes make the process a ‘‘one way street,’’ review under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). that in discussing the need for ‘‘clear which presumably means that ASHRAE Instead, these commenters suggested and convincing evidence’’ in the context would drive or monopolize DOE’s that a six-year-lookback analysis should of more-stringent standard levels for standard-setting process. (ASAP, March be conducted using a preponderance of ASHRAE equipment, the Department 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. the evidence standard, arguing that DOE was simply explaining the existing 87 at pp. 111–112, 115, 119; NEEA, has misinterpreted the relevant requirements of the statute, rather than March 21, 2019 Public Meeting provisions of EPCA and risks failing to seeking to change or reinterpret those Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 116–7) promulgate standards when they are requirements. Specifically, EPCA Instead, ASAP argued that there is no warranted under the statute. (AGs Joint provides that in order to adopt a more- need to interpret the ‘‘clear and Comment, No. 111 at pp. 13–14) stringent standard, DOE must convincing evidence’’ threshold as part Similarly, Earthjustice argued that determine, by rule published in the of the Process Rule, because DOE to date DOE has improperly applied the ‘‘clear Federal Register, and supported by has appropriately interpreted that and convincing’’ evidence requirement clear and convincing evidence, that threshold. According to ASAP, DOE’s to instances where the statute only adoption of a uniform national standard proposal to consider levels beyond the requires a showing of substantial more stringent than the amended ASHRAE levels only in ‘‘extraordinary evidence. Earthjustice asserted that ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for the circumstances’’ could sacrifice very ASHRAE’s failure to amend the product would result in significant large energy and economic savings, standards applicable to a type of additional conservation of energy and is outcomes which the commenter does covered equipment under ASHRAE/IES technologically feasible and not believe reflects the intent of Standard 90.1 does not justify applying economically justified. (42 U.S.C. Congress. Even though DOE has adopted the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ standard to 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The language of the the ASHRAE levels in most cases over DOE’s 6-year review obligation under 42 statute makes clear that Congress the past decade, ASAP, et al. offered U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), a result which it intended to establish a high bar for DOE concern that DOE’s proposed changes argues is foreclosed by the plain text of to go beyond the levels in ASHRAE

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8642 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Standard 90.1, an intention clearly Circuit Court of Appeals stated, ‘‘[c]lear 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); the definition of reflected by its decision to require a and convincing proof is highly probable ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ as heightened evidentiary standard. Thus, and leaves no substantial doubt,’’ evidence that is so clear as to leave ‘‘no the statute itself demonstrates that Dongguk University v. Yale University, substantial doubt’’ can be traced to a Congress intended for DOE to adopt the 734 F.3d 113, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) 1899 California Supreme Court ASHRAE levels, except for in (internal citations omitted).11 Further, decision, decided far before 42 U.S.C. extraordinary circumstances where the the Handbook of Federal Evidence, 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) was enacted. ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ which consists of materials designed to Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 193 standard has been met. In the Process aid in understanding Federal (1899) (defining clear and convincing Rule NOPR, DOE summarized the evidentiary rules, also defines ‘‘clear evidence as clear, explicit, and relevant ASHRAE-related statutory and convincing evidence’’ in civil cases unequivocal; so clear as to leave no requirements and sought to explain how as requiring that ‘‘evidence be so clear substantial doubt). Again, this language it implements its legislative mandate. A as to leave no substantial doubt’’ and has been reiterated by Federal Courts in number of commenters supported DOE’s describes this standard of proof to only the many years since. clarification efforts as promoting be sustained if the evidence induces a Given DOE’s commitment to meet its transparency, but others mistakenly reasonable belief that the facts asserted statutory duty to determine whether believed that DOE was proposing are highly probably true. (Handbook of more-stringent standards are substantive and inappropriate changes. Federal Evidence, § 301:5 Burden of appropriate for ASHRAE equipment However, given that DOE proposed no Persuasion, Incidence and Measure in under either the ASHRAE trigger or the change to the existing statutory Civil Cases (8th ed., 2018)) 6-year-lookback authority, the concerns requirement, nor could it do so, Regarding NRDC’s argument that the expressed by CT–DEEP and ASAP that commenters were not deprived of any ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ DOE will use the requirement for clear opportunity to comment, contrary to standard is a term of legal art, of which and convincing evidence to avoid its what Earthjustice and NRDC suggest. Congress was aware when they adopted responsibility to consider whether the Furthermore, by simply following the the language, and that DOE does not criteria for more-stringent standards requirements of the statute regarding the have the power to redefine ‘‘clear and have been met is unfounded. DOE will need for clear and convincing evidence, convincing evidence’’ to make it closer continue to evaluate the potential for DOE does not anticipate that there to ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’’ as more-stringent standards as a routine would be the basis for enhanced exhibited in the above paragraph, DOE part of its ASHRAE rulemaking process. litigation risk or successful legal is not redefining the standard, and As part of that process, DOE will ensure challenges. DOE’s provision for ‘‘clear and that all three statutory criteria are met convincing evidence’’ is consistent with (i.e., that there is clear and convincing In the Process Rule NOPR, DOE how it has been regularly defined in evidence that a more stringent standard offered language to explain its Federal Courts for many years. can achieve significant additional understanding of Congress’s clear and Accordingly, DOE agrees with NRDC energy savings, technological feasibility, convincing evidence requirement and that Congress was cognizant of the and economic justification); DOE cannot how the Department has implemented common law and accepted definition of focus on only one factor (economic that requirement. Specifically, DOE ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ when justification criteria), as NPCC stated that ‘‘clear and convincing implementing 42 U.S.C. suggested, because the statute is clear in evidence’’ would exist only if: Given the terms of the criteria that must be circumstances, facts, and data that exist 11 Federal District Courts in circuits around the considered. By following the for a particular ASHRAE amendment, country have provided similar definitions of ‘‘clear requirements of the statute, there is no DOE determines there is no substantial and convincing evidence’’ in the civil context. See risk of forgone energy and economic doubt that the more-stringent standard Mandel v. Boston Phoenix, Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 26, 29 (D. Mass. 2007) (‘‘The meaning of the term ‘clear savings as ASAP suggests, nor harm to would result in a significant additional and convincing evidence’—evidence so clear as to consumers as the CEC asserts. Moreover, conservation of energy and is leave no substantial doubt.’’), Jersey Const., Inc. v. there should not be any impediments in technologically feasible and Pennoni Assoc., Inc., 1993 WL 2999 (E.D. Pa. 1993) the context of negotiated rulemakings, economically justified. Rather than (citing Joseph’s v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 222, 223–24 (W.D.Pa.1989), aff’d, 899 F.2d because DOE will always consider changing the definition in question, 1217 (3d Cir. 1990) (‘‘Clear and convincing alternate standard levels, provided they DOE has found this language consistent evidence is evidence that leaves no substantial comport with all applicable statutory with how that term has historically been doubt . . . establishes not only that the proposition at issue is probable, but also that it is highly requirements. In light of the tenets of interpreted and defined in the civil probable.’’), Hanna Coal Co., Inc. v. I.R.S., 218 B.R. the ASHRAE-related provisions context in Federal Circuit and District 825, 829 fn 2 (W.D. Va. 1997) (‘‘Clear and Congress wrote into the statute, there is Courts throughout the United States. convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in little incentive for gamesmanship on the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has your mind. It is proof that establishes in your mind, not only [that] the proposition at issue is probable, part of ASHRAE, because if that defined the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ but also that it is highly probable.’’), Gentry v. organization fails to consider amended standard as requiring the evidence ‘‘to Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711, 724 (M.D. Tenn. standards or only adopts weak be so clear as to leave no substantial 2010) (‘‘Evidence is clear and convincing when it standards, DOE’s obligation to consider doubt [and] sufficiently strong to leaves no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn.’’), Sala v. more-stringent standards will resolve command the unhesitating assent of U.S., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1162 (D. Colo. 2007) that problem. every reasonable mind.’’ Ittella Foods, (‘‘Clear and convincing evidence leaves no In terms of the technical modification Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 98 Fed. Appx. substantial doubt in your mind. It is proof that suggested by the Joint Commenters and 689, 691 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal establishes in your mind, not only [that] the proposition at issue is probable, but also that it is NAFEM—suggesting to add the word citations omitted). Similarly, the Eighth highly probable.’’), Tobinick v. Novella, 108 F. ‘‘specific’’ to the definition of ‘‘clear and Circuit Court of Appeals has defined, Supp. 3d 1299, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (‘‘The burden convincing evidence’’ right before ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ as of proof by clear and convincing evidence requires ‘‘circumstances, facts, and data,’’ DOE ‘‘leav[ing] no substantial doubt,’’ Hunt a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be agrees with these commenters that the v. Pan American Energy, 540 F.2d 894, sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating agency cannot make a determination on 901 (8th Cir. 1976), and the Second assent of every reasonable mind.’’). its general understanding, but instead

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8643

must base its determination upon either: (1) A notice of determination that that DOE should defer to ASHRAE in specific information related to the standards for the product do not need to most cases when setting uniform equipment class standards subject to be amended, based on the criteria national standards for covered ASHRAE revision. Such specific established under subparagraph (A) (42 equipment within that organization’s circumstances, facts, and data are U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) or (2) a notice of purview. Consequently, DOE affirms its necessary to support a finding that a proposed rulemaking including new understanding that the statute’s clear standard higher than that contained in proposed standards based upon the and convincing evidence requirement ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is permitted or criteria and procedures established applies in the context of both ASHRAE that an industry consensus test under subparagraph (B) (42 U.S.C. trigger and 6-year-lookback procedure is demonstrably 6313(a)(6)(B)). These commenters focus rulemakings. unreasonable. Consequently, DOE is on the distinction that Congress directed A handful of commenters raised other adding the word ‘‘specific,’’ as DOE to subsection (A) when DOE makes viewpoints regarding the ‘‘clear and recommended by these commenters. a finding that no new standard is convincing evidence’’ standard or DOE does not agree with Spire’s warranted (i.e., the provision containing questions regarding how DOE would recommended interpretation of ‘‘clear the ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ implement its proposed clarifications. and convincing evidence’’ so as to requirement), but directed the agency to Among this group, Southern Company provide a presumption that the industry subsection (B) when proposing to adopt asked DOE to provide more specificity consensus standards are going to be more stringent standards, thereby regarding what ‘‘high standard for adequate, unless there is clear evidence presuming that an ordinary overriding ASHRAE’’ means. (Southern Company, March 21, 2019 Public that they are not, at which point such preponderance of evidence standard presumption is rebutted. Again, Spire Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 113) In should apply. The commenters’ suggested that DOE’s approach to response to this question, DOE refers interpretation is difficult to square with application of the ‘‘clear and back to the statutory scheme because the the statute on more than one level. First, convincing’’ standard should be Department is not changing the standard it seems illogical that Congress would modified to clarify that DOE would only for review regarding when it is hold DOE to two different evidentiary go beyond the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 appropriate to adopt levels more standard levels that involve essentially levels when DOE determines (supported stringent than those set forth in the same standard-setting decision. by clear and convincing evidence) that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as uniform Under the commenter’s interpretation, ‘‘only’’ a more-stringent standard would national standards. Under 42 U.S.C. result in significant additional DOE would issue a notice of 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), EPCA makes clear conservation of energy and is determination that a product does not that DOE may adopt more-stringent technologically feasible and need to be amended when there is no levels only where the Department economically justified. Although the clear and convincing evidence to determines, supported by clear and statute presumes that ASHRAE support a more-stringent standard convincing evidence, that adoption of a Standard 90.1 levels are going to be (applying the criteria of subparagraph more-stringent standard would result in adequate (given the requirement for (A)), but would be able to issue a significant additional conservation of DOE to adopt them when triggered), it proposed rule for those same more- energy and is technologically feasible also contemplates that a more-stringent stringent standards using the and economically justified. As standard, supported by clear and preponderance of the evidence discussed previously, the case law convincing evidence, could exist which standard. Such reading seems makes clear that ‘‘clear and convincing would result in significant additional unworkable in practice. However, evidence’’ is a level higher than a energy savings and be technologically Congress arguably foreclosed that preponderance of the evidence, and as feasible and economically justified. anomalous result when it directed that explained in the paragraphs Spire would not only ask DOE to prove the proposed rule to amend the standard immediately above, the statute applies a negative, but also to reject a more- be based on the criteria and procedures this evidentiary requirement to both stringent standard that meets the established under subparagraph (B). (42 ASHRAE ‘‘trigger’’ and 6-year-lookback statutory criteria on that basis. DOE U.S.C 6313 (a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) In parsing the rulemakings. Thus, under the statutory finds no basis in the statute to support economic justification provisions of that scheme, DOE believes it reasonable to such a reading, and consequently, the subsection, the statute prominently expect that in most cases, Federal Department declines to adopt Spire’s states, ‘‘In determining whether a standards will be set at a level suggested interpretation. standard is economically justified for corresponding to those in ASHRAE Finally, DOE would address the the purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), Standard 90.1. comments from the AGs Joint Comment the Secretary shall . . . determine Regarding ‘‘clear and convincing’’ and Earthjustice suggesting that the whether the benefits of the standard evidence, Ingersoll Rand stated that it Department should not apply the ‘‘clear exceed the burden of the proposed had in the past assumed that DOE and convincing evidence’’ standard and standard by to the maximum extent would only consider alternative energy ASHRAE deference when the agency is practicable, considering . . . .’’ (42 efficiency requirements if there were conducting a 6-year-lookback review U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii) (Emphasis clear and convincing evidence that such rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. added)) Thus, in determining whether it standards would save a significant 6313(a)(6)(C), but instead use a is appropriate to set a more-stringent amount of energy, be technologically preponderance of the evidence standard, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B) clearly feasible, and be economically justified standard. Notwithstanding any past references 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), when compared to both the existing DOE statements to the contrary, the which contained the ‘‘clear and appliance standards and those plain language of the statute does not convincing evidence’’ requirement. In contained in the updated version of support such a reading. other words, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) ASHRAE Standard 90.1. As part of Under the 6-year-lookback, the statute references 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), DOE’s process under 42 U.S.C. provides that every six years, DOE shall which references 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), Ingersoll Rand reasoned that conduct an evaluation of each class of 6313(a)(6)(A). The explicit language of DOE should review the same analysis covered equipment and shall publish the statute furthers congressional intent developed by the ASHRAE Standard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8644 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

90.1 development committee to justify equipment. However, DOE would once Register on July 22, 2009 (74 FR 36312, revisions to the energy efficiency again clarify that it may not and is not 36313), May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928, requirements for these products. The changing the statute’s ‘‘clear and 28937), and July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42614, commenter stated that it does not convincing evidence’’ requirement for 42617). interpret the proposed definition for adopting levels more stringent than However, in the American Energy ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ as a those contained in ASHRAE Standard Manufacturing Technical Corrections departure from this process. (Ingersoll 90.1 as uniform national standards. Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 Rand, No. 118 at p. 2) (Dec. 18, 2012), Congress modified In response, DOE generally agrees Interpretations of the ASHRAE several provisions related to ASHRAE with Ingersoll Rand, in that the ‘‘Trigger’’ Provisions and Other Standard 90.1 equipment. In relevant Department thoroughly considers the ASHRAE Issues part, DOE must act whenever ASHRAE existing uniform national standard (for The Process Rule NOPR also sought to Standard 90.1’s ‘‘standard level or both ASHRAE trigger and 6-year- address certain issues of statutory design requirements under that lookback rulemakings) and the ASHRAE interpretation regarding EPCA’s standard’’ are amended. (42 U.S.C. standard (for trigger rulemakings 12). In ASHRAE trigger provisions. Making 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Furthermore, that conducting the comprehensive review clear that DOE will adopt the action statutory amendment required that DOE and analysis in support of its taken by ASHRAE except in rare must conduct an evaluation of each rulemaking under the ASHRAE trigger, circumstances raises the question as to class of covered equipment in ASHRAE DOE would anticipate examining the when DOE is triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ‘‘every 6 years.’’ (42 work of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 action in amending Standard 90.1. In U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Committee, to the extent it is publicly the February 13, 2019 Process Rule In practice, DOE’s review in making available. NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its this assessment of ASHRAE’s actions Spire commented that any evidence interpretation of the ASHRAE trigger has been strictly limited to the specific on which DOE relies in support of the provision in this context. For example, standards for the specific equipment for adoption of an energy conservation if ASHRAE acts to amend its standard which ASHRAE has made a change (i.e., standard—including ASHRAE at the equipment class level for air- determined down to the equipment equipment—must be made available for cooled variable refrigerant flow (VRF) class level). In the Process Rule NOPR, review and public comment during the multi-split air conditioners greater than DOE stated that it believes that this is rulemaking process and with adequate or equal to 135,000 Btu/h, is DOE the best reading of the statutory time to do so. (Spire, No. 97 at p. 9; triggered to consider amended provisions discussed previously, Spire, No. 139 (Attachment C)) In standards: (1) Only for the specific because if ASHRAE were to change the response, DOE strives to make as much equipment class(es) actually amended standard for a single equipment class, of the data underlying its appliance in ASHRAE Standard 90.1; (2) for the but DOE then considered itself triggered standards rulemakings publicly entire equipment category of VRF at the equipment category level or available to the greatest extent possible equipment, or (3) for the entire covered equipment type level, the process would through posting of such information to equipment type of small commercial arguably no longer comport with the the docket for that rulemaking. package air conditioning and heating statutory scheme. More specifically, in However, because it is frequently the equipment? EPCA does not specifically such cases, DOE would be addressing case that some portion of the relevant define the term ‘‘amended’’ in the certain classes of ASHRAE equipment data on which the agency makes its context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (84 for which standards had not changed, so decision is proprietary in nature, DOE FR 3910, 3915) Although the statute is it would be impossible for DOE to adopt makes such data available in aggregated not entirely clear on this matter, DOE the ASHRAE level as the statute and anonymized form. DOE has has maintained a consistent position for envisions (as, in most cases, it would determined that this approach is over a decade, at least since it already be the same as the existing sufficient to allow interested interpreted what would constitute an Federal standard). Instead, DOE could stakeholders to understand the rationale ‘‘amended standard’’ in a final rule only consider adoption of more- for DOE’s decision while appropriately published in the Federal Register on stringent standard levels. Such protecting confidential information. March 7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. In that interpretation would arguably run EEI argued that if DOE is going to rule, DOE stated that the statutory counter to the ‘‘follow ASHRAE’’ revise ASHRAE equipment standards, it triggering event requiring DOE to adopt statutory structure set in place by will publish a proposed rule for public uniform national standards based on Congress. Furthermore, Congress comment, so even if the evidentiary bar ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to specifically and recently added a 6-year- is raised, there is still an open process change a standard for any of the lookback provision for covered with the opportunity for parties to equipment listed in EPCA section ASHRAE equipment at 42 U.S.C. suggest changes. (EEI, March 21, 2019 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i), a provision which Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by increasing the instructs DOE in terms of how and 124–125) In response, DOE agrees with efficiency level for that equipment. Id. when to address covered equipment EEI’s understanding that it is the at 72 FR 10042. In other words, if the upon which ASHRAE has not acted in Department’s standard practice to issue revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves a timely manner. Furthermore, DOE a proposed rulemaking with an the standard level unchanged or lowers believes that ASHRAE not acting to opportunity for public comment prior to the standard, as compared to the level amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a adopting any new or revised Federal specified by the uniform national decision that the existing standard standards for covered ASHRAE standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, should remain in place. DOE believes it DOE does not have authority to conduct is reasonable to assume that, in revising 12 DOE does not anticipate the need to examine a rulemaking to consider a higher ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ASHRAE the ASHRAE levels in the context of a 6-year- standard for that equipment pursuant to would consider an entire equipment lookback rulemaking, because the existing Federal standard already would reflect either the level in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE category before deciding to adopt a ASHRAE Standard 90.1 or a more-stringent level subsequently reiterated this position in revised standard for only one or more supported by clear and convincing evidence. final rules published in the Federal classes of equipment in that category.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8645

Thus, for equipment classes for which it heaters, and unfired hot water storage every six years. As a general principle, was not triggered, DOE would act under tanks, although DOE notes that the DOE believes it appropriate to weigh the its 6-year-lookback authority at 42 issues raised would apply more broadly benefits of expediency (e.g., U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) to issue a standard to the full suite of covered ASHRAE consolidated rulemaking, potentially more stringent than the existing equipment. (A.O. Smith, No. 127 at pp. earlier energy savings) against the standard for the product, provided that 7–8) burdens (e.g., accelerated compliance there exists clear and convincing First, A.O. Smith asked, if the and certification costs for non-triggered evidence, as defined above, to support ASHRAE trigger only applies to those equipment) for any given ASHRAE such decision. specific equipment classes where rulemaking. DOE anticipates Commenters raised a number of other ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has increased stakeholder feedback on this issues of statutory interpretation which the efficiency level, how will the preliminary issue in response to would be expected to impact how the Department handle the other equipment publication of the ASHRAE NODA revised Process Rule would treat classes within the same product following an ASHRAE triggering event. ASHRAE equipment, each of which is category or within the same covered Second, A.O. Smith asked, if a metric addressed below. Again, consistent with product that ASHRAE 90.1 did not is changed by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 its long-standing interpretation, the address? In other words, how does the for a given equipment class, does this Department proposed to define the statutory requirement by which, every trigger Department action? The new ASHRAE ‘‘trigger’’ to be applicable only six years, the Secretary shall conduct an metric may or may not result in an to those equipment classes where evaluation of each class of covered increase in the efficiency level as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has adopted an equipment and shall publish either: (a) compared to the Federal efficiency increase to the efficiency level as A notice of the determination of the level. (A.O. Smith, No. 127 at p. 7) compared to the current Federal Secretary that standards for the product In response, if ASHRAE maintained standard for that specific equipment do not need to be amended, based on the existing regulating metric that serves class. Most commenters supported the criteria established in the statue; or as the basis for current Federal energy DOE’s interpretation regarding EPCA’s (b) a notice of proposed rulemaking conservation standard (without ASHRAE trigger provision. BWC agreed including new proposed standards changing those levels), DOE would not with DOE’s proposal to limit its changes based on the criteria and procedures consider the addition of another metric to those specific equipment classes established under subparagraph (B), to be a triggering event. However, if where ASHRAE has made a change, apply to those equipment classes where ASHRAE were to substitute a new even though other similar equipment ASHRAE 90.1 took no action? Would metric and eliminate the existing metric types were left untouched. (BWC, No. the Department conduct a separate ‘‘six- entirely, DOE would need to, at a 103 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters also year look back’’ rulemaking to address minimum, conduct a crosswalk to the supported DOE’s clarification that those equipment classes where existing metric to see if the changed ASHRAE’s revision of one equipment ASHRAE 90.1 took no action, or does ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels would be class’s performance standards or test the Department interpret ASHRAE 90.1 more stringent than the current Federal method does not trigger DOE’s statutory action on a single equipment class standards, in which case DOE would be obligation to initiate a rulemaking on all sufficient to satisfy the statutory triggered for those equipment classes related equipment classes, explaining requirement for the entire category or where ASHRAE established a higher that DOE is correct to decline to initiate covered product? (A.O. Smith, No. 127 standard. (DOE expects this latter additional rulemaking on related at p. 7) scenario to likely be theoretical, as products that were never considered by As explained previously, EPCA substantial market turmoil would the consensus body. (Joint Commenters, contains two separate provisions conceivably accompany a wholesale No. 112 at p. 3) Similarly, Lennox pertaining to updating the standards for exchange of metrics without the agreed with DOE’s clarification that ASHRAE equipment, one for the maintenance of a transitional metric.) ASHRAE’s revision of one equipment ASHRAE trigger (see 42 U.S.C. Nonetheless, DOE would need to class’s performance standard or test 6313(a)(6)(A)) and another for the 6- consider as a policy matter the method does not trigger DOE’s statutory year-lookback (see 42 U.S.C. appropriateness of transitioning to the obligation to initiate a rulemaking on all 6313(a)(6)(C)). Under DOE’s new metric which ASHRAE has related equipment classes. Lennox interpretation, these two statutory incorporated into Standard 90.1. If DOE stated that this clarification will avoid provisions act in harmony to ensure that determines that there is a sound the artificial imperative to initiate a the standards for all types of covered scientific, technical, and policy basis for rulemaking on a product class that was ASHRAE equipment are reviewed on a changing the metric underlying the not addressed by ASHRAE. (Lennox, periodic basis and updated as Federal standard, it would pursue such No. 133 at p. 3) appropriate. Although not compelled to change through notice-and-comment However, one commenter appeared to do so by the statute, DOE may decide in rulemaking. favor a different interpretation of the appropriate cases to simultaneously Next, A.O. Smith stated that if the ASHRAE trigger, under which triggering conduct an ASHRAE trigger rulemaking Department were to interpret the would result in a significantly broader (i.e., for those equipment classes for provisions as separate requirements rulemaking action. A.O. Smith raised a which ASHRAE set a higher standard) under the statute, it could foresee a number of questions seeking additional and a 6-year-lookback rulemaking (i.e., future where the Department is clarification regarding DOE’s for those equipment classes where conducting two separate rulemakings interpretation in the Process Rule NOPR ASHRAE left levels unchanged or set a (i.e., one under EPCA’s ASHRAE of the statutory provisions related to lower standard) so as to address all authority and another under EPCA’s 6- ASHRAE equipment (particularly the classes of an equipment category at the year-lookback authority), which carry ‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’ and 6-year-lookback same time. In other cases, DOE may different processes under the proposed which would lead to rulemaking choose to bifurcate the rulemakings and Process Rule, different analyses, and action). The commenter’s inquiries were to handle the non-triggered equipment different compliance dates. According focused on packaged boilers, storage classes on a schedule to comply with to A.O. Smith, this would be a very water heaters, instantaneous water the requirement to review standards burdensome and costly interpretation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8646 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

because it would require double the addressing certain classes of ASHRAE final rule establishing or amending a resources spanning many years to equipment for which standards had not standard’’)). (Earthjustice, No. 134 at p. comply with the uncoordinated changed, so it would be impossible for 3) requirements for the different DOE to adopt the ASHRAE level as the In response to Earthjustice, DOE equipment classes within a given statute envisions (as, in most cases, it reasons that if ASHRAE acts to amend covered product. For example, the would already be the same as the standards for certain equipment classes commenter stated that there are existing Federal standard). Instead, DOE for an equipment category in Standard currently 10 equipment classes of could only consider adoption of more- 90.1, that organization would have at a commercial packaged boilers, each with stringent standard levels. Such minimum reviewed the entirety of that a different energy conservation standard interpretation would arguably run equipment category. It would be for which compliance is required. A.O. counter to the ‘‘follow ASHRAE’’ illogical, confusing, and misleading to Smith asked, if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 statutory structure set in place by cherry-pick only select equipment adopts a more-stringent standard for Congress. Equipment classes which classes within a category without only one of those ten equipment classes ASHRAE has decided to leave reviewing the complete category, and the Department subsequently unchanged would remain subject to particularly since that could impose adopts that standard, would the review under the statute’s 6-year- unnecessary burdens on industry and Department continue to be triggered by lookback provision. Whether to State code enforcement officials. the six-year lookback to conduct a consolidate ASHRAE trigger and 6-year- Consequently, presuming this regular review of the other 9 equipment lookback rulemakings will likely hinge assumption is correct, in most cases, classes within the covered equipment? on the facts of a given situation. For ASHRAE would be making an active If this is the case, A.O. Smith strongly example, if ASHRAE amends 9 out of 10 decision to the extent it did not modify urged the Department to revisit its commercial packaged boiler equipment certain equipment classes within an narrowly-defined interpretation of the classes, it may make sense to equipment category. However, the ASHRAE trigger due to the potential immediately commence a 6-year- matter is largely a philosophical debate, burdens associated with misaligned lookback rulemaking and to consolidate because such characterization of review cycles arising from the separate the rulemakings. However, the answer ASHRAE’s action (or, in this case, non- grants of authority under EPCA. (A.O. may conceivably be very different if action) does not have any impact on the Smith, No. 127 at pp. 7–8) ASHRAE acts to amend only one subsequent steps DOE is required to On its face, A.O. Smith’s comment equipment class. Fortunately, DOE’s take under EPCA. Where ASHRAE has makes what appears to be a reasonable amended Process Rule provides ample not acted, DOE remains obligated to argument. However, the Department opportunity for stakeholders to weigh in review the need for amended standards emphasizes that all other commenters on such issues through the prioritization under DOE’s 6-year-lookback authority. on this issue opposed the idea of process, an early assessment, or through (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Pursuant to shifting the ASHRAE trigger from the comments on the ASHRAE NODA that statutory provision, DOE must equipment class level to an equipment analyzing potential energy savings in adopt amended standards more category or equipment type level. In response to an ASHRAE trigger. stringent than the current standards, if addition to individual companies (BWC Through such mechanisms, DOE there is clear and convincing evidence and Lennox), a Joint Comment by 10 believes that it is possible to minimize, showing that such amended standards major trade associations (ACCA, AHRI, if not eliminate, the types of regulatory would result in significant additional AMCA International, ALA, AHAM, burdens about which A.O. Smith HARDI, HPBA, NAFEM, NEMA, and conservation of energy and are expressed concern. PMI)—representing hundreds of technologically feasible and corporate members— all supported Earthjustice challenged as economically justified. (42 U.S.C. DOE’s proposal and in opposition to the unsupported DOE’s statement in the 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42 U.S.C. change suggested by A.O. Smith to NOPR that ‘‘ASHRAE not acting to 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii); 42 U.S.C. remedy ‘‘misaligned review cycles.’’ amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) Because DOE must DOE has concluded that there are decision that the existing standard follow its legal obligations under EPCA, regulatory burdens separate from remain in place.’’ (84 FR 3910, 3916 ASHRAE cannot shield covered participation in the rulemaking process (Feb. 13, 2019)). The commenter argued equipment from potential amended that these commenters deem to that DOE has not explained why that is energy conservation standards in the outweigh the ones identified by A.O. a reasonable interpretation of ASHRAE’s manner Earthjustice suggests. Smith. Perhaps the Joint Commenters failure to amend a standard, or why that Southern Company argued that DOE see some benefit in spacing out interpretation of ASHRAE inaction is should (but has not always) examine the rulemakings and associated compliance consistent with the intent of Congress, totality of ASHRAE actions in setting expenditures. Regardless, DOE reasons which it argues has repeatedly amended equipment standards, because there may that there are other avenues in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) to make clear that be associated usage standards which are appropriate cases to alleviate the ASHRAE cannot shield covered also part of the equation (e.g., requiring concerns expressed by A.O. Smith. equipment from strengthened DOE occupancy sensors to limit the time As noted previously, DOE believes standards (compare 42 U.S.C. lamps are on, which may justify a that its approach provides the best 6313(a)(6)(C) (2010) (requiring DOE’s higher energy use per watt but save reading of the statutory provisions at review ‘‘[n]ot later than 6 years after more energy overall). According to issue, because if ASHRAE were to issuance of any final rule establishing or Southern Company, DOE needs to look change the standard for a single amending a standard, as required for a at the totality of how equipment would equipment class, but DOE then product under this part’’), with 42 be used under ASHRAE Standard 90.1, considered itself triggered at the U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) (2019) (requiring not just looking at a particular piece of equipment category level or equipment DOE’s review ‘‘Every 6 years’’ and equipment in isolation and judging that type level, the process would arguably establishing a deadline for action on by DOE’s rules, ASHRAE should have no longer comport with the statutory equipment ‘‘as to which more than 6 chosen a higher standard. (Southern scheme. In such cases, DOE would be years has elapsed since the most recent Company, March 21, 2019 Public

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8647

Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 102– burdensome to conduct. If the test assessment of the market for ASHRAE 103) procedure is a procedure for equipment to be correct, the Department In response, DOE acknowledges that determining estimated annual operating believes that the commenter has failed ASHRAE action in Standard 90.1 may costs, such amended procedure must to consider all of the relevant provisions sometimes employ a suite of continue to provide that such costs shall of EPCA, as well as the impact that the complementary provisions intended to be calculated from measurements of percentage savings prong of the energy provide operational and energy savings energy use in a representative average- savings threshold would have in such benefits. In doing so, ASHRAE is not use cycle, and from representative situations. First, in the ASHRAE bound by the legal constraints of EPCA, average unit costs of the energy needed context, Congress did include a so the organization is free to approach to operate such equipment during such requirement that more-stringent issues from a more purely technical cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2), (3), (4)(A)– standards be supported by clear and perspective, rather than a regulatory (B)) If the amended industry consensus convincing evidence showing that such one. In contrast, DOE must meet its legal test procedures fail to meet these standards would result in ‘‘significant obligations under the statute— requirements, DOE may establish its additional conservation of energy’’ and particularly 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C) own test procedure that meets the be technologically feasible and and applicable definitions under 42 requirements of the statute. (42 U.S.C. economically justified (42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 6311—in considering new or 6314(a)(4)(C)) 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)), a provision which amended standards for ASHRAE It is DOE’s standard practice to comes into play under both the equipment, whether acting under the undertake a review of amended industry ASHRAE trigger and the 6-year- ASHRAE trigger or 6-year-lookback. In consensus test procedures referenced in lookback. By including such general, DOE must adopt the levels set ASHRAE Standard 90.1 before requirement for significant additional forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless proposing conforming amendments to energy savings, Congress not only acted DOE finds, supported by clear and the corresponding Federal test consistently with its overall approach of convincing evidence, that more- procedures. As part of the process, DOE deferring to ASHRAE but also to stringent standards would result in seeks public comment on its proposed explicitly point out that some significant additional energy savings test procedures, and all substantive equipment may have energy savings that and are technologically feasible and comments must be addressed prior to are too small to justify the imposition of economically justified. Consequently, in adoption of a test procedure final rule. standards. The implication of Southern conducting rulemakings for ASHRAE DOE believes that thorough vetting by Company’s argument would be to have equipment, DOE must live within the both the Department and the interested DOE read the ‘‘significant additional parameters set forth in the statute. public offers a sound practice that energy savings’’ requirement out of the PG&E argued there needs to be some satisfies these express statutory statute for at least some subset of form of verification of ASHRAE test requirements, as demonstrated by the ASHRAE equipment. DOE is not at procedures to ensure that they produce case in PG&E’s example. liberty to follow that suggestion, but representative results. The company Southern Company argued that the instead must give effect to all applicable cited an example where through its own proposed 0.5 quad threshold for statutory provisions. research, it was able to determine that significant energy savings should not Nonetheless, DOE is sensitive to the an ASHRAE test procedure was apply to individual equipment lines in concern that such equipment not be put producing results that were as much as ASHRAE’s standards (given that many beyond the reach of energy conservation 50 percent off, so the commenter involve equipment with smaller overall standards without proper consideration recommended that a process be put in energy usage). The point was that for of the potential for significant additional place to ensure that similar problems do those equipment types, the threshold energy savings. That is why DOE has not arise going forward. (PG&E, March level may never be reached, so DOE also proposed to include a percentage 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. would be left once again to await energy savings prong as part of its 87 at pp. 123–124) ASHRAE action, despite that fact that significant energy savings threshold test. DOE agrees that there should be a Congress had adopted a 6-year-lookback Under that prong, if covered ASRAE robust assessment of industry consensus provision for ASHRAE. (Southern equipment could achieve a substantial test procedures prior to adoption as Company, March 21, 2019 Public energy savings improvement (i.e., 10% Federal test procedures, as Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 122) reduction in energy use), such contemplated by the statute. EPCA In response, DOE notes that while equipment would pass the test even clearly contemplates that the test Southern Company made the argument though the quad threshold may never be procedures for ASHRAE equipment at the March 21, 2019 public meeting reached. In summary, DOE has ‘‘shall be those generally accepted that certain categories of ASHRAE concluded that its approach properly industry test procedures or rating equipment may have small shipments, addresses all of the relevant statutory procedures developed or recognized by energy consumption, or both, such that provisions for adopting standard levels [AHRI or ASHRAE] as referenced in the energy savings potential would be for ASHRAE equipment, including the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1.’’ The limited and potentially never meet the requirement for significant additional statute also directs that, when those proposed 0.5 quad threshold for energy savings. DOE’s approach permits industry test procedures are amended, significant energy savings, the an assessment of each category of DOE should amend the Federal test commenter did not provide any further ASHRAE equipment, accords ASHRAE procedures to be consistent. The statute detail, data, or other evidence to support the deference it is due under the statute, does require that such amended test its claim. Southern Company then and permits the adoption of more- procedures remain reasonably designed asserts that DOE’s proposed threshold stringent standards, supported by clear to produce test results that reflect the would prevent such equipment from and convincing evidence, in appropriate energy efficiency, energy use, and ever being subject to the 6-year-look cases. estimated operating costs of a type of back at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), thereby industrial equipment (or class thereof) ceding too much control to ASHRAE. D. Priority Setting during a representative average use If, for the sake of argument, DOE were Previously, the Process Rule at 10 cycle and shall not be unduly to assume Southern Company’s CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8648 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

section 3(d) outlines DOE’s priority- supported DOE’s proposed authorize a delay or suspension of work setting analysis, which considers ten prioritization process to invite early that would lead to or exacerbate the factors: (1) Potential energy savings; (2) stage comments. (Acuity, No. 95, at p. violation of a statutory deadline. potential economic benefits; (3) 2; AHAM, March 21, 2019 Public (Earthjustice, No. 134, at p. 3) potential environmental or energy Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 136; The Cal-IOUs also indicated that it security benefits; (4) applicable AHRI, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting did not understand the specific details deadlines for rulemakings; (5) Transcript, No. 87, at p. 135; AGA, No. of this aspect of DOE’s proposal or how incremental DOE resources required to 114, at p. 11; BWC, No. 103 at p. 2; CTA, it would ensure that DOE would adhere complete the rulemaking process; (6) No. 136 at p. 2; Edison Electric Institute, to its schedules. The Cal-IOUs other relevant regulatory actions March 21, 2019 Public Meeting acknowledged that providing affecting products; (7) stakeholder Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 133–34; GM stakeholder input on DOE’s priorities recommendations; (8) evidence of Law, No. 105 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, seems positive, but it warned that this energy efficiency gains in the market No. 112 at p. 3; NEMA, March 21, 2019 added input would create additional absent new or revised standards; (9) Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. burden through the imposition of new status of required changes to test 134; NPCC, No. 94, at p. 5; NPGA, No. steps to the current process. (Cal-IOUs, procedures; and (10) other relevant 110 at p. 1; BHI, No. 135, at p. 4) No. 124, at p. 6). Also, Energy Solutions factors. The Process Rule also Others commenters stated that EPCA questions how priority setting would previously required that the results of deadlines take precedence over the supersede EPCA requirements. (Energy this analysis be used to develop Department’s policy preferences in Solutions, March 21, 2019 Public rulemaking priorities and proposed determining DOE’s agenda. For Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 132) schedules for the development and instance, ASE questioned whether As for the 10 existing priority-setting issuance of all rulemakings which DOE’s prioritization proposal is needed. factors, the CEC supports the continued would then be documented and ASE argued that DOE’s proposal is application of the 10 existing priority- distributed for review and comment. 10 potentially duplicative of existing setting factors to DOE’s priority-setting CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A, procedures based on statutory and process and supports streamlining how section 3(a). The 1996 Process Rule also regulatory requirements. ASE argued the DOE notifies the public of its stated that each Fall, DOE would issue, that Congress has already set deadlines priorities by eliminating duplicative simultaneously with the for DOE, either by a date specific or processes and using the Regulatory Administration’s Regulatory Agenda, a through the 6-year-lookback provision Agenda as the means for distributing the final set of rulemaking priorities, the (for energy conservation standards) or 7- Agency’s plans for upcoming efficiency accompanying analysis, and the year-look-back provision (for test regulations. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 3) schedules for all priority rulemakings procedures). Furthermore, ASE stated Another commenter, AGA, stated that that it anticipated within the next two that DOE already reports its priorities the Department should focus on two of years. (Id. at section 3(c).) through contributions to the Regulatory the 10 existing priority-setting factors, In the February 13, 2019 NOPR, DOE Agenda. However, ASE suggested that the potential energy savings and the proposed revising this process. DOE using requests for information (RFIs) to potential economic benefits as an initial proposed that stakeholders would have gather stakeholder input could help screen for prioritization. The focus on the opportunity to provide input on prioritize new product coverage and these two factors is important because if prioritization of rulemakings through a publicize statutory deadlines. ASE the Department determines the request for comment as DOE begins recommended that DOE issue a revised proposed regulatory activity does not preparation of its Regulatory Agenda proposal to better reconcile its statutory provide sufficient energy savings or is each spring. In particular, DOE would and regulatory duties with its plan for not cost effective, there is no need to point interested parties to the priority setting. (ASE, No. 108 at p. 3) review the other factors. (AGA, No. 114, Regulatory Agenda posted to ASAP stated that a provision for at p. 11) www.reginfo.gov the previous Fall and priority-setting should not be in the Although stakeholders have given would request input concerning which Process Rule. (ASAP, March 21, 2019 DOE’s prioritization proposal mixed rulemaking proceedings should be in Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. reviews, DOE is implementing this particular action categories in the spring 137, 139) ASAP, et al. stated that revised priority-setting process because Regulatory Agenda and request existing statutory deadlines will largely increased stakeholder input early in the comment on the timing of such determine the sequencing of DOE’s rulemaking process, combined with the rulemakings. If stakeholders believe that work on standards and test procedures. public availability of the Regulatory the Department is pursuing a rule that Further, requesting input on Agenda, is additional input that could should not be prioritized, they would prioritization would seem to be better inform the Department in its have the opportunity to use this duplicative of the ‘‘early assessment’’ decision-making process concerning mechanism to so inform DOE. If for each product since stakeholders will priority-setting and would meet the stakeholders believe DOE should act have the opportunity to provide input at same objectives as DOE’s previous more quickly on another rulemaking the beginning of each rulemaking priority-setting analysis in the current they could make that point as well. DOE regarding whether DOE should proceed. Process Rule. has concluded that increased (ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp. 2, 5) E. Coverage Determinations stakeholder input early in the CT–DEEP, CEC, and Cal-IOUs, and rulemaking process, combined with the Earthjustice agreed with other In its proposal, DOE explained that public availability of the Regulatory commenters that DOE should not EPCA provides DOE with the Agenda, would meet the same objectives prioritize rulemakings based on discretionary authority to classify as DOE’s previous priority-setting anything other than the sequencing additional types of consumer products analysis. (84 FR 3910, 3916) (February already required by statute. (CT–DEEP, and industrial/commercial equipment 13, 2019) No. 93, at p. 2; CEC, No. 121, at p.3; Cal- as ‘‘covered’’ within the meaning of In response to DOE’s NOPR, IOUs, No. 124, at p.6; Earthjustice, No. EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) (providing stakeholders provided mixed reviews of 134, at p. 3) As Earthjustice authority for establishing coverage over the proposal. Several stakeholders summarized, the Process Rule cannot consumer products) and 42 U.S.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8649

6295(l) (setting criteria for setting the relevant product/equipment prior to impossible to address substantive issues standards for consumer products); see taking any additional steps, such as until the products at issue have been also 42 U.S.C. 6312(c) (providing engaging with the public on matters clearly and specifically defined. (Joint authority for establishing coverage over involving potential test procedures or Commenters, No. 112 at p. 3) They also specified commercial and industrial possible energy conservation standards. asserted that any proposed covered equipment). This authority allows DOE Commenters responded both in support products/equipment should be narrowly to consider regulating additional of the proposal and against it. defined with sufficient clarity so that products/equipment that would further Supporters of DOE’s proposal the proposed coverage corresponds to the goals of EPCA to conserve energy for included manufacturers, trade what is intended to be covered. In their the Nation—as long as the statutory associations, and utility companies. view, following the proposed approach threshold requirements are met. Acuity agreed with the proposal, would avoid unnecessary confusion, the DOE proposed to initiate the process stating that it makes sense to solicit wasting of resources, and failures to through which it would add coverage of public input and determine coverage address relevant and critical issues. a particular product or equipment by prior to considering potential standards They also asserted that finalizing publishing a notice of proposed for products/equipment. (Acuity, No. coverage determinations first would determination to address solely the 95, at pp. 2–3.) It added that a bifurcated ensure that both stakeholders and DOE merits of covering that product or approach like the one proposed by DOE know what products/equipment are at equipment. The notice would explain would save both DOE and stakeholders issue in the substantive rulemakings. how the coverage of the item would significant resources if there should be The Joint Commenters also supported meet the relevant statutory requirements a ‘‘no coverage’’ determination. (Acuity, DOE’s proposal to initiate a new and why coverage is ‘‘necessary or No. 95, at p. 3.) Acuity also agreed with coverage determination process (and to appropriate’’ to carry out the purposes DOE’s proposal to identify newly complete that process prior to moving of EPCA. (84 FR 3910, 3916 (Feb. 13, covered products in a limited fashion forward either with a standards or test 2019). See also 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) and to narrowly and clearly define any procedure rulemaking) if DOE finds it (detailing criteria for classifying a new designations involving products. necessary to expand or reduce the scope consumer product as a covered (Acuity, No. 95, at p. 3.) of coverage during the substantive product). In cases involving BWC agreed with DOE’s proposal to rulemaking process. (Joint Commenters, commercial/industrial equipment, DOE finalize a coverage determination at No. 112 at pp. 3–4) follows the same process, except that least six months prior to publication of HPBA stressed that unless a given the Department need only show the a test procedure proposal, but it product is ‘‘covered’’ by DOE, the coverage determination is ‘‘necessary’’ cautioned that the scope of coverage Agency may not prescribe standards for to carry out the purposes of EPCA. See should be narrowly defined so as to that product (and only under certain 42 U.S.C. 6312(b) (providing that the prevent any unintended consequences. circumstances)—and before DOE Secretary of Energy ‘‘may, by rule, (BWC, No. 103 at p. 2) considers proposing a standard, there include a type of industrial equipment Westinghouse Lighting stressed that must be the possibility of a ‘‘substantial as covered equipment if he determines as a small manufacturer, it does not improvement’’ in that product’s energy that to do so is necessary to carry out have the bandwidth to quickly examine efficiency and DOE must first consider the purposes of [Part A–1 of EPCA]’’). the impacts of a sudden ‘‘last minute’’ whether labeling requirements would be DOE’s authority to add coverage over expansion in product coverage. It also effective. (HPBA, No. 128, at pp. 1–2.) commercial equipment is more limited emphasized that the coverage HPBA elaborated that, with respect to than its coverage authority for consumer determination process ‘‘cannot go back labeling, the question is not whether a products because Congress specified the to square one’’ but needs to have clear labeling rule would achieve the same particular types of equipment that could ‘‘exit ramp options’’ along the way to energy savings that a mandatory be added. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)) enable the agency to drop or add a standard would achieve but whether Stakeholders would then be given 60 product that no one had considered such a rule would be insufficient ‘‘to days to submit written comments to earlier in the process. (Westinghouse induce manufacturers to produce and DOE on the proposed determination Lighting, March 21, 2019 Public consumers and other persons to notice. Subsequently (and in a change Meeting Transcript at pp. 161–162.) purchase’’ products capable of from DOE’s past practice), DOE would AGA supported DOE’s proposal to achieving the highest level of efficiency assess the written comments and then limit any expansion of coverage to those that would be technologically feasible publish its final decision on coverage as narrow circumstances that satisfy the and economically justified. (HPBA, No. a separate notice, an action which statutory requirements and purpose of 128, at p. 2 (quoting from 42 U.S.C. would be completed prior to the EPCA. (AGA, No. 114, at 13) 6295(l)(D)).) HPBA stressed that DOE’s initiation of any rulemaking for related NEMA stressed that it preferred to consideration of potential new test procedures or energy conservation have determinations of rulemaking standards should occur only after the standards. If the final decision scopes of coverage, along with the potential products for coverage have determines that coverage is warranted, completion of accompanying test been clearly identified but before any DOE would proceed with its typical procedures, completed early during standards development has begun and rulemaking process for both test DOE’s rulemaking efforts. (NEMA, only after the criteria for issuing procedures and standards, applying the March 21, 2019 Public Meeting standards for newly covered products requirements of the Process Rule, as Transcript at p. 157) under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) (i.e., newly amended. See generally, 84 FR 3910, The Joint Commenters also supported covered products) have been satisfied. 3916 (Feb. 13, 2019). DOE’s coverage determination proposal. (HPBA, No. 128, at p. 2.) In their view, finalizing coverage EEI viewed the proposal as ‘‘a good Comment Summary determinations before the initiation of first step.’’ (Edison Electric Institute, DOE received a variety of comments any labeling, standards, or test March 21, 2019 Public Meeting responding to its proposal, which procedure rulemakings (by six months Transcript at pp. 147) would, at its core, emphasize the need prior to the start of a test procedure HPBA suggested that DOE codify the for clearly establishing coverage over rulemaking) is necessary because it is predicate conditions for substantive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8650 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

regulations in the Process Rule and repeated. (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 2) necessary standards that are in the stressed that DOE must (1) be clear as ACEEE also indicated that it generally public interest. They worried that a to what products are at issue, while supported an approach that would standards-setting rulemaking would be determining that it is necessary to result in completion of test procedures significantly delayed if DOE determined regulate them and (2) settle the issue of well before the end of the comment that a coverage determination should be finality for judicial review to avoid period on the accompanying energy modified after finalizing coverage. They having disputes over coverage before a conservation standard rulemaking for also worried that the need to restart the decision is made on whether to impose the affected product, while leaving an coverage determination process could standards. To address the latter of these, ability to fix problems that may become act as a disincentive to modifying HPBA suggested characterizing the apparent later. (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 2) coverage determinations, even when determination of coverage as a ASAP, like HPBA, supported the idea warranted by new information obtained ‘‘preliminary determination of of settling the issue of finality regarding during the rulemaking process. In their coverage.’’ (HPBA, March 21, 2019 a given coverage determination for view, the current approach followed by Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 148– judicial review purposes and suggested DOE readily permits changes to the 49) Following this suggested approach that having a ‘‘preliminary scope of coverage as the process would lead to a final determination determination’’ would help avoid the unfolds, while DOE’s proposed once standards are adopted. (HPBA, prospect of restarting the analytical approach would require re-noticing of March 21, 2019 Public Meeting process by moving back to a coverage the coverage determination, re- Transcript at p. 149) determination analysis for the entire finalization, and restarting the 6-month Responding to concerns during the product or equipment type at issue. It clock for a standards rulemaking, all of March 2019 Public Meeting about envisioned a process where DOE could which could impact DOE’s ability to having to restart the whole process continue to move forward on those meet statutory deadlines. (AGs Joint every time there is an error in the products/equipment that were already Comment, No. 111 at pp. 8–9) The State coverage determination, Spire argued addressed by the earlier ‘‘preliminary’’ AGs also contended that DOE’s that it is necessary for the process to determination. (ASAP, March 21, 2019 proposed ‘‘limited’’ approach to restart to help ensure that manufacturers Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 151– identifying new covered products is have an opportunity to be involved in 152) As proposed, ASAP expressed contrary to what they view as Congress’s the process. (HPBA, March 21, 2019 concern that the coverage determination intent for DOE to continue expanding Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 153, process would be restarted whenever a covered products. (AGs Joint Comment, 158) problem with coverage is detected, No. 111 at p. 4) Finally, the State AGs Finally, GM Law supported what it which would result in DOE being noted that since coverage regarded as DOE’s proposal to limit its unable to produce a rule within a determinations allow DOE to regulate ability to recognize new covered reasonable timeframe, particularly if test previously unregulated products, a products. In its view, the proposed procedures and coverage determinations delay at this stage would delay the approach would allow all interested are not being addressed in parallel with potentially significant benefits that parties to focus on the most effective each other. To avoid this potential could accrue from regulating these new conservation measures. (GM Law, No. outcome, ASAP suggested that DOE products, contrary to EPCA’s objective 105 at p. 3) adopt an approach that would address Commenters who expressed concerns of propelling the market for new coverage determination and test efficient consumer and industrial about DOE’s proposal, like those who procedures simultaneously. (ASAP, technologies. (AGs Joint Comment, No. supported it, represented a variety of March 21, 2019 Public Meeting 111 at pp. 8–9) different interests. These interested Transcript at pp. 167–168) parties included energy efficiency In jointly-filed comments, ASAP, et The CEC also made a variety of broad advocacy groups, States, and utilities. al. argued that the Process Rule should points in its public meeting statements Earthjustice expressed concern that not require that a coverage and comments. It stated its belief that it DOE would not gather standards-related determination be completed prior to did not view the issuance of a coverage information prior to finalization of the initiating a rulemaking. These groups determination to have a preemptive coverage determination. (Earthjustice, criticized DOE’s proposal as not effect until standards are set for the March 21, 2019 Public Meeting reflecting the fact that information product at issue. (CEC, March 21, 2019 Transcript at p. 156) learned during the rulemaking process Public Meeting Transcript at p. 165) It NPCC disagreed with the proposed for both test procedures and standards also argued that DOE must retain use of a separate coverage determination can, and should, inform the coverage flexibility to modify the applicable process. In its view, having notice and determination. (ASAP, et al., No. 126 at scope of coverage in response to new comment on coverage adds unnecessary p. 2) They cautioned that the proposal information developed as part of the burden and time to the standards would result in potentially adding steps rulemaking process. (CEC, No. 121, at p. process. (NPCC, No. 94, at p. 5.) to the process and unnecessarily 4 (pointing to DOE’s actions during its ACEEE argued that requiring a final delaying rulemakings and pointed to the battery charger rulemaking that resulted coverage determination prior to miscellaneous refrigeration products in moving backup battery chargers into initiating a test procedure or standard rule to illustrate how information that is a separate rulemaking proceeding)) In rulemaking, and a final test procedure learned during the rulemaking process its view, DOE’s proposal to restart its 180 days before a standards NOPR, will can ultimately inform the determination entire standard-setting process if it weaken coordination of DOE’s of coverage. (ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp. needs to revise the scope of coverage rulemaking process. In its view, these 5–6) would effectively prevent any restrictions will prolong the rulemaking The State AGs contended that DOE’s appliances from becoming newly process and prevent subsequent proposal to issue final coverage covered products, regardless of the proceedings from informing earlier determinations six months prior to potential for energy savings, the ones, resulting in worse coverage and initiating a test procedure or standards maturity of the test procedure, or the test procedure decisions or years-long rulemaking would improperly delay the readiness for standards. (CEC, No. 121, delays as the earlier rulemakings are promulgation of beneficial and at p. 4.) The CEC added that, at best,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8651

DOE’s proposal would result in delayed Finally, individual commenter Linda for ‘‘handheld or worn mobile standards without increasing Steinberg provided a general wholesale communication-capable computing stakeholder participation or providing rejection of the proposal. (Steinberg, No. devices’’ that specifically includes consumer benefits. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 90, at 1) smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches, DOE discovers that another group of 4.) Response to Comments CT–DEEP argued that the proposal’s devices should also have been coverage determination provision would DOE has carefully considered the covered—e.g., smartglasses—DOE generate an unnecessary and increased comments it received from all interested would be able to address that issue number of steps to the rulemaking parties. While DOE has decided to separately from the question of what process in cases where DOE finds it largely continue with its proposed testing method or standard would apply necessary to modify the scope of approach, it is making certain to the remaining classes of products coverage during a rulemaking. (CT– clarifications to address the concerns within this product type. The question DEEP, No. 93, at p. 2.) In its view, to expressed in response to the proposal. of coverage in this instance would be As a preliminary matter, DOE notes prevent unnecessary delays, DOEs handled separately, as would questions that without settling the fundamental should not require a completed coverage concerning the appropriate test question of what product or equipment determination prior to initiating a procedure and standards to apply. Once to regulate, all other aspects of its rulemaking. (CT–DEEP, No. 93, at p. 2.) coverage is established, DOE may opt to regulatory framework—i.e. test The Cal-IOUs noted during the March regulate certain classes of a particular procedures and energy conservation product type and defer regulating other 2019 public meeting that it agreed with standards—stand on infirm ground. By HPBA’s suggestions—i.e., that DOE classes for another time as appropriate. ensuring that the scoping of a particular DOE appreciates the concern must codify the predicate conditions for product or equipment type is expressed by Earthjustice regarding the substantive regulations in the process appropriately set, the necessary details importance of obtaining sufficient data rule, which would involve (1) not only regarding how to evaluate the efficiency prior to making a final decision being clear as to what products are at of that product/equipment can be regarding product or equipment issue but also to determine that it is discussed and evaluated. Once there is coverage. This sentiment for ensuring necessary to regulate them and (2) an agreed-upon means on how to that DOE has sufficient information making this decision final for judicial evaluate the energy efficiency of a before making any final coverage review purposes to avoid having a product/equipment, only then can there decision, as indicated in the earlier dispute over coverage. (Cal-IOUs and be a meaningful analytical discussion summary, was shared by others as well. HPBA, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting regarding what the appropriate energy DOE notes that in performing its Transcript at pp. 148–150) (To the latter conservation standards should be. And analysis to determine whether to extend of these points, Spire suggested the use without completing the test procedure coverage over a particular product or of a ‘‘preliminary determination of prior to issuing a proposal on potential equipment, it would, as it routinely has coverage.’’ (HPBA, March 21, 2019 standards (and providing industry with in the past, collect as much information Public Meeting Transcript at p. 149)) time to familiarize itself with the test as possible through its own analysis and The Cal-IOUs were also concerned with procedure itself), the analytical process research—including through careful whether the proposed process would in evaluating those potential standards reviews of responses to DOE’s requests preempt State regulatory efforts. In their would be more prone to confusion and for information to the public. DOE is view, preemption should not apply error in ensuring that an appropriate also hopeful that, given this apparently until the relevant test procedure and standard is set. The approach that DOE universally-held belief in the standards are established. (Cal-IOUs, is adopting in this final rule is importance of ensuring that the agency March 21, 2019 Public Meeting consistent with what DOE has done in has sufficient information on which to Transcript at pp. 155–156.) In their the past, and the agency seeks to adhere base its coverage determinations, written comments, the Cal-IOUs again to this analytical sequence to help interested parties will endeavor to asserted that final coverage ensure that the framework that it applies provide DOE with as much relevant determinations should be established to newly covered products and information as possible to help inform only after standards have been finalized equipment will stand on firm technical the decision-making process. for the product that is subject to that and legal grounds. DOE also appreciates the concerns determination. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. Further, while DOE will seek to expressed by ACEEE to ensure that 6.) In their view, publishing a final ensure that its coverage determination is coverage determinations are properly determination before establishing as complete as possible, the agency set. DOE agrees that this factor is a standards could be problematic if emphasizes that coverage of a product/ critical consideration in the context of modifications to the product scope are equipment type is necessarily broad in its test procedure and standards necessary during the rulemaking nature. DOE does not anticipate many rulemakings. A coverage determination process. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. 6.) changes to the scope of coverage of a is the foundational step that serves as They argued that without the flexibility product or equipment type once it the stepping stone upon which an entire to readily modify the scope of coverage finalizes a coverage determination but it rulemaking will stand—and without a without pausing a rulemaking to solicit recognizes that there may be issues strong foundation on which to build, the public comment on the coverage involving which classes of products or framework of the rulemaking will be determination before moving forward, equipment to regulate and how to prone to difficulties in implementation the rulemaking burden would increase regulate them. In DOE’s view, these and potentially vulnerable to a legal both on DOE and stakeholders. (Cal- timing and policy questions are separate challenge. DOE wishes to avoid these IOUs, No. 124, at pp. 6–7 (alluding to from the issue of determining coverage and similar issues going forward to various comments from the March 2019 and can be addressed within the context ensure that its regulations are Public Meeting regarding potential of an ongoing test procedure or appropriately scoped and implemented. problems with the proposed finalization standards rulemaking, as appropriate. Regarding the notion of continuing of coverage determination before By way of a hypothetical example, if, with an ongoing test procedure or establishing standards)) after finalizing a coverage determination standards rulemaking if a problem with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8652 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

a finalized coverage determination is address test procedure- and standards- U.S.C. 6295(ii). DOE agrees with the found, DOE notes that the addition (or related issues, the agency was able to CEC that under this scenario, where removal) of a given product/equipment address its various regulatory DOE is setting standards for a newly class as part of the overall coverage of framework issues through a mutually covered consumer product type for the a product/equipment would be treated agreed-on negotiated rulemaking first time, preemption of any pre- and analyzed separately from the other process allowing the handling of these existing standards would not occur until classes already being examined and issues. See 80 FR 17355 (April 1, 2015). the compliance date for the relevant agreed upon as appropriate for inclusion DOE agrees that the concurrent DOE standards is reached. See 42 U.S.C. as part of an ongoing test procedure or publication of DOE’s test procedure 6295(ii)(1). With respect to industrial standards rulemaking. To the extent that final rule and coverage determination equipment for which DOE adds a given coverage determination is so for these products, when following the coverage, DOE believes that the defective that the determination itself normal course set out in this final rule, provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297(b) do not needs reevaluating—such as from the would unfold differently than in the require that a Federal standard must reliance on inaccurate energy use data— negotiated rulemaking process as used first be effective in order for preemption DOE would pause its pending in the MREF proceeding. See 81 FR to apply. This provision, which rulemakings to examine what aspects of 46768 (July 18, 2016). preempts State and local regulations its rulemakings need modifying in light Regarding the CEC’s concerns, DOE until such time that a Federal standard of the new information. That process first notes that it disagrees with the becomes effective, provides an may very well involve seeking public CEC’s suggestion that the proposed exception for those products that were comment and input to assist DOE in coverage determination provision would already addressed by regulations addressing any deficiencies in its prevent DOE from issuing any standards prescribed or enacted before January 8, analysis and related determination. DOE in the future. Since EPCA separates the 1987 and applies to products before believes that the prospect of having to determination of coverage from the January 2, 1988. (Special provisions re-initiate the coverage determination setting of standards and test procedures, applicable to certain types of lighting process—and the attendant regulatory unless the problems with an earlier products also apply.) Exceptions are uncertainty and overall unpredictability coverage determination were defectively also provided for a variety of other that will follow—will serve as sufficient fatal, DOE does not anticipate that the regulations but have no bearing on the incentive for all interested parties to coverage determination provision being industrial equipment over which DOE participate fully in the coverage adopted in this final rule will has authority to add coverage. See 42 determination process and provide DOE necessarily prevent the agency from U.S.C. 6297(b)(2)–(7). with comprehensive and relevant data issuing future standards. Instead, it will With respect to the concerns to consider as part of the Agency’s help ensure that the scope of coverage expressed by the State AGs, DOE’s analysis when it first initiates a coverage that DOE sets is appropriate and sets out responsibility is to ensure that it determination for a product or a firm foundation for future establishes legally defensible standards equipment type. When applied in this rulemakings. for newly covered products—in effect, With respect to the backup battery manner, DOE does not believe that a to perform a balancing test regarding the charger situation cited by the CEC, DOE ‘‘preliminary determination,’’ as benefits of energy savings, the costs of notes that the removal of that class of suggested by HPBA and others, is producing those savings, and the policy products from the battery charger considerations inherent in making the necessary to ensure the validity of rulemaking to a different product type’s final decision on standards. This means coverage determinations or that the rulemaking would still be possible, as that the standards that DOE promulgates rulemaking process is able to proceed in no overall change to the product type must produce significant energy savings a timely fashion. Accordingly, DOE is itself—i.e., battery chargers—was made. that are economically justified and declining to adopt the suggested See 81 FR 38266, 38275 (June 13, 2016). technically feasible. DOE acknowledges preliminary determination approach. Applying this final rule’s approach EPCA’s goal of improving energy DOE may revisit this issue if would allow a finalized coverage efficiency, and also emphasizes that circumstances suggest that such a determination to continue to remain DOE must ensure that those standards change is needed. intact provided that the removal of a are produced with the benefit of full DOE notes that examples of coverage given class of products would not affect participation from interested parties to determination changes cited by ASAP, DOE’s ability to demonstrate that the help it ascertain whether the requisite et al. (miscellaneous refrigeration coverage criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) criteria for setting standards in a given products) and the CEC (battery would still be met. If, however, DOE can scenario are met. DOE believes that the chargers), reflect approaches that could no longer demonstrate that these criteria measured approach being adopted in still be followed with respect to the are satisfied, the prior coverage this rule will enable it to continue to do addressing of any fundamental determination would need to be re- so in a manner that addresses the problems with coverage. In the example evaluated and analyzed as appropriate. concerns noted earlier by interested of miscellaneous refrigeration products As for the CEC’s statements regarding parties regarding the predictability and (MREFs), DOE settled questions preemption, DOE notes that the scope of transparency of DOE’s process while regarding coverage by eliminating preemption is already covered by 42 ensuring that a proper scope is used to icemakers from the potential U.S.C. 6297 and, as applicable, 42 set economically justified levels of rulemaking’s scope after initiating a U.S.C. 6295(ii). In DOE’s view, test energy efficiency that will benefit the negotiated rulemaking. DOE does not procedure rules would preempt any Nation as a whole. anticipate that this process of similar requirements imposed at the If DOE determines to initiate the addressing coverage questions prior to local level—irrespective of whether coverage determination process, it will setting out the framework for related test standards for the products/equipment at first publish a notice of proposed procedures and standards would be issue have been set. With respect to determination, limited to the issue of altered by the provisions adopted in this standards, any newly covered product coverage, in which DOE will explain final rule. DOE also notes that because for which DOE sets coverage and how such products/equipment that it it initiated a negotiated rulemaking to standards would be addressed under 42 seeks to designate as ‘‘covered’’ meet the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8653

statutory criteria for coverage and why that coverage determinations be made newly covered product/equipment. such coverage is ‘‘necessary or on a product-specific basis with each After completing notice and comment appropriate’’ to carry out the purposes new covered product being defined on a proposed coverage determination of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)) In the separately with sufficient clarity to and issuing a final determination, DOE case of commercial/industrial ensure that products serving different believes it is appropriate to accord such equipment, DOE follows the same purposes are not treated as a single process finality. However, if during the process, except that the Department covered product. They added that each substantive rulemaking proceeding DOE need only show the coverage product should individually satisfy the finds it necessary and appropriate to determination is ‘‘necessary’’ to carry minimum energy consumption expand or reduce the scope of coverage, out the purposes of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. requirement and qualify as a ‘‘necessary the Department agrees with the Joint 6312) DOE’s authority to add or appropriate’’ target for regulation. Commenters’ that a new coverage commercial equipment is more limited The Joint Commenters advocated that determination process at that point than its authority to add consumer the Process Rule should be amended to should be initiated and finalized prior products because Congress specified the require that proposed and final coverage to moving forward with the test particular types of equipment that could determinations under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) procedure or standards rulemaking. specifically identify each of the be added. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)) F. Early Stakeholder Input To Determine products at issue and provide a separate Stakeholders would then be given 60 the Need for Rulemaking days to submit written comments to justification for the coverage of each. DOE on the proposed determination They further added that DOE has failed In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE notice. Subsequently (and in a change to satisfy these requirements in the past. proposed to adopt provisions in the from DOE’s past practice), DOE would Moreover, the Joint Commenters revised Process Rule detailing the steps assess the written comments and then recommended that a final coverage DOE would take prior to issuing a notice publish its final decision on coverage as determination be in place before of proposed rulemaking, including a a separate notice, an action which substantive rulemaking on test proposed determination not to amend would be completed prior to the procedures or energy conservation an energy conservation standard or test initiation of any rulemaking for related standards commences so that the public procedure. The proposed revisions test procedures or energy conservation clearly understands which products are focused on two main areas: (1) standards. If the final decision covered, thus avoiding unnecessary Establishing an early assessment review of potential test procedure and energy determines that coverage is warranted, confusion, wasted resources, and the conservation standard rulemakings; and DOE will proceed with its typical failure to address critical issues. Lastly, (2) clarifying what steps DOE will take, rulemaking process for both test the Joint Commenters suggested that the and the corresponding opportunities procedures and standards, applying the 1996 Process Rule requires a reopening stakeholders will have to comment, after requirements of the Process Rule, as of comment on the justification for a the early assessment review and before amended. Specifically, DOE would not coverage determination during the first issuance of any notice of proposed issue any RFIs, notices of data rulemaking in which substantive rulemaking. (84 FR 3910, 3917) availability (‘‘NODAs’’), or any other regulation is imposed and if broader mechanism to gather information for the coverage is required, a new coverage a. Early Assessment Review purpose of initiating a rulemaking to determination must be proposed and finalized before initiating a rulemaking In order to ensure that DOE establish a test procedure or energy maximizes the benefits of its rulemaking conservation standard for the proposed to regulate the broader range of products. (Joint Comment, No. 51 at pp. efforts, DOE proposed to revise the covered product prior to finalization of Process Rule to include an early the coverage determination. DOE will 9–10) Whirlpool and Lutron expressed support for these views. (See Whirlpool, assessment review of the suitability of also finalize coverage for a product at further rulemaking. Id. at 84 FR 3917. least six months prior to publication of No. 76 at p. 1; Lutron, No. 50 at p. 2) DOE agrees with the points raised by This purpose of this review is to limit a proposed rule to establish a test the Joint Commenters, discussed the resources, from both DOE and procedure. And, DOE will complete the previously, that DOE should exercise its stakeholders, committed to rulemakings test procedure rulemaking at least six authority to identify new ‘‘covered that will not satisfy the requirements in months prior to publication of a products’’ in a limited fashion. To this EPCA that a new or amended energy proposed energy conservation standard. end, DOE proposes to extend coverage conservation standard save a significant This timing does not present any legal only to: (1) Those consumer products amount of energy, and be economically issue because adding coverage for a for which EPCA regulation is ‘‘necessary justified and technologically feasible; product and establishing test procedures or appropriate’’ to the achievement of and that an amended test procedure and standards is a purely discretionary EPCA’s purposes and which meet more accurately measure energy (or act without legal deadline. statutory consumption criterion, and (2) water) use during a representative The Joint Commenters, citing to 42 to that commercial/industrial average use cycle, or reduce testing U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)(A), argued that DOE equipment for which EPCA regulation is burden. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B); 42 should exercise its authority to identify ‘‘necessary’’ to the achievement of U.S.C. 6293(b)) Therefore, as the first new ‘‘covered products’’ in a limited EPCA’s purposes. DOE agrees that any step in any proceeding to consider fashion, extending only to those proposed new covered products/ establishing or amending an energy products for which EPCA regulation is equipment should be narrowly defined conservation standard or amending a ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to the with sufficient clarity so that the test procedure, DOE would publish a achievement of EPCA’s purposes. They proposed coverage corresponds to that notice in the Federal Register further argued that DOE’s authority to which is intended. announcing that DOE is considering identify new ‘‘covered products’’ is DOE does not agree with the Joint initiation of a proceeding, and as part of limited to products that consume at Commenters’ suggestion that all that notice, DOE would request least enough energy to satisfy a stated coverage determinations must be submission of related comments, minimum energy consumption reopened as a matter of course in the including data and information showing criterion. The Joint Commenters urged first substantive rulemaking on the whether any new or amended standard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8654 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

would satisfy the relevant requirements In response, DOE notes that the affect DOE’s responsibility to determine in EPCA for a new or amended energy purpose of the early assessment review whether a rulemaking satisfies conservation standard or an amended is to reduce the length of the rulemaking applicable statutory criteria under test procedure. Based on the process when issuing a determination EPCA. DOE has always solicited input information received in response to the that a new or amended energy from stakeholders during the notice and its own analysis, DOE would conservation standard or amended test rulemaking process, but that has never determine whether to proceed with a procedure is not warranted under the changed the fact that it is DOE’s rulemaking for a new or amended applicable statutory criteria. And, while responsibility to determine whether an energy conservation standard or an DOE acknowledges that the early energy conservation standard or test amended test procedure. If DOE assessment review adds an additional procedure is promulgated in accordance determines that a new or amended step to rulemaking processes, this step with the criteria and procedures laid out standard or amended test procedure will allow DOE to focus more resources in EPCA. would not meet the applicable statutory on rulemaking activities that result in a b. Other Avenues for Early Stakeholder criteria, DOE would engage in notice new or amended energy conservation Input in the Rulemaking Process and comment rulemaking to make that standard or amended test procedure. As determination. If DOE receives a result, DOE believes the increase in In a November 6, 2010, policy sufficient information suggesting it available resources will offset, in part or statement, DOE stated that while the could justify a new or amended whole, the extra time spent conducting framework document and preliminary standard or the information received is an early assessment review. analysis provide useful information, inconclusive with regard to the statutory Commenters, such as ASAP, et al. and there are more efficient ways of criteria, DOE would undertake the ASE, also expressed concern that the gathering data. Accordingly, in preliminary stages of a rulemaking to early assessment review process is appropriate cases, the Department will issue or amend an energy conservation unnecessarily duplicative of DOE’s gather the needed preliminary data standard. Beginning such a rulemaking, current process regarding preliminary informally and begin the public however, would not preclude DOE from rulemaking activities. (ASAP, et al., No. rulemaking process with the issuance of later making a determination that a new 126, at p. 7; ASE, No. 108, at p. 5) In a proposed rule for public comment.13 or amended energy conservation response, DOE notes that the early In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE standard or amended test procedure assessment review is not just an earlier proposed to revise this process to ensure cannot satisfy the requirements in version of DOE’s normal rulemaking stakeholders have the opportunity to EPCA. (84 FR 3910, 3917, 3921) analysis. The goal of the early comment prior to issuance of a assessment review is to conduct a more In response, several commenters proposed energy conservation standard focused, limited analysis of a specific supported the addition of an early or test procedure rule. Assuming the set of facts or circumstances that would assessment review. For example, Acuity early assessment review process does allow DOE to determine that, based on stated that early determinations at these not result in DOE issuing a one or more statutory criteria, a new or stages will save regulated parties and determination that a new or amended amended energy conservation standard the Department countless hours and energy conservation standard or or amended test procedure is not valuable resources by cutting off what amended test procedure is not warranted. have become virtually automatic warranted, DOE would issue a Some commenters expressed concern framework document and preliminary rulemakings to update standards and that the early assessment review would test procedures—updates that no longer analysis or an ANOPR. These shift the burden of determining whether documents, as opposed to ‘‘informal’’ produce meaningful energy savings and to proceed with a rulemaking to data gathering, would provide the divert attention and resources from pro- stakeholders. For instance, NPGA necessary robust analysis to determine consumer innovation, R&D, etc. (Acuity, disagreed with placing the onus on whether to move forward with a No. 95, at p. 3) Similarly, Joint stakeholders to demonstrate that new proposed standard. RFIs and NODAs Commenters stated that early regulatory action is not necessary, and could be issued, as appropriate, in assessment improves and streamlines CEC stated that DOE will simply defer addition to these analytical documents. the Department’s approach to to commenters about whether a test (84 FR 3910, 3918, 3921) rulemaking by identifying early in the procedure amendment is necessary, In general, commenters were in favor process how DOE should use its without conducting its own analysis, of ensuring stakeholders have to resources. (Joint Commenters, No. 112, and then make a determination not to at p. 4) amend a test procedure without an opportunity to comment prior to DOE also received comments opportunity for the public to comment issuance of a proposed rule. For expressing various concerns with the on the reasoning behind that instance, ASAP, et al. supports proposed early assessment review determination. (NPGA, No. 110, at p. 2; providing an opportunity for early process. Several commenters were CEC, No. 121, at p. 6) Additionally, Cal- stakeholder input prior to the concerned that the addition of the early IOUs stated that an early assessment publication of a NOPR, and CTA stated assessment review would increase the review creates a heavy stakeholder that greater opportunities for early length of the rulemaking process and burden to review, research, test, and stakeholder input is a step that would make it more difficult for DOE to meet validate all aspects of a test procedure make more efficient use of government applicable statutory deadlines. For in the typical 30-day comment period and private sector resources. (ASAP, et instance, CEC stated that the early because after the early assessment, DOE al., No. 126, at p. 2; CTA, No. 136, at assessment review should be completed could decide a more thorough review of p. 3) GWU stated that the proposed in sufficient time for DOE to meets its the test procedure is not required based revisions to the Process Rule would statutory deadlines under EPCA, as on stakeholder comments in this limited improve opportunities for public delays caused by adding new window, ending the rulemaking 13 The November 6, 2010 Policy Statement is procedures are not sufficient to change process. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at pp. 11– available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ those Congressional mandates. (CEC, 12) In response, DOE clarifies that the buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/changes_ No. 121, at p. 5) revisions to the Process Rule do not standards_process.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8655

participation by committing the agency a complete rulemaking analysis, would H. Significant Savings of Energy to procedures for early stakeholder nonetheless be supported by a thorough Threshold input, thereby strengthening DOE’s analysis to ensure that DOE proceeds 1. Comments on the Proposed decision-making process and aligning with only those rulemakings that may Threshold Approach with good regulatory practices. (GWU, yield a significant conservation of No. 132 at pp. 3, 6) With regard to energy and be technologically feasible The December 2017 RFI raised a specific vehicles for early stakeholder and economically justified. (84 FR 3910, number of issues for which DOE sought comment with respect to how the input, CEC supported the elimination of 3920) For instance, if DOE is able to Process Rule might be improved. ANOPRs ‘‘in favor of flexibility in determine that a new or amended Among these issues was whether (and if determining the appropriate document standard would not meet the threshold for early stakeholder input,’’ while AGA so, how) to give a more definitive for significant energy savings, DOE meaning to the statutory phrase used in supported the continued use of the would issue a proposed determination ANOPR process. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 6; EPCA: —‘‘significant conservation of not to issue a new or amended standard AGA, No. 114, at p. 16) AGA also stated energy’’ (or stated more generically, without conducting additional analyses that DOE should explain its rationale for ‘‘significant energy savings’’). In choosing a particular vehicle for early to determine whether a standard would response to numerous comments to the stakeholder input. (AGA, No. 114, at p. also be technologically feasible and RFI urging DOE to address this larger 16) economically justified. DOE stated that issue of what level of potential energy In response to these comments, DOE it would apply a similar process for test savings would be appropriate for agrees that there are a variety of procedure rules in order to determine purposes of satisfying EPCA, DOE approaches that can achieve the goal of whether an amended test procedure proposed using a two-step threshold for early information gathering in the would more accurately measure the determining whether setting energy rulemaking process. The ANOPR might energy or water use of a covered product conservation standards for a given be preferable in a given proceeding. during a representative average use product or equipment type would be Alternatively, an RFI or Notice of Data cycle or reduce testing burden. (84 FR likely to lead to a significant Availability would also allow for early 3910, 3921) conservation of energy. See 84 FR 3910, 3921 (Feb. 13, 2019). See also 42 U.S.C. stakeholder input through a request for Joint Commenters, along with several 6295(o)(3)(B) (prohibiting DOE from comments in circumstances where DOE others, noted that EPCA grants DOE prescribing an amended or new may not have sufficient information to authority to issue determinations of no develop an ANOPR. DOE might issue a standard for a type or class of covered new amended standards after Framework Document and Preliminary product if the Secretary determines that considering three factors: Significant Analysis where DOE received the standard ‘‘will not result in information in response to the early energy savings, technological feasibility, significant conservation of energy’’ or look that might have been inconclusive and cost effectiveness. (Joint that the standard is not ‘‘technologically with regard to the need for a new or Commenters, No. 112, at p. 6) CEC feasible or economically justified.’’) amended standard, and DOE seeks stated that DOE should replace the term Under the first step of this proposed additional input to help make that ‘‘economically justified’’ with ‘‘cost approach, the projected energy savings determination. These alternate tools effective’’ throughout the early from a potential maximum equally promote transparency in DOE’s assessment process, instead of adding technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) process and allow for early information new considerations that are not standard would be evaluated against a exchange. As such, DOE does not permitted under the statute. (CEC, No. set numerical threshold. This initial believe it is necessary to establish 121, at p. 6) step would be performed to ascertain guidelines or scenarios for utilizing a In response, DOE notes that there are whether a potential standard level specific form of early stakeholder input. two situations in which DOE will issue would enable DOE to avoid setting a In all cases, DOE will provide for some determinations of no new amended standard that ‘‘will not result in significant conservation of energy,’’ as form of preliminary data gathering and standards. First, as commenters have provided under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). public comment process, including pointed out, DOE has authority to issue (84 FR 3910, 3923) DOE proposed a either an ANOPR or Framework determinations of no new amended quad-based threshold of 0.5 quad for Document and Preliminary Analysis, standards based on three factors: prior to issuing a proposed rule. this first step. (Id. at 84 FR 3924) Under Significant energy savings, the second step of the proposed G. Decision-Making Process for Issuing technological feasibility, and cost approach, if the projected max-tech a Determination Not To Issue a New or effectiveness. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) energy savings failed to meet or exceed Amended Energy Conservation and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) However, DOE this initial numerical threshold (with Standard or an Amended Test is also only authorized to issue an any lower level expected to achieve Procedure amended standard if the standard would even less energy savings), those max- In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE result in significant conservation of tech savings would then be compared to proposed to adopt provisions in the energy and would be technologically the total energy usage of the product/ revised Process Rule detailing DOE’s feasible and economically justified. (42 equipment to calculate a potential decision-making process when U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 42 percentage improvement in energy determining whether a new or amended 6295(o)) If an amended standard does efficiency/reduction in energy usage. energy conservation standard or an not satisfy these criteria, DOE will issue (Id. at 84 FR 3923) DOE had proposed amended test procedure is warranted a determination that an amended a percentage threshold of 10 percent, under the relevant provisions in EPCA. standard is not warranted. As a result, meaning that if the difference between In determining whether to move DOE has revised the Process Rule to the projected max-tech savings and the forward with a given energy reflect DOE’s statutory obligation to total energy usage of the product/ conservation standards rulemaking, consider both cost effectiveness and equipment was under the 10 percent DOE stated it would address a series of economic justification when issuing a threshold, the analysis would end, and issues that, while more expeditious than determination not to amend a standard. DOE would determine that no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8656 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

significant energy savings would likely A. Comments Supporting the Proposed 20) In its view, reviewing a proposed result from setting new or amended Threshold Approach standards rulemaking under the standards. (See Id. at 84 FR 3923–3924). Commenters who supported the idea proposal’s approach would indicate if a This step would ensure that DOE will of applying a threshold for significant standard merits amending—for promulgate those standards that are energy savings included AHAM, AHRI, example, AGA asserted that a new most likely to confer substantial benefits AGA, BWC, CTA, GEA, GMU Law, standard for a consumer product ‘‘may to consumers and the Nation and GWU, the Joint Commenters, Lutron, not be needed if it could achieve a 20% eliminate from further consideration NAFEM, NEMA, Regal-Beloit, Rheem, increase in efficiency, but only those potential standards that are Samsung, Signify, Southern Co., Spire, negligibly contribute to a reduction in projected to result in substantially lower and BHI. Among these commenters, overall residential energy energy savings below those generated AHAM, BWC, the Joint Commenters, consumption.’’ (AGA, EERE–2017–BT– under the relevant threshold. (Id. at 84 and Samsung, preferred that a threshold STD–0062, No. 114 at p. 20) CTA agreed that DOE should apply a FR 3923) level different from the proposed levels threshold with respect to whether the Satisfying either of these thresholds be used. Regal-Beloit suggested that, in projected energy savings for a given would trigger DOE to analyze whether a addition to the proposed thresholds, standard can be prescribed that standard would be significant for DOE supplement its approach to purposes of satisfying the statutory produces the maximum improvement in include the use of a ratio of quads over energy efficiency that is both requirements under EPCA. Without a cost impacts (in dollars). The company specific numerical threshold, it argued, technologically feasible and asserted that using this method would economically justified (and still interpretations of what is ‘‘significant’’ enable DOE to help ensure that it could will vary by stakeholder and constitutes significant energy savings at still avail itself of energy savings the level determined to be economically administration. In its view, such a opportunities in those cases where a threshold would also support priority- justified). See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). free or low cost opportunity to achieve Because technological feasibility is setting to help DOE in managing its additional energy savings is possible— periodic rulemaking obligations and already determined through the max- but would not meet the proposed 0.5 tech analysis, DOE would then focus on related accumulated backlog of quad threshold. (Regal Beloit Corp., rulemaking activities. It asserted that performing an economic justification March 21, 2019 Public Meeting analysis under the seven criteria in 42 establishing a threshold for significant Transcript at p. 291) EEI also suggested energy savings, as well as having a U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). DOE is issuing a that an exception or different threshold proposal elsewhere in this issue of the formal consideration of diminishing for ASHRAE equipment as well as those returns and non-regulatory alternatives, Federal Register to amend the previous products and equipment with smaller are necessary for prioritization and the process for determining whether and markets be used. (Edison Electric effective use of public resources. (CTA, what standard can satisfy the criteria Institute, March 21, 2019 Public No. 136 at p. 3) under EPCA. Id. Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 268) Coupled with its belief that the As DOE explained in the preamble to Regarding specific issues raised by proposal will help alleviate unnecessary its proposal, in performing this analysis, commenters favoring the use of regulatory burdens on the regulated the Agency would consider the total thresholds, AHRI supported the use of entities as well as DOE, GEA asserted amount of energy savings at issue at a definition for significant energy that it was particularly important for each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’). savings and did not agree with DOE to establish a requirement to Assuming that DOE uses a minimum criticisms that DOE’s proposal was demonstrate significant energy savings numerical threshold and a separate arbitrary, arguing instead that DOE’s will occur before a revised standard is percentage threshold, the projected approach was based on a reasoned set. (GEA, No. 125 at p. 2) savings for any given TSL would be analysis. (AHRI, March 21, 2019 Public GMU Law also favored the adoption measured against these two thresholds. Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 242) of a minimum threshold for DOE would perform its economic AGA supported DOE’s premise that ‘‘significant’’ energy savings as a way to analysis to determine whether an the setting of a significant conservation increase predictability and reduce economically justified level (producing of energy threshold should be non- regulatory uncertainty. (GMU Law, No. the maximum amount of energy savings trivial and that each candidate standard 105 at p. 3) In its view, DOE’s proposal possible) can be reached that meets or considered should result in significant not only did not contradict the exceeds either of these thresholds. The energy savings. In its view, the Herrington opinion, it reflected the type analysis would proceed to compare that thresholds set should illustrate a of cost-benefit analysis that the projected savings against the amount problem large enough to justify a Herrington court expected DOE to that the examined product/equipment regulation or rule. It asserted that DOE’s perform, but which DOE had not done consumes at each TSL. (84 FR 3910, proposal establishes a mechanism to in the case before it. (GMU Law, No. 105 3923) evaluate whether a new standard is at pp. 7–8) GMU Law added that DOE’s Unsurprisingly, DOE’s proposed appropriate based on the significance of previous reading of the term significant energy savings threshold the energy savings, the technological ‘‘significant’’ as meaning ‘‘non-trivial’’ approach generated substantial interest feasibility of a given standards proposal was based on a misreading of the from commenters. These comments and the economic effect of a proposed Herrington decision and that DOE is came during both of DOE’s two separate standards rule. It suggested that permitted to conclude that the small public meetings to discuss its proposal whatever methodology adopted by DOE energy savings benefits from a potential as well as in written submissions. should consider a combination of the standard may be outweighed by the Commenters generally fell into one of anticipated percentage reduction of costs involved. (GMU Law, No. 105 at two groups—those who supported the energy consumption for the covered p. 7) use of a threshold (including those who product compared to the existing GWU supported a threshold-based suggested modifications to the proposed standard, along with the impact of analysis to avoid marginally effective approach) and those who opposed the overall energy consumption in the revisions to standards whose benefits use of a threshold. market sector. (AGA, No. 114 at pp. 19– are outweighed by their costs. (GWU,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8657

No. 132 at p. 8) However, GWU argued option for DOE to select. Rheem consistent with DOE’s proposal, that the that because expected energy savings supported the idea of having guidelines Process Rule be made enforceable to are based on projections, DOE should for DOE to follow and expressed mitigate the risk of litigation. (Spire, No. also conduct ex-post evaluations to reluctance over a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ 139 at p. 11.) Spire indicated its support determine the accuracy of the savings approach. (Rheem, March 21, 2019 for DOE’s proposed threshold-based estimates of standards that are Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. approach provided that these two implemented. Furthermore, GWU stated 263–264) Rheem’s written comments conditions are met. (Id.) that a threshold-based analysis should supported DOE’s proposed changes to BHI supported the concept of a not be used as the sole determinant of its significant energy savings analysis significant energy savings threshold as a whether a standards rulemaking should and the definition of significant energy means for DOE to deploy its rulemaking proceed with notice and comment, but savings without elaborating further. resources on products with the greatest instead be used to filter out standards (Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1) energy saving potential. With respect to where decreasing marginal returns to Signify supported the setting of the proposed 0.5 quad threshold, BHI energy savings likely exist. To this minimum threshold energy savings offered no specific comments other than point, GWU argued that in some cases, requirements and it asserted that such to state that it expected DOE to set an standards with benefits that do not an approach would help DOE with initial level compatible with its outweigh their costs may still reach the prioritization and in focusing on the objective to assign adequate resources threshold, which is why economic right energy savings opportunities. for effective rulemaking processes. It justification analysis is needed. GWU (Signify, No. 116 at p. 1) added that it expected future stated that DOE should ensure that Southern Co., like some other rulemakings could amend the initial standards undergo economic commenters, was unsure whether the level as specific energy conservation justification analysis before issuing a proposed 0.5 quad threshold was the standards reach points of diminishing NOPR. (GWU, No. 132 at p. 8) appropriate value to apply. It asserted returns (or [are] no longer eligible for an Lutron indicated that setting a that there is value in setting a amended standard) and/or as the threshold for significant energy savings formalized threshold value, since what availability of the Department’s is critical to adding clarity to, and DOE has considered ‘‘significant’’ has resources fluctuates. (BHI, No. 135 at p. planning for, future rulemakings, which varied in the past. (Southern Company, 3) would result in reducing burden by March 21, 2019 Public Meeting Some supporters of DOE’s proposed reducing regulatory uncertainty. Transcript, No. 87 at p. 246) Southern approach also suggested applying (Lutron, No. 137 at p. 2) Co. also suggested that the threshold be different threshold levels. AHAM NAFEM supported the development a presumption and not mandatory. In its suggested that the quad threshold of objective thresholds for determining view, DOE should develop a procedure should be higher than the proposed 0.5 what constitutes ‘‘significant energy that offers an avenue for exceptions quad but offered no particular savings.’’ It suggested that rather than instead of having only a hard rule. (Id. alternative or explanation as to why. use the proposed 0.5 quad threshold, at 266.) Southern Co. also echoed EEI’s (AHAM, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting that DOE instead analyze the 57 suggestion with respect to ASHRAE Transcript, No. 87 at p. 223) BWC standards examined under the proposal equipment and stated that the suggested that DOE consider a threshold using the Pareto philosophy, where 80 significant energy thresholds under of 1 quad, which it argued would justify percent of the deliverables would come consideration by DOE should not apply a standard on a per-household basis but from 20 percent of the activities. when DOE is conducting rulemakings remain consistent with the threshold NAFEM asserted that since the Pareto under the ASHRAE-related provisions. discussed in the Herrington case. analysis is consistently used in quality It argued that not all of the different Regarding the proposed percentage control and pertinent business research, equipment types that are addressed by threshold, BWC questioned whether this DOE should consider using it in ASHRAE have the potential of yielding level was appropriate, particularly in determining significant energy savings energy savings at the proposed the context of products that have to provide a more grounded and threshold levels. Consequently, in its previously been regulated or may be defensible threshold. (NAFEM, No. 122 view, applying the proposed thresholds nearing the maximum available at p. 4) within the context of DOE’s ASHRAE technology—but it did not offer a NEMA supported the proposed rulemakings under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) specific alternative for DOE to consider. threshold, noting that it provided DOE is not needed. (Southern Co., March 21, BWC added that it had no objections to with a means to determine whether the 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 the general concept of a threshold test potential energy savings in a given at p. 122) using a hybrid approach for an overall scenario are worth pursuing. It asserted Spire indicated during the March level of energy savings and a certain that without a clearly defined path, the 2019 public meeting that DOE should percentage of efficiency improvement. answer to the question of whether to set clarify certain aspects of its proposal. In (BWC, No. 103 at p. 3) The Joint a more stringent standard would always particular, it suggested that DOE include Commenters supported DOE’s approach be yes. (NEMA, March 21, 2019 Public definitions for ‘‘quad,’’ ‘‘site,’’ ‘‘source,’’ as well as the proposed threshold levels. Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. 244) ‘‘discount rates,’’ and other related They added, however, that their own During the March 2019 public terms used in the proposal. (Spire, analysis for 21 past rulemakings meeting, Rheem initially indicated that March 21, 2019 Public Meeting demonstrated that a 1.0 quad threshold while it was unsure whether the Transcript, No. 87 at p. 284) Spire over 30 years could be more proposed 0.5 quad threshold was ‘‘the offered further observations as part of its appropriate.14 With respect to the right number,’’ it suggested that DOE written comments. First, it asserted that consider the impact to the consumer. In DOE needs to specify the metric being 14 For support, the Joint Commenters cited to a other words, if going forward with a used, and — it suggested the use of June 30, 2014, submission from the National particular standard for a given item ‘‘source’’ or ‘‘primary’’ energy and that Electrical Manufacturers Association regarding a proposed rulemaking addressing general fluorescent would result in the consumer paying the value used should include energy lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. That significantly more to purchase that item, losses upstream of power plants. (Spire, submission showed, among other things, the that standard would not be a good No. 139 at p. 10.) Second, it suggested, Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8658 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

proposed percentage increase in threshold—i.e. whether the agreement savings that could result in large lost efficiency, the Joint Commenters would also be bound to the minimum savings for consumers and businesses supported the proposed 10-percent level threshold in order for DOE to move and prohibit the adoption of consensus as appropriate. They also supported forward with a DFR on that agreement. agreements. It asserted, without having a bright-line rule for significant (Id. at 239–241.) providing supporting evidence, that energy savings as it would provide ASE argued that there is an inherent energy savings of 0.5 quad are certainty and predictability. (Joint arbitrariness and inflexibility to setting equivalent to electricity bill savings of Commenters, No. 112 at p. 7) Samsung, any threshold, including when about $7 billion and that DOE’s however, criticized the proposed 0.5 stakeholders may reach a consensus on proposal would sacrifice billions of quad threshold as unnecessarily high an alternate path towards potential dollars in potential savings for and could hinder the advancement of standards. ASE suggested that DOE consumers and businesses. ASAP, et al. energy efficiency standards for newly instead examine whether energy savings also asserted that the proposal is not covered products. It asserted that energy from standards are cost-effective both in consistent with Herrington or Congress’ efficiency standards have incentivized terms of the amount of energy saved and intent. (ASAP, et al., EERE–2017–BT– innovation in various product categories other benefits. ASE also criticized DOE STD–0062, No. 126 at pp. 2, 9) and have resulted in significant cost for considering a significant energy Further, ASAP, et al. did not agree savings for consumers and savings threshold when it should be with DOE’s justification for the 0.5 quad environmental benefits. In spite of its focused on meeting statutory deadlines. threshold. In their view, the fact that a concerns regarding the proposed quad- (ASE, No. 108 at p. 5) subset of rules comprises a relatively ACEEE pointed out during the public based threshold, Samsung nonetheless small portion of total savings does not meeting that DOE needed to clarify supported the proposed threshold for a mean that the savings from those rules 10-percent increase in energy efficiency/ whether the proposed threshold was based on source or site energy. It also are not significant. These commenters energy use reduction. (Samsung, No. highlighted language cited in Herrington 129 at p. 2) argued that having a hard threshold would prevent DOE from setting a in which the Chairman of the House B. Comments Opposing the Proposed national standard that benefits both Sub-Committee on Energy and Power, Threshold Approach manufacturers and consumers. (ACEEE, Representative John Dingell, explained March 21, 2019 Public Meeting that ‘‘conservation must be approached Commenters who opposed DOE’s on a nickel and dime basis’’ and that proposal to use a significant energy Transcript, No. 87 at p. 277) ACEEE also asserted its belief that while a standard ‘‘the cumulative impact of a series of savings threshold included A.O. Smith, conservation initiatives, which in ACEEE, the AG Joint Commenters, threshold is not needed, if DOE were to set one, the threshold should not only themselves might appear insignificant, American Efficient, ASAP, ASE, Bosch, could be enormous.’’ (ASAP, et al., No. CEC, CT–DEEP, Earthjustice, Energy be at a much lower level but also be a rebuttable presumption rather than an 126 at p. 9) ASAP, et al. did not believe Solutions (on behalf of the Cal-IOUs that the proposed thresholds reflected during both public meetings), Ingersoll inflexible requirement. It asserted that without having some flexibility in the the intent of Congress, pointing in Rand, NYU Law, NEEA, NPCC, NRDC, particular to Herrington’s discussion Ms. Linda Steinberg, and PG&E (in treatment of the threshold, DOE may be prevented from considering consensus regarding the annual energy use conjunction with all Other Cal-IOUs in threshold of 4.2 billion kWh established written comments). These commenters agreements, thus leaving manufacturers subject to a patchwork of State by Congress for prescribing standards contended that applying a threshold for a newly-covered product. (ASAP, et was not only unnecessary but conflicted standards on a product. ACEEE also argued that requiring a threshold could al., No. 126 at p. 9 (citation omitted)). with EPCA. Using figures cited in the proposal, the DOE notes that one comment written also prevent DOE from considering a commenters argued that for a product on a single postcard expressed general standard that would have a large impact consuming 1.45 quads over 30 years, dissatisfaction with the entirety of on peak electric load or on a specific achieving 0.5 quad of savings would DOE’s proposal. (Linda Steinberg, No. fuel. In its view, DOE should have the require a reduction in energy use of 90 at p. 1) flexibility to consider these types of about 33%. ASAP stated that DOE A.O. Smith was concerned about impacts. (ACEEE, No. 123 at p. 3) appears to recognize that in proposing a having what it viewed as defining During the March 2019 public 10% savings threshold, it is not ‘‘significant energy savings’’ by an meeting, ASAP argued that reasonable to assume that Congress arbitrary number. It argued that DOE ‘‘significance’’ cannot be determined as intended that a 33% reduction in energy should only consider the cost a proportion of a figure but is an use for a product consuming 4.2 billion effectiveness of a given standard and absolute value. (ASAP, March 21, 2019 kWh would be necessary in order for the that it did not understand why DOE Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at pp. savings in quads to be considered needed to set a threshold. (A.O. Smith, 256–57) It also sought clarity regarding ‘‘significant.’’ Citing Herrington, the March 21, 2019 Public Meeting when DOE’s proposed ‘‘significance commenters stated that ‘‘Congress knew Transcript, No. 87 at pp. 28, 237.) A.O. analysis would be conducted in relation that standards for some covered Smith also posed the question of how to other steps in the proposed revisions products would produce quite modest DOE would treat a consensus agreement to the rulemaking process. (Id. at 260.) Additionally, ASAP, et al. argued that incremental gains in efficiency and that presented potential energy savings DOE should maintain its current consequently in energy conserved.’’ (Id. that fell shy of the proposed quad interpretation of significant energy at 10 (citation omitted)) ASAP added that DOE’s proposal would foreclose the projected savings over 30 years (in quads) over the savings, which, it asserted, has been to estimated industry net present value impacts for view significant energy savings under possibility of pursuing a standard that these two lighting equipment types when compared the statute as savings that are not did not meet the thresholds even if there to the overall average projected energy savings for ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ ASAP, et al. stated would be no first-cost impact and gave DOE’s appliance efficiency rulemakings completed some examples of potential scenarios between 2008 and the date of the submission— in written comments that DOE’s 2.156 quads. See NEMA, EERE–2011–BT–STD– proposal would establish arbitrary where such rules would have been 0006, No. 54 at p. 4. thresholds for defining significant prohibited by the proposed threshold.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8659

(See id.) ASAP added that the information has been gathered on the effectiveness and economic justification. determination that a new or amended record related to the seven factors for (CEC, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting standard would constitute ‘‘significant’’ economic justification, of which energy Transcript, No. 92 at pp. 230–231) The energy savings is not a determination savings is one. (AGs Joint Comment, No. CEC elaborated on its views in written that such a standard is economically 111 at pp. 10–11) comments, asserting that the justified. In its view, DOE’s proposed In addition, the AG Joint Commenters determination of significant energy thresholds for determining significant argued that DOE has not explained how savings must be made on a case-by-case savings would eliminate DOE’s ability its proposal would encourage gradual basis. (CEC, No. 121 at p. 7) It further to even consider whether a standard efficiency improvements without argued that applying a broadly defined that would not meet the thresholds mandatory regulatory requirements. The threshold of 0.5 quad over 30 years or would be economically justified. (Id. at. commenters argued that DOE appears to a 10 percent improvement in energy 2, 9–11) be benefitting an entrenched industry at efficiency may not be appropriate for The AG Joint Commenters also the expense of the public good and every appliance—such as in instances innovation. (AGs Joint Comment, No. criticized DOE’s proposed significant where potential energy (or water) 111 at p. 12) They also stated that energy savings threshold (which the savings have no incremental cost, where significance thresholds can be subject to commenters believed would short- the potential savings accrue primarily in gaming, such as might occur if DOE circuit the standard-setting process) as a a few states where sales or use of the contravention of congressional intent, as were to divide rulemakings to only cover certain product classes (rather appliance at issue are more significant, expressed through EPCA, to save energy than all classes for a given product type) or where the appliance currently has a whenever technologically feasible and so as to keep the total anticipated energy small market share that makes a savings economically justified. (AGs Joint savings below the significance estimate small, but has the potential to Comment, No. 111 at p. 4) They argued threshold. The commenters argued that balloon into a larger market share as a that setting a bright-line requirement for the proposal did not address this result of non-standards. (CEC, No. 121 at an energy savings threshold is an possibility or establish any safeguards to pp. 7–8) The CEC added that, in its unlawful interpretation of EPCA that is prevent such scenarios. They added view, DOE’s failure to pursue standards both arbitrary and contrary to the APA. that, were this to occur, it would for products that do not meet the In their view, the proposal provided no frustrate the intent of Congress and applicable threshold ‘‘misses an substantive justification for the EPCA. (AGs Joint Comment, No. 111 at opportunity to make incremental thresholds chosen or how these p. 12) For all of the above reasons, the improvements to an appliance rather thresholds are appropriate in light of AG Joint Commenters concluded that than dramatic overhauls’’ and argued congressional intent, particularly how DOE’s proposed significance thresholds that incremental improvements can they strike an appropriate balance are arbitrary, capricious, and yield significant energy savings between lost energy savings and inconsistent with EPCA. (AGs Joint improvements while minimizing reduced regulatory burden, consistent Comment, No. 111 at p. 12) manufacturer burdens. By setting a high with EPCA. They further asserted that Bosch opposed the proposed threshold for a rulemaking to start, the DOE failed to explain whether the thresholds, believing their application CEC argued that DOE would be reduction in regulatory burden would would produce results with far fewer eliminating the opportunity for creating outweigh the reduction in benefits that energy efficiency gains, which would incremental improvements that would be lost from the foregone ultimately put U.S. manufacturers at a Congress viewed as appropriate through standards, and warned that the proposal competitive disadvantage with its global its inclusion of regular review risks misinterpreting EPCA’s significant competitors. It asserted, without citing provisions in EPCA. CEC also asserted energy savings provision in the same or providing supporting evidence or that the proposed thresholds would manner the agency had done in the run- data, that such a threshold would result in ‘‘no-standard’’ standards at the up to the Herrington case. (AGs Joint inadvertently pose a barrier to achieving national level while preempting States Comment, No. 111 at pp. 9–11) The small and incremental gains in from acting to set their own standards. commenters argued that DOE must efficiency, which Bosch claimed is the (CEC, No. 121, at p. 8) evaluate standards for a given product general way technology advances. Bosch or equipment type unless the energy sought additional clarity regarding While CT–DEEP commended DOE for savings are ‘‘genuinely trivial,’’ so as to DOE’s methodology in selecting the considering modifications to the current avoid foregoing cost-free benefits, and proposed threshold levels, as well as a Process Rule to help moderate the stressed that failing to conduct an better understanding if and when DOE burdens on industry and manufacturers, economic justification analysis would would allow for an exception to this it too argued that the proposed mean that DOE cannot answer this threshold. (Bosch, No. 113 at pp. 4–5) significant energy savings threshold fundamental question from Herrington. During the April 2019 public meeting, would eliminate enormous energy They added that the proposed use of a the CEC noted its opposition to the savings potential. It asserted that the threshold could preclude regulations proposed thresholds. In its view, the energy savings from rules that would that, while producing small benefits statutory criteria were already adequate have fallen under DOE’s proposed 0.5 individually, would result in substantial to allow for DOE to determine that no quad threshold have collectively saved benefits cumulatively. The commenters amended standards were needed in a the equivalent of over 10% of suggested that only by combining the given scenario and that setting an commercial and residential building significant energy savings threshold arbitrary minimum savings threshold energy use annually—which CT–DEEP with the seven factors for economic would not relieve DOE from its statutory stated was equal to ‘‘41.5 million justification can DOE ensure that it is obligations to regularly review MMBTU’’ of annual energy savings. promulgating standards that standards and, when required, to DEEP–CT argued that the proposed substantially benefit the public. They prescribe standards. It further asserted quad-based threshold would have reasoned that it would be more that any non-zero amount of technically significant impacts on energy savings appropriate to assess significant energy feasible energy savings must be nationwide and urged DOE to continue savings later in the process when more evaluated to determine its cost to interpret ‘‘significant energy savings’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8660 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

as defined by NRDC v. Herrington. (CT– consequence of DOE having the argued that EPCA required the DEEP, No. 93 at p. 3) inability to limit the stringency and/or consideration of seven factors (not just Like the AG Joint Commenters, scope of a standard in response to one) when determining whether to Earthjustice noted its concern about manufacturer feedback—or negotiations adopt a standard. NPCC indicated that how the proposed thresholds would between affected stakeholders—in order if Congress intended to establish a apply in the context of the ASHRAE to focus a potential appliance standard savings threshold it would have done so rulemakings that DOE conducts for on the most optimal requirements in in EPCA. (NPCC, March 21, 2019 Public certain categories of commercial/ cases where projected savings would Meeting Transcript No. 87 at pp. 23–24, industrial equipment. In its view, DOE not meet the proposed thresholds. 249) In NPCC’s view, the proposal is has discretion in sorting products for Ingersoll Rand cited a recent example of inconsistent with EPCA and that rulemaking, including ASHRAE this issue, wherein DOE proposed one applying a threshold before a standard equipment, but the proposal would be TSL for commercial and industrial air can be proposed and evaluated against leaving to ASHRAE the determination of compressors but indicated it was the criteria under EPCA risks losing whether a product is going to meet the ‘‘strongly considering’’ both a more substantial savings from standards that significance threshold. (Earthjustice, stringent one and an expanded scope to simply do not pass the threshold but March 21, 2019 Public Meeting include additional classes and size that EPCA would otherwise allow. Transcript, at pp. 250–251) (See also id. ranges of air compressors. The air Citing estimates from ASAP, NPCC at 252–253) compressor industry urged DOE to set asserted that a third of the standards Energy Solutions (on behalf of the standards using the more limited scope adopted by DOE between 2009 and 2017 Cal-IOUs) argued that cost effective and stringency, which would have would not have met the proposed energy savings to a consumer is cost yielded correspondingly lower energy threshold, which means that these effective and in its view, 0.5 quad of savings, as this was the more cost- proposed standards (and their combined energy use comprises a substantial justified level and aligned closely with savings) would not have been realized amount of savings on the overall grid. It familiar product testing methods. Under under DOE’s current proposal. It added asked that DOE clarify the basis for its DOE’s proposal for setting a threshold that setting a threshold that prejudges a proposal by publishing the analysis for for significant energy savings, this proposal based on only its proposed the 57 standards cited in the NOPR discretion would not have been savings—and not a ‘‘balanced preamble and it added that it was possible, but could have resulted in consideration of the overall benefits and unclear how DOE’s max-tech analysis DOE pursuing standards more costs’’—conflicted with DOE’s statutory would differ from what would happen burdensome to manufacturers if they are obligations. (NPCC, No. 94, at p. 6.) during the proposed pre-rulemaking also found to be technologically feasible NRDC argued that the issue of stage. (Energy Solutions, March 21, 2019 and economically justified. (Ingersoll applying a threshold number for Public Meeting Transcript, at pp. 228– Rand, No. 118, at p. 3) 29) Energy Solutions questioned the use NYU Law asserted that DOE’s significant energy savings had been of the lower end of the range over the proposed thresholds for defining settled in Herrington and that, if higher or middle ranges in the analysis, whether energy savings are ‘‘not . . . implemented as proposed, would forego (id. at 253) as well as the origins of the significant’’ are arbitrary and that substantial energy savings. (See NRDC, proposed 10% threshold. (Id. at 269) ‘‘significance’’ should instead be March 21, 2019 Public Meeting Ingersoll Rand opposed the proposed weighed by considering all important Transcript, No. 87 at p. 248) In its view, thresholds and suggested that DOE costs and benefits.’’ (NYU Law, No. 119, the proposal to set a threshold for continue to use its own discretion, after at p. 1) In its view, whether the amount significant energy savings is arbitrary carefully weighing stakeholder input, as of energy savings is ‘‘significant’’ is and contrary to both EPCA and the to whether potential cumulative energy relative and no single numerical Herrington decision and should be savings are significant enough to threshold can determine significance in withdrawn. NRDC asserted that it would proceed with a standards rulemaking. every situation. Instead, it argued, be difficult or impossible to develop a The company noted that 0.5 quad of determining significance implicitly calls threshold that is sufficiently responsive energy could be significant, cost- for the balancing of factors. It stressed to the unique characteristics of each effective, and technically justified for that comparative terms that ‘‘admit[ ] of covered product and that does not some product classes or sub-classes, degree’’ like ‘‘significant,’’ ‘‘minimize,’’ unnecessarily reject savings. It added which would, in its view, be or ‘‘reasonable’’ typically should be that the proposal would not account for appropriate to capture through employed to compare the costs and the importance of saving energy at appliance standards. It argued further benefits, because ‘‘whether it is different times of day, such as at times that the proposed 10-percent ‘reasonable’ to bear a particular cost of peak grid demand. NRDC also argued improvement backstop was not may well depend on the resulting that DOE failed to explain whether its appropriate, as this level of benefits.’’ (NYU Law, No. 119, at p. 2) thresholds for significant energy savings improvement could represent a Similarly, NEEA objected to the were based on site energy consumption, significant leap for many covered proposed quad threshold as arbitrary source energy consumption, or some products that is simply impossible to and argued that it should be lower. other method of calculation, which left achieve, and may not be technically (NEEA, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting stakeholders unable to effectively feasible. As a result, Ingersoll Rand Transcript, No. 87 at p. 245) It also comment. NRDC also asserted that DOE argued that the proposed thresholds suggested that DOE determine whether has not explained how it will apply the could prevent DOE from revising a given level of energy efficiency is threshold when aggregating savings appliance standards when mature ‘‘cost-effective to the consumer’’ rather from product/equipment classes and market conditions demonstrate that they than using the proposed 0.5 quad as the expressed concern (like Earthjustice and would be appropriate, and leave cost- relevant metric. (NEEA, March 21, 2019 State AGs) that DOE could game the effective energy savings on the table. Public Meeting Transcript, No. 87 at p. system by examining a subset of classes (Ingersoll Rand, No. 118, at p. 3) 276) which fail to meet the threshold, even Of additional concern to Ingersoll NPCC and NRDC also disagreed with though a combined rule examining Rand is the potential unintended DOE’s proposal to set a threshold and multiple product classes would meet it.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8661

(NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 5–7) Pointing to early assessment period since it would rulemakings for circulator pumps and the comments of ASAP, at al., NRDC be difficult to assess grid impacts within dedicated-purpose pool pumps as argued that some of DOE’s energy the short amount of time allotted under examples of the types of rulemaking conservation standards could be the proposed time frame. (PG&E, March activities that would have ceased prior considered ‘‘cost-free,’’ such as those for 21, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. to the initiation of an ASRAC working pre-rinse spray valves, and as a result, 87 at pp. 214–15) With respect to the group. Since both rulemakings the proposed threshold would proposed thresholds themselves, PG&E originated with the commercial and effectively prevent DOE from adopting (in conjunction with the other Cal-IOUs) industrial pumps rule (which had a such standards in violation of ultimately opposed them, indicating projected savings of 0.29 quads), the Herrington. (NRDC, No. 131 at p. 8) that any ‘‘non-zero’’ amount of Cal-IOUs argued that neither of these NRDC stated that DOE’s proposed technically feasible energy savings rules would have survived DOE’s significant energy savings threshold should be considered significant by proposed threshold—commercial and repeats the same mistake DOE made in DOE. To this end, it argued that DOE industrial pumps would have been Herrington, namely by arguing that 23 should interpret ‘‘significant energy dropped because it would not have rulemakings adding up to 4.24 quads of savings’’ as meaning ‘‘not genuinely satisfied the 0.5 quad threshold, which savings were not worth the effort. NRDC trivial.’’ (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at pp. 7–8) would also have ended the examination argued that standards with smaller The Cal-IOUs criticized DOE’s of potential standards for dedicated- amounts of energy savings can add up proposal, characterizing the justification purpose pool pumps. In the view of the to larger savings. Although it for the proposed threshold values as Cal-IOUs, the savings projected for these acknowledged that the Herrington court vague, including what the commenters two rulemakings (which the group left open the possibility that an energy described as a lack of clarity as to stressed would be 4.51 quads) would savings threshold could be set, NRDC whether the proposal relied on site have been lost under DOE’s proposal. asserted that DOE failed to show any versus source energy. (Cal-IOUs, No. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124 at p. 9) awareness of the range of energy savings The Cal-IOUs were also critical of the 124, at p. 8.) Referring to text from the that Congress considered worth information released by DOE regarding Herrington case and comparing it to the pursuing. In its view, this failure how the thresholds would be proposal, the Cal-IOUs posed three provides another reason for why DOE implemented as part of the Process questions/issues to DOE to address: (1) should withdraw its proposal. (NRDC, Rule. They asserted that there were Can DOE provide a current site-to- No. 131 at p. 9) inconsistencies between flow diagrams To highlight this point and to help power plant energy use factor, so that released as part of the proposal and illustrate the potential conflict between stakeholders can better interpret during the April 2019 meeting, with the Congressional intent and the proposed Herrington in the current landscape? (2) latter document noting that the thresholds regarding new energy Given that the proposed 0.5 quad thresholds would apply at three conservation standards for various threshold represents a 35 percent source different points—(1) during the early regulated products and equipment, energy savings based on the 1982 site- assessment review, (2) during the NRDC identified three sets of statutory to-power plant energy use factor, and preliminary stage review, and (3) during standards set by Congress for residential the Herrington court noted that the NOPR review, while being boilers, dehumidifiers, and electric ‘‘Congress plainly thought that saving compared against technological motors, which over 30 years were some part of the energy consumed by an feasibility and economic justification at projected to save 0.16 quads, 0.17 appliance operating at those levels each step. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124 at p. 10) quads, and 0.14 quads, respectively. would be significant,’’ DOE should The Cal-IOUs viewed this approach as Under DOE’s proposed significant elaborate on its interpretation of this ‘‘particularly troublesome’’ during the energy savings threshold, NRDC argued adjudicated decision to interpret ‘‘some early stages of the review process that none of these energy conservation part’’ to mean 35 percent. (3) In light of because DOE did not indicate whether standards would have been set, the absence of a reference to a ten- it would conduct a thorough analysis to although Congress clearly thought them percent energy savings threshold in the provide a reasonable savings worth adopting. (NRDC, No. 131 at p. Herrington decision, DOE should comparison against a quantitative 10) elaborate on the logic and legal savings threshold. In their view, DOE NRDC also criticized DOE’s proposal justification for the proposed threshold. should specify that a DOE-led thorough for failing to mention how the agency (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at pp. 8–9.) The Cal- analysis will be conducted at each stage would determine a significant savings of IOUs also stressed that the proposal, by and that a suggested (rather than water (which is required under 42 eliminating 23 rulemaking standards (as mandatory) threshold be applied at U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) for showerheads, indicated in the NOPR’s preamble earlier stages of the review process. (Cal- faucets, water closets, and urinals). It discussion), would also have eliminated IOUs, No. 124 at p. 10) urged DOE to address how water- 4.24 quads of energy savings over 30 The Cal-IOUs further noted that the consuming products would be years, which the commenters viewed as published flow chart contained in the addressed under the Process Rule. a significant amount of savings. In their NOPR (unlike the revised one handed (NRDC, No. 131 at p. 10) view, this approach would conflict with out during the April 2019 meeting) Finally, PG&E stated that grid Herrington and with DOE’s stated indicated that the savings threshold reliability must be considered when concern about limiting the first-cost would first be considered during the discussing significant energy savings impacts to consumers since the preliminary stage of review while and worried that it would not be if a proposed threshold would not allow acknowledging that the early assessment contemplated rulemaking action ends DOE to consider truly cost-free will consider whether significant energy because DOE’s early assessment ‘‘off- opportunities. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. savings can be achieved in accordance ramp’’ is taken (i.e. the proposed 9.) The Cal-IOUs further noted that, as with EPCA’s economically justified and thresholds are not met and no proposed proposed, DOE would have removed technologically feasible tests. In their rulemaking follows). PG&E noted that it multiple products/equipment from view, these statements are in conflict would be unrealistic for it to submit being considered for more efficient and that DOE should elaborate in detail comments to DOE during the proposed standards. The commenters cited DOE’s how and when the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8662 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

quantitative threshold will be applied. energy savings. It further argued that by the replacement 2017 rule). (A.O. They added that DOE should also relying on site energy ‘‘severely Smith, No. 153, at p. 3) explain what information will inform undervalues’’ electricity savings A.O. Smith also noted that DOE failed the analysis throughout the rulemaking compared to gas or oil savings and to consider the historical context of the process and how the thresholds would noted that there is a three-fold appliance standards program and the be applied in those cases where a difference between site and primary/ implementation of energy conservation product type has multiple product FFC electricity savings when accounting standard regulations over time. In its classes. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124 at p. 10) The for all transmission and distribution view, the initial standards rulemakings Cal-IOUs also criticized the proposal by losses. A.O. Smith contended that such conducted by DOE amounted to ‘‘lower- asserting that the use of a threshold a threshold would place electric and hanging fruit’’ with regard to would ignore real-world implications gas/oil appliances on an unequal footing improvements in energy efficiency and, and the additional value provided by with each other, distort DOE’s national as a result, yielded much higher energy more efficient products, citing as energy savings analyses, and negatively savings than subsequent ‘‘more examples reduced energy generation impact consumers and U.S. incremental’’ standards rulemakings. and reducing and managing energy manufacturers by permitting the Consequently, A.O. Smith argued that demand during peak hours. (Cal-IOUs, importation of less efficient products. DOE’s inclusion of the projected energy No. 124 at pp. 10–11) (A.O. Smith, No. 153, at p. 2). savings from these earlier initial A.O. Smith also criticized the rulemakings was erroneous and that C. Comments Regarding DOE’s Notice of DOE should have excluded these initial Data Availability information disclosed in the NODA because DOE did not acknowledge or savings when developing an energy DOE received fourteen (14) comments consider that each rulemaking included savings threshold. (A.O. Smith, No. 153, responding to its July 2019 NODA. In an analytical methodology that was at p. 3) addition to reiterating or expanding on A.O. Smith further asserted that EPCA appropriate for the particular covered earlier points made in response to the already prescribes a method for product in question. For example, not NOPR, these comments also highlighted determining whether a given standard all of the examined rulemakings use the the potential challenges and would be too costly (or technologically same analysis period (i.e. length of disadvantages that DOE may face if it infeasible) for DOE to adopt. As a result, time), leading to a mismatched were to adopt an energy savings A.O. Smith viewed the need for a comparison. (A.O. Smith, No. 153, at p. threshold based on site energy use significant energy savings threshold 2) Further, it noted that the U.S. Energy compared to primary source or full fuel value as unnecessary. (A.O. Smith, No. Information Administration cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy use. Commenters 153, at p. 4) also raised issues regarding the continuously updates the Annual AGA urged DOE to rely on FFC sufficiency of DOE’s data as support for Energy Outlook with changes in the energy use rather than site energy use the proposal and alleged that the economy and energy supply/generation, for developing energy savings particulars regarding the thresholds which may deviate from earlier thresholds and in calculating energy remained unclear. estimates published by the Department. savings projections for new or amended A.O. Smith asserted that the NODA It asserted that to account for the energy conservation standards. (AGA, and its associated analysis fell short in changes in methodology across this time No. 157, at p. 2) It stressed that under providing enough analytical, technical, period, DOE would need to convert each 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE may use full and factual justification to support energy savings estimate from published FFC energy use when determining DOE’s proposed energy savings final rules to allow for an accurate whether a given level of energy savings threshold. It argued that the materials comparison. (A.O. Smith, No. 153, at constitutes ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. provided no actual methodology or pp. 2–3) It also suggested that DOE (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 5–6) AGA also explanation on how DOE arrived at a 0.5 should evaluate the impacts of a pointed to DOE’s prior policy statement quad energy savings threshold. In its significant energy savings threshold regarding the use of full fuel cycle view, the NODA and accompanying using the most recent version of DOE’s energy use metrics. (AGA, No. 157, at data did not support the proposed analysis of energy and economic pp. 6–7) AGA also argued that site energy savings threshold conclusion or impacts from energy and water energy use does not account for provide a sound methodology to conservation standards, which would upstream energy savings impacts from recreate the actual value proposed in the allow for cross comparisons of savings standards or permit comparisons across NOPR to enable the public to across rulemakings. (A.O. Smith, No. fuel types. (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 7–8) understand how the threshold 153, at p. 3) By adopting an approach that eliminates conclusion was reached and cannot be Finally, A.O. Smith asserted that the all upstream energy consumption and relied on to justify this aspect of DOE’s NODA included the energy savings from associated emissions required to deliver proposal. (A.O. Smith, No. 153, at pp. four remanded rulemakings in error— fuel to its point of use, AGA argued that 1–2) It added that basing a threshold 2001 central air conditioners and central DOE’s significant energy thresholds using site energy savings would not heat pumps (replaced by a 2002 rule would provide an incomplete picture present a ‘‘full picture of the total with lower national energy savings), regarding the potential impacts of a energy use used by the building (or the 2010 direct heating equipment standard. (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 8–9). appliances in it) because the process of (unrealized energy savings from AGA also noted that the National generating electricity incurs substantial remanded portion of the rule for hearth Academy of Sciences recommended that losses associated with delivering fuel products), 2011 central air conditioners, DOE use a FFC metric and that other (e.g. gas, electricity, oil) to the site In its central heat pumps, and furnaces agencies, such as the EPA, supported view, source energy is the most (unrealized energy savings from that approach. (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 9– equitable metric for evaluating national remanded portion of rule regarding 11). AGA added that source energy— energy savings comparisons among furnaces); and 2014 walk-in coolers and used by the GREET model 15—excludes buildings and appliances since it freezers (double-counting of energy considers different fuels and provides a savings of some products vacated from 15 Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy’s more neutral foundation to assess total the 2014 rule and subsequently covered Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8663

extraction and production losses but rulemaking process would not proceed. APGA urged DOE to continue to follow could be readily converted to a FFC (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 14–15) this FFC-based approach when measure of energy consumption. (AGA, AGA also suggested that all DOE measuring energy consumption. (APGA, No. 157, at p. 11). AGA was also benefit and cost calculations be fully No. 151, at pp. 2–3) Pointing to data concerned that DOE’s potential reliance documented, subject to public review comparing energy costs and CO2 on a site energy-based approach would prior to their use in any rulemaking emissions across different electric- ignore the benefit that FFC energy use analyses, and peer reviewed prior to powered and natural gas appliances, would provide by accounting for a final publication. (AGA, No. 157, at pp. APGA highlighted the lower annual broader range of energy impacts and 15–16) It suggested that DOE establish operating costs, lower energy usage and would depart from the Agency’s past consistent national average energy lower CO2 emissions of natural gas practice. (AGA, No. 157, at p. 12) It conversion factors that reflect consensus appliances relative to electric-powered added that the public would benefit views of transitions to renewable ones. (APGA, No. 151, at p. 3) from the use of a FFC energy metric and electricity generation operating APPA supported the use of site energy asserted that such a metric would contribution, captured energy from when determining whether the provide ‘‘the most efficient and renewables, and more realistic proposed energy use thresholds were equitable characterizations’’ of energy electricity grid considerations. It met. (APPA, No. 154, at p. 2) In its view, usage across competing fuels. Further, it pointed to the use of source energy site energy is credible, reliable, noted EPA’s reliance on full fuel cycle conversions published by the Pacific replicable, transparent, and an actual energy data as part of their ENERGY Northwest National Laboratory metric that can be verified while source STAR program for commercial (‘‘PNNL’’) in May 2019. 16 (AGA, No. energy is an estimate that can be buildings. (AGA, No. 157, at p. 13) 157, at pp. 16–17) calculated in a variety of ways, have a In addition, AGA suggested that In addition, AGA reiterated its variety of values, and does not account analyses of products should include an for significant regional differences in the support for the use of significant energy analysis of competing product markets U.S. (APPA, No. 154, at pp. 2–3). APPA savings thresholds and reiterated its and penetrations flowing from also suggested that DOE clarify which earlier recommendation that the efficiency standards proposals, thresholds it would use. It sought thresholds consider a combination of particularly with respect to competing clarification on how DOE would treat a the anticipated overall energy fuel types—which would collectively scenario where a 10% reduction in consumption savings along with the include estimated responses among energy use occurs over 30 years. If the percentage reduction of energy manufacturers and their competing reduction were based on site energy use, consumption for the covered products product lines, including fuel choice in APPA’s view, the threshold compared to the applicable existing considerations, more realistic fuel requirement should be based on a standard. (AGA, No. 157, at p. 14) AGA switching considerations, and public minimum percentage reduction in suggested that DOE should take into review of fuel choice and switching appliance/equipment site energy account a combination of the possible methodologies. (AGA, No. 157, at p. 17) consumption per year over a 30-year quad reductions and the anticipated Consumer baseline decisions should analysis period (or require an X% percentage reduction of energy also presume rational decision making. reduction in annual site energy consumption so that it is not ‘‘one or the Under this approach, AGA contended consumption over a 30-year analysis other.’’ (AGA, No. 157, at p. 15) that DOE should model consumers as period). (APPA, No. 154, at p. 3 AGA offered an example to illustrate preferring the product model providing (emphasis in original)). Regarding those one way to use its suggested threshold the greatest consumer surplus relative to instances where DOE presents a approach: all covered product models available in potential range of savings over a 30-year If DOE established a threshold of 0.5 the absence of new minimum standards. analysis period, APPA suggested that quads of energy savings and a 10 (AGA, No. 157, at pp. 17–18). It also DOE use the mid-point value of the percent reduction in the energy suggested that once a covered product range to improve the understandability consumption of the covered product, as analysis begins, DOE should better and technical accuracy of the analysis referenced in the NODA, and if a new characterize end-user markets. being used. (APPA, No. 154, at p. 4) standard was projected to save 0.25 Specifically, AGA suggested that DOE In joint comments responding to the quads of energy (a level below the define these markets in public NODA, ASAP and its fellow joint energy savings threshold) but result in workshops directed at identifying key commenters re-stated concerns with the a 20 percent reduction in energy customer classes and building types, proposed energy savings threshold and consumption for the covered product and achieve consensus on how the asserted that DOE has not made a clear (two times the percent threshold), the standards analysis would apply to these proposal regarding those potential rulemaking process could proceed since differentiated markets. (AGA, No. 157, thresholds. The commenters were also the two thresholds were proportionately at p. 18) concerned that DOE would consider achieved. However, if in the above APGA continued to support DOE’s using site energy use when evaluating example, the new standard would have goal of establishing a metric that best potential energy savings from energy only achieved a 10 percent reduction in estimates climate impacts and supports conservation standards and they energy consumption for the covered the interests of the public. (APGA, No. asserted that DOE has still not provided product, it would not proportionately 151, at p. 2) It expressed concern, an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’ comparison of meet the combined thresholds and the however, with the prospect of DOE’s energy savings from historical adoption of a site-based energy use rulemakings. (ASAP, et al. 2, No. 158 at (EERE), Argonne National Lab developed a full life- metric. Citing to earlier work from the p. 1) The commenters urged DOE not to cycle model called GREET (Greenhouse gases, National Academy of Sciences and adopt a significant energy savings Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in DOE’s subsequent adoption of a policy threshold and highlighted examples Transportation) to allow researchers and analysts to where DOE analyses have identified evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on statement agreeing to use FFC metrics, a full fuel-cycle/vehicle-cycle basis. This model is efficiency improvements with no first- used by DOE to help ascertain potential impacts 16 See also PNNL, Preliminary Energy Savings cost impacts. They argued that setting a related to DOE’s standards rulemakings. Analysis: 2018 IECC Residential Requirements. threshold would potentially deny the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8664 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

benefits of these energy savings to savings of two standards were percent—which would achieve the same consumers and businesses. (ASAP, et al. calculated differently: the small electric energy savings as the proposed 0.5 quad 2, No. 158 at p. 2) motors rule was based on a reduction in threshold. (Joint Commenters, No. 159 The commenters also asserted that energy losses, while the electric motors at pp. 1–2) They noted that the NODA’s DOE’s proposal and subsequent NODA rule was based on a reduction in energy data showed that 34 of the 57 rules have not yet offered a clear proposal usage. These different approaches can analyzed would have met the proposed regarding the potential thresholds for yield different results. Finally, the significant energy savings thresholds determining whether significant energy commenters noted that relying on site when applying a quad threshold range savings were present in a given energy usage does not provide an of 0.40 to 0.75 quad or ten percent situation. They noted that it was unclear ‘‘apples-to-apples’’ comparison when reduction in energy use and emphasized whether DOE would be applying an evaluating rules that affect both electric that among the remaining rules that did approach based on site, source, or full and natural gas products. (ASAP, et al. not meet the proposed threshold, which fuel cycle energy use—in spite of the 2, No. 148, at pp.3–4) comprised nearly half of the analyzed NODA’s presentation of past energy ASAP, et al. 2 provided an example rules, the energy savings achieved by savings in terms of site energy use. The of how this discrepancy could impact these rules amounted to a little over 6% commenters added that DOE has not the calculated energy savings. For of the total projected energy savings of clearly defined the 30-year period that example, the site energy savings listed DOE’s standards rulemakings. (Joint would apply and that the proposal in the document referenced in the Commenters, No. 159, at 2) continued to remain unclear with NODA would suggest that the 2016 rule They also stressed that with the respect to the 10 percent threshold— for residential boilers will save more passage of time between since specifically, whether it would amount energy (0.137 quads) than the 2016 rule Herrington, DOE has developed a robust to a reduction in energy usage or an for dehumidifiers (0.100 quads). But in dataset and a voluminous record of improvement in energy efficiency. (With fact, the total energy savings (reported energy conservation standards. The respect to the last of these, it highlighted as full-fuel-cycle energy savings in each Joint Commenters also asserted that an example of the practical difference rule) for dehumidifiers (0.30 quads) are DOE’s interpretation of the term between a reduction in energy use and about twice as great as those for ‘‘significant’’ conservation of energy in an increase in efficiency.) (ASAP, et al. residential boilers (0.16 quads). (ASAP, the aftermath of Herrington did not 2, No. 158 at pp. 2–3) et al. 2, No. 158, at pp. 3–4 (footnotes track that decision, which counseled Additionally, with the NODA’s omitted)) presentation of past rulemaking energy The Cal-IOUs suggested that DOE that it was unlikely that Congress savings in site energy use, the issue a supplemental notice of proposed intended for DOE to ignore a cost-free commenters were concerned about rulemaking to provide additional details chance to save energy unless the relying on site energy, which would, in and respond to various comments. They amount of energy saved was genuinely their view, deviate from prior DOE asserted that the NODA raised a number trivial. (Joint Commenters, No. 159, at practice of using source or full fuel of issues and that the NODA was pp. 3–4) They further emphasized that cycle energy use. It noted two problems unclear whether DOE was proposing to the Herrington court noted that if it were in particular. First, site energy savings use site or source energy as the basis for truly obvious, without the extended do not accurately reflect the total impact the proposed thresholds. They also investigation appropriately undertaken of standards on national energy asserted that the NODA did not provide as part of the inquiry into economic consumption since associated losses in a uniform set of data to enable a justification, that the value of saving electricity generation, transmission and comparison of historical rulemakings small amounts of energy was distribution are not included—in since the data unfairly compared the outweighed by the cost and trouble of addition to the absence of considering energy savings from gas and electric undertaking any appliance program at energy used to extract, process, and equipment standards and provided a all, DOE might be justified in transport the fuels that are consumed to misleading picture of the savings from determining that those small savings produce that electricity. Second, relying gas and electric standards. The Cal-IOUs were not significant. (Joint Commenters, solely on site energy use would not also expressed confusion over the No. 159, at p. 4 (quoting Herrington, 768 provide a fair comparison between ‘‘statutorily required measure’’ F.2d at 1373, n. 19)) The Joint electricity savings and natural gas referenced by DOE in the NODA’s Commenters also noted that recent case savings for the reasons noted. They preamble. (Cal-IOUs, No. 155, at p. 2) law suggests that the meaning of the asserted that FFC energy savings from a Further, the Cal-IOUs reiterated certain word ‘‘significant’’ means something standard that saves electricity produces questions it raised in response to the ‘‘important, notable’’ as opposed to (i.e. accounts for) roughly three times as proposal itself: (1) How and when will being ‘‘more than trivial or of no much in energy savings than from site the quantitative energy savings importance.’’ (Joint Commenters, No. energy use measurements alone—a threshold be applied, and what 159, at pp. 4–5 (quoting Kaufman v. standard saving natural gas, by information will inform that analysis? Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. 561 F.3d 144, 157 comparison, would yield only 10% (2) How would the threshold apply to (3rd Cir. 2009)) They further noted that more in savings over site energy savings. products with multiple product classes? in determining whether a given level of (ASAP, et al. 2, No. 158 at p. 3). (3) How did DOE arrive at the energy savings is significant, DOE Finally, the commenters contended conclusion that to apply a 0.5 quad necessarily must compare the aggregate that even with the publication of the threshold in light of the Herrington site energy savings achieved by NODA and the release of its decision’s discussion regarding rulemakings that were able to achieve a accompanying data, DOE has not aggregate source energy? (4) What is the potential energy savings threshold provided an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’ basis for DOE’s 10% threshold? (Cal- against those savings that do not. In comparison. They noted that the IOUs, No. 155, at pp. 2–3) their view, recognizing every projected energy savings from certain The Joint Commenters indicated that incremental increase in energy savings rules presented in DOE’s data provided DOE could adopt a higher quad-based without limit would effectively read the different analytical periods. Second, the threshold of up to 0.75 quad or a word ‘‘significant’’ out from EPCA. commenters stated that the projected percentage-based reduction of ten Consequently, the Joint Commenters

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8665

argued that the statute should be read as (NRDC, No. 156 at pp. 2–3) In addition, to move away from relying on source providing DOE with the discretion to NRDC stressed that, in light of the energy or FFC energy consumption to establish a significance threshold based Herrington court’s discussion of site energy use when projecting on a balancing approach such as the one potential source energy-based savings, potential energy savings of a given that DOE has conducted in comparing DOE should consider thresholds at or standard. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, the projected energy savings from above the level of 1.45 quads of source No. 160, at p. 1) In their view, adopting rulemakings that meet a given threshold energy as ‘‘clearly legally a site energy-based approach would against the savings from rulemakings impermissible.’’ 17 (NRDC, No. 156 at p. ignore DOE’s own past findings that site that do not. (Joint Commenters, No. 159 4) When applied to a site energy-based energy measurements do not account for at pp. 5–6) To this end, using historical approach, NRDC asserted that DOE’s the inefficiencies present in electric energy savings to determine a potential proposed 0.5 quad threshold is generation. (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, threshold level is, in the view of the equivalent to a 1.5 quad source energy No. 160, at pp. 1–2) If adopted without commenters, reasonable. (Joint threshold, which, in its view, would run acknowledging and addressing DOE’s Commenters, No. 159 at pp. 6–9) afoul of the upper bound discussed in own record with respect to the MHARR repeated its earlier assertions Herrington. (NRDC, No. 156 at 4) NRDC deficiencies of site energy and providing regarding the various alleged procedural added that it would not consider a a reasoned explanation for the change, defects affecting the unrelated threshold below the 1.45 quad source the commenters contended that such a rulemaking in which DOE is currently energy level discussed in Herrington as move would be unlawful. (Sierra Club & considering potential energy necessarily reasonable or permissible Earthjustice, No. 160, at p. 2) They also conservation standards for and it urged DOE to withdraw its asserted that EPCA does not compel that manufactured housing and again urged proposal in its entirety. (NRDC, No. 156, site energy be the basis for the Agency’s DOE to adopt the same type of at 4–5) analyses performed with respect to procedural protections and safeguards NYU Law contended that DOE’s determining the impacts of a given set forth in the NOPR for manufactured proposal would set arbitrary thresholds energy conservation standard and it homes. (MHARR, No. 149, at p. 2.) in violation of EPCA and noted that at emphasized that DOE’s past and MHARR argued that DOE’s approach least one recent court decision indicated longstanding use of source and FFC with respect to setting energy use that a ‘‘’very small portion’ of a energy as part of prior standards thresholds for determining whether a ‘gargantuan’ total effect’’ may still create rulemakings reflected the Agency’s own given standard would produce a ‘‘gargantuan’’ effect of its own— conclusion regarding the partial picture significant energy savings should apply suggesting that DOE’s proposed presented by site energy usage. That equally to DOE’s manufactured housing thresholds would exclude a large conclusion, the commenters continued, rulemaking—and that DOE should issue amount of future energy savings as was further buttressed by the work an entirely new rulemaking in light of being insignificant. (NYU Law, No. 148, performed by the National Academy of the alleged defects. (MHARR, No. 149, at p. 1) In the commenter’s view, DOE’s Sciences, which recommended that at pp. 3–4) percentage approach can create a DOE use FFC energy consumption when NBI cautioned that the use of site misleading impression and is subject to assessing the national and energy would result in distorted manipulation. Consequently, the energy environmental impacts from energy information becoming the foundation of savings from the various standards that conservation standards. (Sierra Club & standards setting at DOE. (NBI, No. 150, would not have satisfied DOE’s Earthjustice, No. 160, at pp. 2–3) at p. 1). It noted that jurisdictions both proposed thresholds—in addition to within and outside of the U.S. have avoided carbon emissions—would be They further asserted that even if DOE relied on source-based, primary energy sacrificed in the future if the proposed were permitted to establish a threshold use rather than site energy, and if DOE thresholds were adopted. (NYU Law, for significant energy savings—which were to adopt a site energy-based No. 148, at pp. 1–2) they stressed it could not—shifting approach, the Agency would become Samsung reiterated its earlier view DOE’s energy savings calculations to increasingly divergent from the policies (without providing additional support) site energy would result in setting a and rules being set at local, State, and that the proposed 0.5 quad threshold is threshold that far exceeds the level of international levels. (NBI, No. 150 at p. too large and may hinder advancement energy savings Congress viewed as 1) of energy efficiency standards for newly significant when it amended EPCA to NRDC repeated its opposition to the covered products. (Samsung, No. 161, at require DOE’s adoption of standards. adoption of an energy savings threshold p. 2) It also repeated its support for (Sierra Club & Earthjustice, No. 160, at and argued that when applying the DOE’s proposed percentage threshold of p. 3) Citing to Herrington, the projected energy savings presented with 10 percent increase in energy efficiency/ commenters again emphasized that the NODA to the proposed thresholds, reduction in energy usage for covered Congress could not have intended for DOE’s approach would make the products as a trigger for new standard DOE to not adopt a standard that proposed quad threshold more stringent levels. (Samsung, No. 161, at p. 2) imposed ‘‘absolutely no burdens at all’’ than if it were based on source or FFC In joint comments responding to the and that it was unlikely that Congress energy use. (NRDC, No. 156 at pp. 1–2) NODA, Sierra Club and Earthjustice had intended for DOE to throw away a It further argued that the proposed expressed concern over what it cost-free chance to save energy unless threshold is invalid and contrary both to perceived as a ‘‘dramatic shift’’ by DOE the amount of energy saved was EPCA and Herrington, asserting that genuinely trivial. (Sierra Club & DOE’s proposal (and subsequent NODA) 17 The figure of 1.45 quads is based on the D.C. Earthjustice, No. 160, at p. 3 (citing fails to address the question of rejecting Circuit’s discussion of the energy consumption that Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1373)) Sierra must be present to permit DOE to issue a ‘‘no-cost standards’’ that would result in discretionary energy conservation standard for a Club and Earthjustice also stressed that additional energy savings and urged consumer product—i.e. an annual energy when the Herrington court examined DOE to evaluate the issue of significant consumption of 0.014335 quad, which is equivalent the specific figures inserted into EPCA energy savings on a standard-by- to 0.0483 quad of annual site energy usage. by Congress, including the prerequisites Projected over a 30-year period would yield 1.449 standard basis and to consider the quads (i.e. 1.45 quads when rounded up). See found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) for aggregate savings of energy involved. generally Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1374. prescribing standards for newly covered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8666 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

products, it concluded that Congress 2. Response to Comments on the 26, 2019)) When comparing that value had viewed 0.014335 quad of site Proposed Thresholds to the suggested 1.0 quad offered by energy use as significant—while DOE’s After evaluating comments received commenters and applying the same proposed threshold would not. (Sierra from both those who supported the use percentage threshold that DOE had Club & Earthjustice, No. 160, at p. 3) of a threshold—including those who proposed, the level of energy savings With respect to the application of a suggested that a different quad would decrease by approximately 3% percentage threshold, the commenters threshold be applied—and those who from 94% v. 91%. Following this noted that the standards at issue in objected to one, DOE revisited its approach would also eliminate a little Herrington provided for efficiency approach. In response to comments over half of these standards increases of 5 percent or less, which, in seeking clarification regarding the type rulemakings. (See id. at 84 FR 36038– their view, supported the notion that of energy use on which the quad and 36039.) In DOE’s view, raising the quad Congress sought to provide for percentage thresholds were based, DOE threshold in the manner suggested incremental improvements in energy would have a severe impact on the efficiency—and thereby constraining re-examined its data and published a Notice of Data Availability (‘‘NODA’’) to potential energy savings that could be DOE’s ability to treat equivalent obtained from future rulemakings. DOE efficiency improvements as present its energy savings data in terms of site energy usage. See 84 FR 36037 is not adopting this suggestion due to insignificant. (Sierra Club & this fact, along with the absence of any Earthjustice, No. 160, at pp. 3–4) The (July 26, 2019). After taking a second careful look at its data and applying a supporting data or analysis from the commenters argued further that prior proponents of this approach to increase amendments to EPCA—particularly, the uniform approach with respect to the energy usage examined, DOE has the quad-based threshold. As for National Appliance Energy Samsung’s separate suggestion that the Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law adjusted its thresholds to account for the concerns raised by commenters. 0.5-quad threshold may be too high, 100–12 (March 17, 1987), demonstrated DOE has addressed this concern—along (through its adoption of water heater DOE has divided its responses to the comments on this issue into two parts— with similar ones raised by other standards that would yield efficiency commenters—by modifying the quad- increases of less than 10 percent and one to address comments that generally supported the use of the proposed based threshold, which is discussed potential energy savings for some elsewhere in this document. standards as being under 0.03 quad per thresholds and one to address Regarding suggestions from both EEI year) that Congress had viewed marginal comments that opposed them. improvements in efficiency as ‘‘worth and Southern Co. to apply an exception A. Response to Comments Supporting or different threshold for ASHRAE seizing’’ through efficiency standards. the Proposed Threshold Approach Accordingly, Sierra Club and equipment, as explained elsewhere in Earthjustice argued that history counsels As a preliminary matter, DOE this document, DOE is treating ASHRAE against adopting a significance emphasizes that its application of its equipment in a manner consistent with threshold that would foreclose the thresholds will apply when it first the specific provisions laid out in 42 adoption of standards yielding examines whether to initiate a standards U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). As explained comparable energy savings. (Sierra Club rulemaking, during the early assessment elsewhere in this discussion, the & Earthjustice, No. 160, at pp. 3–4) phase and throughout the rulemaking threshold framework will apply in those Spire supported the concept of process. If DOE engages in a standards instances where DOE intends to adopt adopting an energy savings threshold rulemaking, these thresholds will also standards that exceed the stringency of but claimed that a threshold based on be applied at the different steps of that those set by ASHRAE. DOE notes that site energy use would not appropriately rulemaking—i.e., Early Assessment, the ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ measure the efficiency of fuel utilization Preliminary Stage, NOPR, supplemental requirement for standards, that is woven from the point of extraction—thereby NOPR (if applicable), and final rule. In into 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) for leading to misleading information effect, these thresholds will apply consumer products and non-ASHRAE regarding the efficiency of gas-fueled vs. throughout the rulemaking process to equipment, does not apply to ASHRAE electric-powered appliances. It asserted ensure that the statutory requirement of equipment when DOE is following the that reliance on site energy would achieving significant energy savings is statutory command to establish the distort the market for appliances and achieved with any standards final rule national minimum efficiency standard ultimately reduce competition, which that DOE promulgates. (For a visual at the level set by ASHRAE. In setting would lead to higher costs for illustration of how this would apply, see a more stringent standard for this consumers. While Spire stated that Figure III.1, presented later in this equipment, DOE must have ‘‘clear and source energy is a better metric for discussion.) convincing evidence’’ that doing so measuring energy savings than site In response to commenters who ‘‘would result in significant additional energy, it also viewed that metric as suggested that the proposed 0.5 quad conservation of energy’’ in addition to flawed since the amount of energy lost threshold be raised higher (AHAM, being technologically feasible and from the point of fuel extraction to the AHRI, BWC, and the Joint Commenters) economically justified. 42 U.S.C. input of an electric power plant is not to 1.0 quad, DOE notes that it recognizes 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). This language considered for purposes of measuring that there is the potential for additional indicates that Congress had intended for the ‘source’ efficiency of an electric burden reduction and related DOE to ensure that, in addition to the appliance. (Spire, No. 152, at p. 2) manufacturer cost savings from savings from the ASHRAE standards, Instead, Spire suggested that DOE adopt increasing the magnitude of the quad- DOE’s standards would yield additional an approach based on the FFC, which based threshold. The data examined by energy savings that are significant. In would, in its view, readily show that gas DOE, however, suggest that doing so in DOE’s view, these two statutory appliances ‘‘significantly’’ out-perform the context of the 57 standards final provisions share the requirement that electric-based options with respect to rules that were examined in the NOPR ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ CO2 emissions and when examining would significantly decrease the amount must be present—and supported with consumer marginal energy use rates. of potential energy savings that could be ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’—to (Spire, No. 152, at pp. 2–3) obtained. (See 84 FR 36037, 36038 (July permit DOE to set a more stringent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8667

requirement than ASHRAE. application of more stringent standards for determining whether a given Accordingly, in examining these to products with a ‘‘small footprint’’ that standard is economically justified). potential impacts, DOE believes that would otherwise be unable to meet the Applying NAFEM’s suggested approach, Congress intended for standards more criteria for saving a significant amount would make it unlikely for DOE to meet stringent than ASHRAE to achieve of energy. this requirement since it would raise the significant conservation of energy in With respect to AGA’s suggested probability of prematurely eliminating addition to the savings already projected imposition of an overall reduction in standards rulemakings for those under the ASHRAE standards. The residential energy use test, DOE notes products and equipment that may still variety of equipment that are that such an approach would be similar produce significant conservation of encompassed by the ASHRAE to the one explicitly rejected in energy. equipment classes, the intense amount Herrington, which would not only Regarding Regal-Beloit’s suggestion of scrutiny already applied by technical present a legal problem under existing that DOE supplement its thresholds experts in adjusting any potential case law but also link improvements to with the use of a ratio of quads over cost standards for ASHRAE equipment energy efficiency from a standard for a impacts, DOE, after careful through the ASHRAE standards review given individual product/equipment consideration of this suggested change, process, and the nearly identical type solely to the amount of savings is declining to add this step to its statutory language imposing that from that standard relative to the threshold approach at this time. To the ‘‘significant additional conservation of entirety of residential energy usage. (See extent that any ‘‘cost-free’’ energy energy’’ used by Congress with respect Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1375–1378 savings are possible, DOE believes that to DOE-initiated standards for this (rejecting DOE’s significance tests that, the modified levels being adopted in equipment, all favor treating ASHRAE among other things, relied on the overall this final rule will be sufficient to equipment in a manner that recognizes reduction in energy use when ensure that it is able to capture the the particular nature of this equipment evaluating the energy savings potential maximum amount of energy savings relative to all other products and that a particular standard could while limiting the potential financial equipment that are not similarly subject achieve)) Aside from the conflict with burdens manufacturers or consumers to the same level of technical scrutiny current case law, this approach would may face provided the energy savings and review. In other words, the effectively eviscerate the Agency’s result in significant conservation of statutory language and factual ability to amend its standards. In DOE’s energy. As a result, DOE has decided to circumstances surrounding ASHRAE view, AGA’s suggestion presents an retain the general framework of its equipment indicate that DOE must overbroad approach that fails to proposed thresholds without adding determine that adopting a more consider the requisite balancing that this suggested change. As to GWU’s concerns about the stringent standard than ASHRAE will Congress had instructed DOE to analytical process that DOE would produce a significant amount of energy undertake—that of determining whether follow once a significant energy savings savings above what would be achieved a given standard that produces determination is made, DOE notes that by simply adopting the level set by significant energy savings for a given it would continue to perform the routine ASHRAE. As a result, to be consistent product or equipment type is both economic justification analysis for any with this established framework, DOE is technologically feasible and potential rulemaking standard that applying the thresholds in this final rule economically justified—in order to produce a more precisely calibrated satisfies the applicable threshold. to the standards rulemaking process of result to improve the energy efficiency Analyzing whether a potential standard 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) governing ASHRAE of consumer products and (specifically is economically justified is a equipment. identified) industrial equipment. See 42 prerequisite to determining whether the As for EEI’s suggestion that an U.S.C. 6201(5) and 42 U.S.C. 6312(a). economic justification prong under 42 exception or different threshold be Similarly, NAFEM’s suggestion that U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) is met and DOE applied to those other products and DOE apply a Pareto analysis approach to must complete this step prior to equipment with smaller markets—DOE the thresholds presents another finalizing its rulemaking determination. does not believe that such changes, alternative that DOE is also declining to Consequently, DOE does not anticipate absent more concrete and definitive adopt. This approach may result in making any changes to this aspect of its information, are necessary, particularly cases where DOE would forego energy rulemaking process. in light of the other changes that are savings in cases where one of the two DOE also took into account Rheem’s being incorporated into this final rule in thresholds is met since it would involve concerns regarding whether 0.5 quad response to commenter concerns. In applying a more stringent threshold was ‘‘the right number’’ for a quad- DOE’s view, the fact that the footprint (i.e., determine which 20 percent of based threshold. Under the revised of a given product or equipment is small rulemakings produce 80% of the energy approach detailed in this final rule, DOE suggests that Federal intervention in the savings) that would likely remove believes that these revisions establish an form of mandatory standards may not be additional standards that would appropriate quad threshold—namely, the appropriate means at that time to produce significant energy savings from 0.3 quads of site energy over 30 years— improve the efficiency of that product. further consideration. While DOE seeks that satisfies DOE’s legal obligations in See, e.g., Battery Chargers Standards to improve the efficiency of its own implementing EPCA. As DOE explains Final Rule, 81 FR 38266, 38281–38282 process in developing and finalizing elsewhere in this document, the (June 13, 2016) (refraining from energy conservation standards for its approach adopted in the rule will apply including wireless chargers within the regulated products and equipment, it appropriate quad and percentage scope of the battery charger standards must also ensure that the statutory thresholds to ensure that those energy rulemaking to avoid the ‘‘loss of utility criteria can be achieved under the savings meriting further analysis are not and performance likely to result from balancing performed under EPCA. See ignored and receive due consideration the promulgation of a standard for a 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) (standards must for adoption as a standard. And nascent technology such as wireless be designed to achieve ‘‘the maximum regarding Rheem’s urging that DOE charging.’’). In addition, the 10 percent improvement in energy efficiency’’) and consider consumer impacts, DOE notes energy savings threshold enables the 42 U.S.C. (o)(2)(B)(i) (detailing factors that consumer impacts remain an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8668 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

integral part of DOE’s routine energy standard would produce significant those covered products not already conservation standards analysis and the conservation of energy, DOE gave explicitly addressed under the statute. Department does not anticipate any careful thought to the concerns and DOE will also continue to follow its changes to this approach. (See, e.g., 42 potential problems that they identified. policy of using FFC analyses as part of U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) (instructing After considering these specific the Department’s energy conservation DOE when determining whether a concerns, DOE has taken a number of standards program when analyzing standard is economically justified to steps to address them and has made overall impacts, including emissions, consider ‘‘the economic impact of the some adjustments to the proposed from a given rulemaking standard. See standard on the manufacturers and on approach as part of this final rule. These 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011) the consumers of the products subject to adjustments include providing further (announcing DOE’s statement of policy such standard.’’)) explanation of the supporting data (as to use FFC analysis in its standards Regarding BHI’s comments regarding presented in the July 2019 NODA) and rulemakings). See also 77 FR 49701 the potential amendment of the modifying the quad-based threshold (Aug. 17, 2012) (amending DOE’s FFC threshold levels in the future, DOE level that DOE initially considered policy by specifying that DOE’s National notes that while it does not anticipate adopting. As indicated in DOE’s NODA Energy Modeling System rather than the making changes to these levels, any regarding the various threshold Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, amendments would be made as part of combinations it examined, DOE sought and Energy Use in Transportation a notice and comment rulemaking additional feedback from the public model). In DOE’s view, this approach regarding the Process Rule similar to the regarding what might be appropriate maintains consistency with both its one that DOE initiated for this final rule. levels to use by providing the projected statutory obligations and its policy of DOE does not anticipate amending the energy savings for the examined ensuring that its analyses address the threshold levels as part of individual standards final rules in a uniform full range of potential savings and costs energy conservation standards manner using site energy. that flow from examining the FFC rulemaking efforts. As a preliminary matter, in response energy use of a given product or Finally, as suggested by Spire and to the commenters who opposed the equipment. numerous other commenters, including proposed thresholds because of the lack Regarding the CEC’s concern that the those opposed to the use of thresholds, of clarity concerning the basis for the application of any thresholds would DOE is clarifying the basis for its proposed levels or out of concern for the preempt States from enacting their own proposed thresholds and making level of the proposed thresholds standards for a Federally-covered adjustments to the values being adopted themselves (ACEEE, Bosch, CT–DEEP, product or equipment type, DOE agrees as part of this final rule. While DOE’s Ingersoll-Rand, and NEEA), DOE has that EPCA contains explicit preemption proposal was based on a calculated since clarified the basis of these provisions that apply both in general for value that used both site- and source- threshold levels. See 84 FR 36037 (July covered products and as specified in based energy savings, this final rule 26, 2019) (presenting and explaining particular circumstances. See 42 U.S.C. bases the adopted threshold levels on data regarding projected impacts on 6295(ii) and 42 U.S.C. 6297 (detailing site energy-based savings. DOE’s July number of rulemakings and percentage specific circumstances in which 2019 NODA on this very topic laid out of energy savings retained relative to limitations on Federal preemption of a variety of threshold scenarios based on applying no threshold under various State standards applies). site energy usage to illustrate their quad/percentage improvement scenarios With respect to Ingersoll-Rand’s and potential impacts using a combination using primary source energy use). That NEEA’s concerns over the use of of different threshold values. See 84 FR NODA explained that DOE re-examined thresholds—specifically, that they may 36037, 36038–36039 (July 26, 2019) its data and discovered that its proposed be arbitrary and too high, with the (detailing the impacts of a variety of 0.5 quad threshold was based on the use proposed 10 percent threshold posing quad-based and percentage-based of source- and site-based energy. As a too steep a level of improvement for threshold combinations based on site result, DOE released a set of tables to many covered products and equipment energy use). This approach will serve as illustrate the potential energy savings to achieve—DOE notes that it has the basis for DOE’s significant energy related to the 57 different standards modified its quad threshold after use thresholds and is consistent with rulemakings that were examined and reviewing its data and relevant EPCA’s definition for ‘‘energy use’’ (i.e., the impacts that various quad/ comments. The modified thresholds ‘‘the quantity of energy directly percentage efficiency threshold adopted in this final rule, which are consumed by a consumer product at combinations would have had on those based on analyses of projected energy point of use’’) and the process followed rulemakings. These revised tables savings from final rules previously by DOE when determining whether to present the energy savings involved adopted by DOE, ensure that those apply energy conservation standards to uniformly in terms of site energy usage rulemakings that produce energy other covered products (i.e., applying and DOE’s use of these data is conservation standards also produce, as ‘‘average per household energy use’’ consistent with the manner discussed urged by NEEA, cost-effective savings to when determining whether to prescribe elsewhere in this document. And while consumers while reducing the burdens standards). See 42 U.S.C. 6291(4) DOE acknowledges Energy Solutions’ that accompany repeated cycles of (defining ‘‘energy use’’) and 42 U.S.C. (i.e. the Cal-IOU’s) objections to the rulemakings to eke out more limited 6295(l)(1) (detailing qualifying criteria proposed thresholds, Energy Solutions potential energy savings. While the final DOE must consider prior to prescribing offered no data or substantive analysis selected level of energy efficiency may standards for newly covered products). in support of its views. be influenced by a variety of factors Consistent with these clarifications, specific to a given case, DOE must rely B. Response to Commenters Opposing DOE notes that it will determine on its available data and analyses in DOE’s Proposed Use of Thresholds whether the threshold levels are met by determining what level—if any—to set In reviewing and considering the relying on site energy use values, which, for energy savings. Using data from its arguments forwarded by commenters as indicated earlier, is consistent with past analyses and rulemakings, and who opposed the use of thresholds for EPCA’s treatment of energy use and weighing its obligations under the determining whether a potential procedures for prescribing standards for statute to account for a variety of factors,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8669

DOE has determined that applying the that EPCA specifically states the (specifying that DOE shall grant a thresholds detailed in this final rule set Secretary may not prescribe an amended petition for an amended standard if the out an approach consistent with its legal or new standard under this section for petition contains evidence that, if no obligations and policy to continuously a type (or class) of covered product if other evidence were considered, improve energy efficiency that is the Secretary determines, by rule, that provides an adequate basis that economically justified. the establishment of such standard will amended standards will result in In DOE’s view, the adjustments made not result in significant conservation of significant conservation of energy) and to the final threshold levels should be energy, or that the establishment of such (o) (providing that DOE may not sufficient to address both NEEA’s and standard is not technologically feasible prescribe an amended standard if the Ingersoll-Rand’s initial concerns about or economically justified. See 42 U.S.C. establishment of that standard will not their magnitudes. DOE notes that, given 6295(o)(3)(B). result in significant conservation of the increasing number of products and DOE has carefully considered these energy). See also 42 U.S.C. equipment that it is either directly arguments and re-examined the 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) (requiring DOE to regulating or over which it currently has Herrington opinion. The statutory test demonstrate with clear and convincing coverage but is not yet regulating, the for establishing or revising an energy evidence that adoption of a standard Agency’s oversight responsibilities are conservation standard contains three more stringent than those set by extensive—and, based on prior separate and distinct determinations. ASHRAE would result in ‘‘significant Congressional actions, are expected to EPCA makes clear that DOE cannot additional conservation of energy’’). The continue to grow. See, e.g. Energy Policy establish or amend a standard unless all fact that this term, despite its prominent Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (Aug. three are met. To comply with EPCA place in key provisions related to DOE’s 8, 2005) (adding battery chargers and requirements DOE is unable to simply standards-making authority remains external power supplies as products for decide that any savings of energy that is undefined, indicates that Congress had DOE to regulate), Energy Independence technologically feasible and intended for DOE to make this and Security Act of 2007, Public Law economically justified per se saves a determination of what level(s) of energy 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007) (adding walk- significant savings of energy or that the use savings (if any) would satisfy this in cooler and freezer equipment for DOE savings from a number of energy term. Under such circumstances, case to regulate and revising the scope of conservation standards will add up to a law is clear that an agency, where gaps electric motor coverage), American significant amount of energy. Separate are present in the statute, must Energy Manufacturing Technical from a determination regarding necessarily fill those gaps as Corrections Act, Public Law 112–210 economic justification or technological appropriate. See Chevron v. Natural (Dec. 18, 2012) (making a series of feasibility, the Secretary is explicitly Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. amendments affecting a variety of prohibited from prescribing an amended 837, 843–44 (1984) (‘‘If Congress has procedural and scoping-related or new standard that will not result in explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, provisions regarding regulated significant conservation of energy. Any there is an express delegation of consumer products and industrial other position would write out of the authority to the agency to elucidate a equipment), and EPS Improvement Act statute the discrete determination the specific provision of the statute by of 2017, Public Law 115–115 (Jan. 12, language requires about the significance regulation.’’) (Stevens, J.) See also 2018) (setting out procedures for DOE to of the energy savings. In explaining its Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1372–1373 follow in the event that solid state proposal, DOE noted its concern with (noting that DOE has ‘‘substantial lighting power supply circuits, drivers, the direct economic impacts that are discretion to set specific levels of or devices are treated by DOE as covered likely to flow from imposing standards significance’’ so long as the levels equipment). Without a more efficient that are projected to yield relatively selected are ‘‘consistent with the way of managing and prioritizing its lower energy savings—standards that express terms and underlying limited resources to address these may produce little in overall benefits in congressional intentions of [EPCA].’’). increasing regulatory activities, DOE energy and cost savings for consumers Significantly, the Herrington court did runs an increased risk of falling further when compared to the costs related to not attempt to dictate the meaning of behind in fulfilling its statutory the manufacture and purchase of ‘‘significant conservation of energy,’’ obligations, reducing the quality and products and equipment meeting these deferring instead to those specific comprehensiveness of its analyses, or, kinds of standards. (84 FR 3910, 3922 adopting statutory interpretations that, (Feb. 13, 2019)) DOE elaborated on the provisions Congress prescribed in the while potentially providing an basis for its proposal, noting that this enacted legislation to discern a expedient solution for a given issue, [proposed] approach gives effect to the reasonable meaning for ‘‘significance.’’ may inadvertently undermine the Herrington court’s reference to not See Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1373–1374. careful consideration that Congress forego energy savings that are ‘‘cost- Further, the use of thresholds for required DOE to perform when free.’’ However, it would also limit the determining significance was clearly evaluating potential efficiency standards first-cost impacts to consumers to those contemplated under the Herrington for the numerous consumer and instances where a given rulemaking is decision. The Herrington court did not industrial appliances that DOE oversees. expected to generate significant energy shy from applying a threshold—it As to those commenters (A.O. Smith, savings and other substantial benefits. sought only to determine what would be AG Joint Commenters, ASAP, et al., Cal- (84 FR 3910, 3922 (Feb. 13, 2019)) a reasonable one in light of the various IOUs, CEC, NPCC, NRDC, and NYU And as DOE previously pointed out in provisions laid out in EPCA. Using the Law) who opposed the use of any its preamble to the proposal, see 84 FR threshold that Congress already set for thresholds, most took that position out 3910, 3922 (Feb. 13, 2019), EPCA, prescribing an energy conservation of the belief that EPCA only permits the despite using it in multiple statutory standard for which DOE has added use of an individual case-by-case sections, does not define the term coverage, the Herrington court analysis in every instance where DOE is ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ nor determined that Congress must have considering whether to amend or does it specify any particular criteria or viewed the prescribed level of energy establish a standard for a particular specific guidance as to the term’s savings (0.014335 quad per year of product or equipment. We note the fact meaning. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n) household energy consumption for a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8670 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

given product, which translates into a the test to apply when determining prototypes, and which failed the source energy use of 0.0483 quad per whether to adopt a standard, DOE is screening criteria 20 years ago, are year) as being significant. See id. (When now applying the test from the statute today’s baseline models. As a result, calculated over 30 years, this source itself—i.e. whether the standard DOE does not anticipate that the energy use value reaches 1.449 quads produces significant energy savings. thresholds being adopted in this rule and the site value reaches 0.43 quads. Finally, DOE points out that the will present an insurmountable barrier These values clearly exceed the max- Herrington court expressed concern not to achieve further energy savings in the tech quad threshold of 0.5 quad that with the use of thresholds but the future. DOE had earlier proposed and the 0.3 manner in which those thresholds were In light of the balancing of interests site energy quad that DOE is finalizing developed and justified. In that case, the that DOE continues to perform with here, respectively.) 18 The Herrington court viewed DOE’s effort at defining respect to evaluating potential energy court even went as far to emphasize that ‘‘significant energy savings’’ as conservation standards, DOE is also in those instances where the threshold problematic in light of the agency’s mindful of its past rulemakings when for significance was not reached, DOE inability to sufficiently explain why its setting new or amended standards for must not issue a standard even in the three tests for significant conservation of regulated products and equipment, and face of the prospect of forfeiting savings energy were valid in light of other believes its extensive regulatory past is that would impose no burdens. See 768 provisions contained in EPCA. The tests the best guide to its future actions. As F.2d at 1373 (stressing that ‘‘DOE may that DOE attempted to use to define the DOE previously explained, it selected a not issue a standard it has disqualified contours of significant energy savings level that accounted for the concerns under the significance provision even if effectively prevented DOE from issuing noted in the Herrington decision by that standard imposes absolutely no the discretionary energy conservation considering the level of savings to apply burdens at all.’’) (emphasis in original). standards that Congress had intended against the thresholds discussed in that Determining significance is a decision for DOE to promulgate. See Herrington, decision and prescribed in EPCA. See that rests with DOE. In making this 768 F.2d at 1375–76. The Herrington 84 FR 3910, 3922–3924 (Feb. 13, 2019). judgment, the Department balanced court sought evidence demonstrating In so doing, DOE initially determined competing considerations and its that DOE’s definition of significance that a 0.5 quad threshold applied to the limited resources. DOE notes that while showed ‘‘some awareness of the range of projected max-tech savings, when the commenters object to the use of energy savings Congress thought worth compared against the sizable number of thresholds, their past actions in other pursuing.’’ Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1377. completed rulemakings that produced rulemaking contexts have demonstrated In this rule, DOE has taken a much new or amended standards for regulated a willingness to accept no changes in a more tailored approach to account for products and equipment, would help standard for specific product classes the concerns noted in Herrington and DOE to continue to ensure that the vast where the projected energy savings the issues raised by commenters majority of future energy savings from would be small. See, e.g. ASAP, regarding the potential impacts from its rulemakings would be preserved. December 16, 2015 Central Air using thresholds. It has not erected a Additionally, DOE’s proposed Conditioner and Heat Pumps Working series of tests that would pose an approach included a second step to Group Meeting, EERE–2014–BT–STD– insurmountable barrier that would ensure that it would be able to capture 0048 at pp. 90–91 (ASAP stating its effectively bar it from promulgating energy savings even in those cases willingness to leave the standards for efficiency standards going forward. To where less than 0.5 quad of savings single-packaged air conditioners and the contrary, DOE’s approach, which were projected under the max-tech heat pumps unchanged when the relies on the past experiences, data, and analysis. That second step—applying a projected energy savings over 30 years information from dozens of standards percentage-based increase in efficiency, were calculated to be 0.2 quad) rulemakings completed over three also projected under the max-tech Further, DOE notes that EPCA itself decades, has been designed to not only analysis—was intended to provide DOE does not use the phrase ‘‘genuinely ensure that economically justified with a backstop that would help better trivial’’ when describing the amount of energy conservation standards are account for the energy efficiency energy savings that a given standard developed but to also provide a potential of the individual product or must achieve. The Herrington court reasonable level of predictability to equipment at issue. DOE notes that by used that phrase in an attempt to give DOE’s rulemaking process as numerous applying these thresholds to the max- substance to the concept of significance commenters have repeatedly asked DOE tech analysis, DOE will be able to assess but, like ‘‘significant energy savings,’’ to follow. These thresholds will also the technological feasibility of whether never defined that phrase. While DOE enable DOE to focus its rulemaking significant energy savings is possible at may have treated ‘‘genuinely trivial’’ as efforts and enable DOE to efficiently an early stage of its analysis. Once it manage the finite resources it currently makes this determination, DOE will also 18 DOE notes that in the case of industrial has with respect to overseeing the be positioned to evaluate whether a equipment, which DOE began regulating after the standards and test procedures for the standard for this level of energy savings Herrington decision, the population of potential products and equipment it regulates. is economically justified. Accordingly, commercial/industrial equipment over which DOE Further, DOE notes that technological under DOE’s approach, decisions could add coverage is limited solely to those equipment types listed under 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B). innovation occurs on a constant basis, regarding whether and how to proceed DOE may include such equipment types as covered which means that the product and with a given standard can be made in equipment if the Secretary ‘‘determines that to do equipment efficiency levels and a more transparent and predictable so is necessary to carry out the purposes of this cumulative energy savings potential manner consistent with the statute. part.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6312(b). While this provision, unlike its counterpart for consumer products (found from new or revised standards for a While commenters have expressed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)), does not specify a minimum given product are not static. This concerns regarding the potential of energy use threshold to establish coverage or to set potential for continuous improvement is inadvertently missing cost-free standards, an appropriate threshold based on driven by technological innovation and opportunities for higher energy similar energy consumption use could also apply. Accordingly, DOE may use its discretion in setting product development which are a efficiency-related savings from a initial threshold requirements for adding regulatory function of time. Designs that DOE standard, those savings must in the first coverage of commercial/industrial equipment. previously analyzed as max-tech instance be significant, since Congress

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8671

did not intend for DOE to continually 6295(m)(1)–(3). See Figure III.1 at the term—and DOE’s reliance on a set standards irrespective of the end of this discussion section. reasonable threshold that accounts for magnitude of those potential savings. In the case of those rulemakings the savings of prior rulemakings in no See Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1378 (noting where standards have been way conflicts with the ability of that ‘‘DOE is right to think that under characterized by commenters as having Congress to unilaterally set a standard [42 U.S.C. 6295(o)], standards for each been cost-free (i.e. those involving that may differ from the thresholds that product type must result in significant commercial clothes washers, pre-rinse DOE applies through this Process Rule. conservation.’’). See also id. at 1373 spray valves, dehumidifiers, and hugger As indicated elsewhere, DOE’s approach (stressing that ‘‘DOE may not issue a fans), DOE refers back to Herrington, can permit standards that fall below the standard it has disqualified under the which stressed that a standard must not quad threshold through its second prong significance provision even if that be set unless there are significant energy if the facts supported a rulemaking standard imposes absolutely no burdens savings to be had. And as to the specific based on the projected reduction in at all.’’) (emphasis in original). DOE rulemakings highlighted by energy use from a standard. believes that its revised process as commenters, DOE notes that the Regarding Earthjustice’s concerns of outlined in this final rule will encourage preamble discussions from the cited potential gaming by DOE if a threshold interested parties to provide substantive rules noted that certain efficiency levels is set, DOE notes generally that when input that will assist DOE in readily that DOE considered for certain classes examining all products and equipment addressing those potential areas where of the products or equipment at issue within a particular type (or in the case rulemaking will be most beneficial and were not projected to yield net costs, not of ASHRAE equipment, equipment that these standards would have been category) for purposes of determining yield the greatest amount of energy cost-free (an amended standard would whether the projected energy savings savings without imposing the economic necessarily involve costs for would satisfy the significance burdens from multiple additional manufacturers to implement through thresholds, DOE will examine product rulemakings yielding only marginal new compliance-related costs).19 and equipment types in a manner that benefits. By conducting an early Regarding water savings, DOE notes that makes the most sense and not assessment of the max-tech energy the significant energy (water) savings selectively examine classes or sub- savings from potential new or amended requirement does not apply to pre-rinse classes of products and equipment standards for a given product or spray valves, which would mean that simply for the purposes of projecting equipment type as described in this even if DOE had developed specific whether potential energy savings would final rule, DOE expects that interested water savings thresholds, as it has the satisfy the applicable thresholds. parties will provide as much authority to do, such thresholds would Similarly, in the case of ASHRAE information as early as possible to help not apply to this particular equipment equipment, which are addressed by a supplement any information already type. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) separate statutory provision, if DOE is being evaluated by DOE to ascertain (specifying significant conservation of triggered to examine the standards for whether either of the thresholds is met. water for only ‘‘showerheads, faucets, certain classes within a particular And in those cases where DOE must water closets, or urinals’’). In any event, equipment type, DOE will also examine make decisions regarding the scope of a even if DOE could consider adopting all of the remaining classes within that particular set of standards, the Agency standards that it believed did not same equipment category consistent will apply a cleaner—and broader— produce significant energy savings, with its current obligations under the approach by evaluating each product/ those standards cannot be accurately six-year review cycle under 42 U.S.C. equipment type as a whole rather than characterized as ‘‘cost-free.’’ 6313(a)(6)(C). Accordingly, in light of dividing a particular product/equipment As to concerns of potential conflicts the concerns expressed by Earthjustice, type into multiple classes or subclasses. between the quad savings levels DOE has adjusted its regulatory text DOE does not expect such a achieved by Congressionally-enacted under Section 6(b) to explicitly spell out circumstance to arise, but should the standards and the quad threshold being this approach. Department proceed with a standards set by DOE in this rule, DOE notes that Regarding water efficiency, DOE rulemaking applicable to only a segment Congressionally-enacted standards are acknowledges that its proposed of a covered product, it will evaluate the independent of DOE’s analysis of what thresholds do not encompass a potential energy savings across all qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ and can be particular level for the specific water- product classes. While DOE may determined on a case-by-case basis. As consuming products identified in 42 ultimately decide not to set standards a result, Congressionally-enacted U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). In DOE’s view, for every conceivable class within a standards are always open to any level with sufficient data and analysis, a product or equipment type, DOE that Congress deems appropriate. It does water savings threshold may be possible anticipates that the potential max-tech not follow, however, that DOE would, in the future. However, the absence of standards it will use to evaluate each without explicit statutory language to a proposed threshold was due at least in product and equipment type as a whole the contrary, set a standard without first part to the fewer number of data points at the early assessment stage will enable determining whether significant energy with respect to water savings. With this DOE to reasonably determine whether a conservation of energy could be data situation remaining the same since new or amended standard for a given achieved. By leaving the meaning of this the publication of DOE’s proposal, DOE product or equipment type merits term undefined, Congress has permitted is opting not to set any threshold levels further evaluation. And should DOE DOE to define the meaning of this related to water savings at this time. initially view new or amended DOE also acknowledges the concerns standards as not being warranted for 19 See 79 FR 74492 (Dec. 15, 2014) (final rule raised by the Cal-IOUs. While grid having not met either threshold, amending standards for commercial clothes reliability issues are a critical concern in interested parties would have the washers); 81 FR 4748 (Jan. 27, 2016) (final rule the overall context of energy usage, opportunity to weigh in with additional amending standards for commercial prerinse spray these issues are best addressed within a valves); 81 FR 38338 (June 13, 2016) (final rule information and data as part of the amending standards for dehumidifiers); and 82 FR separate effort focusing on these issues. notice of proposed determination 6826 (Jan. 19, 2017) (final rule amending standards DOE also notes that the Cal-IOUs did process required under 42 U.S.C. for ceiling fans). not indicate whether the magnitude of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8672 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the proposed max-tech threshold had been initially anticipated as part of notice will provide an opportunity for levels—let alone those thresholds that DOE’s early look process, DOE is unsure written comment and for public review DOE is adopting today—would have any what the Cal-IOUs are suggesting. of DOE’s analysis.)) appreciable impact to grid reliability However, DOE notes that a properly As for A.O. Smith’s concern regarding and if so, by how much. Nevertheless, scoped rulemaking effort from the the treatment of DFRs within the DOE notes that, to the extent that these beginning will minimize the risk of context of DOE’s significant energy issues become a major factor in a given foregoing energy savings. The example threshold, DOE notes that any DFR rulemaking, DOE will address them cited by the Cal-IOUs—pumps— agreement submitted to DOE must within the context of that particular involved a broad array of products and conform to the statute. As explained rulemaking action. equipment that fell within that elsewhere in this final rule, the DFR Regarding the Cal-IOUs assertion that particular category, within which were provision is procedural, and in no way the proposed thresholds would classes with different potentials for provides an authority to take an action eliminate 4.24 quads of energy savings, energy savings. When examining the not in compliance with the rest of DOE believes that the adopted approach particular pumps at issue in that EPCA. Thus, a DFR submitted to DOE presents a careful and reasonably rulemaking, DOE projected that the would need to satisfy the provisions balanced method of ensuring that max-tech energy savings involved 1.28 detailed in EPCA in order for DOE to significant energy savings are produced quads primary source energy use (and move forward with that submission. In while limiting the overall burdens 1.34 full-fuel cycle energy use)—easily addition, consistent with the approach associated with implementing and well in excess of the 0.3 site energy detailed elsewhere in this discussion of following the necessary regulations for quad threshold established in this the final rule, any projected energy complying with new or amended revision to the Process Rule. savings from the standards contained in standards. Moreover, under the With respect to the timing of DOE’s a consensus agreement presented to proposed thresholds, DOE would still application of the thresholds, DOE notes DOE pursuant to the DFR provision have achieved over 100 quads of energy that these thresholds would be applied would need to satisfy the thresholds in savings (with 54.64 quads of site energy continuously throughout its various this final rule. savings). (See 84 FR 3910, 3923 (Feb. 13, rulemaking steps. DOE would apply 2019) (noting that applying a 0.5 quad these thresholds as part of the early Finally, both ASE and Ms. Steinberg threshold would yield 109 quads of assessment in addition to when appeared to wholly oppose the energy savings based on an examination weighing the merits of a particular thresholds out of principle. As to these of prior DOE standards rulemakings) proposal. DOE anticipates that all commenters, DOE refers back to the and 84 FR 36037, 36038 (July 26, 2019) interested parties will assist the arguments and explanations presented (noting site energy savings of 54.64 Agency’s decision-making process to earlier. Regarding ASE’s view that the quads) (See also 84 FR 36037, 36038– ensure that any potential energy savings setting of any threshold is arbitrary and 36039 (July 26, 2019) (noting that 34 of are not unnecessarily foregone and that inflexible, and that DOE should instead the examined 57 standards rules no rulemaking will be initiated until the focus on meeting its statutory deadlines, produced nearly 94% of the total energy appropriate conditions are met—i.e. DOE believes that the thresholds being savings—and would be roughly when sufficient energy savings under established in this final rule are based equivalent to 51.3 quads of site energy the thresholds are satisfied through on a careful consideration of available savings)). In addition, the 4.24 quads of DOE’s examination and analyses of data regarding energy savings that were savings that the commenters cite potential max-tech energy savings. projected to accrue from these translate to 3.29 quads of site energy. Accordingly, while DOE appreciates the standards. In turn, DOE believes that the Moreover, according to EIA, the United concerns raised by the Cal-IOUs, the adoption of these thresholds will enable States consumed approximately 100 framework detailed under this rule DOE to more readily satisfy its quads of energy in 2018.20 The 0.3 site should provide adequate incentives to continuing obligation to review its energy quad threshold for a significant ensure that DOE receives and analyzes standards as well as its separate ongoing conservation of energy established in sufficient information to enable the obligations to review all of its test this revision to the Process Rule is Agency to determine whether a given procedures on a cyclical basis by savings over a 30-year period and, helping DOE to quickly identify those therefore, is an extremely low bar when rulemaking merits further action at that areas that will yield the most benefit considered against approximately 3000 particular point in time. Given that DOE from DOE’s efforts to amend or establish quads of consumed energy in the same is obligated to review its determinations standards producing significant energy timeframe (holding 2018 energy to not amend a standard within a conservation for a given regulated consumption constant). relatively short (three-year) window, product or equipment. By helping DOE As for the concern raised by the Cal- additional opportunities to review the to prioritize its efforts, the thresholds IOUs of the possibility that DOE’s max-tech energy savings potential for a will allow DOE to better focus on thresholds may inadvertently close off particular product or equipment will standards that ‘‘provide for improved potential rulemakings that may unlock continuously present themselves. (See energy efficiency of . . . major substantially more energy savings than 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)–(3) (detailing the process by which a notice of appliances and certain other consumer 20 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us- determination to not amend a standard products.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6201(5). energy-facts/. will occur and specifying that such BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8673

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER14FE20.000 8674 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

C. Response to Comments on the Notice that type (or class) exceeded 150 considered the question of whether it of Data Availability kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) for should establish a policy to calculate Site Energy any 12-month period ending before such and use full fuel cycle measure in future determination; (2) the aggregate rulemakings in instances where a fuel The term ‘‘energy use’’ is defined ‘‘household energy use within the choice is present—but ultimately under EPCA as ‘‘the quantity of energy United States by products of such type concluded that these additional directly consumed by a consumer (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 measures would only provide a rough product at point of use’’ and as kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) for indicator of the impacts of possible fuel determined under the test procedure any such 12-month period; (3) switching on total energy savings and promulgated pursuant to DOE’s substantial improvement in the energy emissions and, therefore, would not authority under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 efficiency of the product is enhance current DOE estimates of the U.S.C. 6291(4)) See also 42 U.S.C. technologically feasible; and (4) direct impacts of alternative standard 6311(4) (defining ‘‘energy use’’ for applying a labeling rule is unlikely to be levels on fuel choice, energy savings, industrial/commercial equipment as sufficient to induce manufacturers to emissions and other factors. (76 FR ‘‘point of use’’ energy). An energy produce, and consumers and others to 51281, 51285) conservation standard is defined as purchase, covered products of such type The adoption of a full fuel cycle either (1) a performance standard that (or class) that would achieve the prescribes a minimum level of energy approach by other entities and maximum level of energy efficiency that jurisdictions (as indicated by a number efficiency or a maximum quantity of is technologically feasible and energy use (or in the case of certain of commenters) does not change the fact economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. that DOE has its own, Congressionally- water products, water use) or (2) a 6295(l)(1)(A)–(D)) design requirement with respect to mandated requirements to follow— Accordingly, since ‘‘household energy which require that DOE base its certain specified products. (See 42 use’’ refers to the point of use energy U.S.C. 6291(6). See also 42 U.S.C. standards on site-based energy use. DOE consumption, these statutory also notes that the determination of a 6311(18) (applying similar criteria for provisions, when read together, indicate threshold for significant energy savings industrial/commercial equipment that the standards promulgated by DOE is a separate question from whether a energy conservation standards)) Further, must be based on the site energy use of given standard is economically justified. when establishing coverage for a the products at issue. Consistent with Accordingly, consistent with its product under DOE’s limited this framework, DOE presented its statutory obligations and with its past discretionary authority under EPCA, supporting data for the NODA with this practice and policy statements, when DOE must first evaluate the average structure in mind. ‘‘annual per-household energy use’’ for Further, in contrast to the assertions determining whether a given standard is the product at issue against a prescribed made by some of the commenters, economically justified, DOE will apply statutory threshold. (See 42 U.S.C. adhering to a site-based approach is also FFC measures to evaluate the given 6292(a)(20) (specifying that a covered consistent with the framework standard level but continue to base its product includes ‘‘[a]ny other type of developed under DOE’s FFC Policy energy conservation standards on site consumer product which the Secretary Statement when the Agency considered energy use. classifies as a covered product under [42 the question of using the FFC within the Calculation Methodology U.S.C. 6292(b)]’’) and 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) context of its energy conservation (permitting the Secretary to classify a standards analyses. (See 76 FR 51281 DOE appreciates the various product as a covered product if it is (August 18, 2011) (DOE Statement of suggestions offered by commenters on ‘‘necessary or appropriate to carry out Policy for Adopting Full-Fuel-Cycle possible ways to modify DOE’s the purposes of this chapter’’ and where Analyses Into Energy Conservation supporting analysis, such as by products of such type are likely to Standards Program)) While the Policy modifying the analysis to account for exceed an average annual per-household Statement noted that using FFC changes in EIA-related numbers, energy use of 100 kilowatt-hours or its measures would help provide more accounting for different methods for Btu equivalent)) EPCA also clarifies that complete information about the total setting standards (e.g., reduction in in determining whether the 100 energy use and greenhouse gas losses v. increased energy efficiency), kilowatt-hour threshold for coverage is emissions associated with a specific excluding first-round rulemakings, and met, DOE must take the estimated energy efficiency level, the Agency also others. However, the purpose of DOE’s aggregate annual energy use of the stressed that EPCA requires that its analysis was not to go back and verify product type at issue that is used by measures used to determine the energy or improve the energy savings analyses households in the United States, efficiency of its covered products be from these rules. Instead, DOE divided by the number of such based solely on the energy consumed at conducted this analysis in response to households which use products of such the point of use. (76 FR 51281, 51282) Herrington, which stated that the type. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)) DOE pointed out that although EPCA ‘‘cumulative savings possible from the Similarly, when determining whether does not mandate the use of ‘‘point-of- appliance program as a whole is it can set an energy conservation use’’ measures in each of its analyses in certainly relevant to whether the standard for a product added for support of a given standard—and DOE conservation that standards for a coverage under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b), DOE ultimately decided to include FFC particular product type might achieve must determine whether additional energy measures were included as part should be deemed significant.’’ 768 F.2d criteria, including thresholds based on of DOE’s national impact analyses and 1355, 1378 (1985). DOE’s goal was to household energy use, are satisfied. (See environmental assessments for determine how much the proposed 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)) In particular, DOE standards rulemakings—DOE made threshold would have reduced the may prescribe an energy conservation clear its view that the final energy projected, cumulative energy savings standard for a product covered under 42 conservation standard chosen ‘‘must be from its prior rules. As the proposed U.S.C. 6292(b) provided that the expressed as a point-of-use measure.’’ threshold would have preserved 94 Secretary determines that: (1) The (76 FR 51281, 51284 (citing to 42 U.S.C. percent of the projected, cumulative ‘‘household energy use of products of 6291(4)–(6), 6311(3)–(4), (18)) DOE also energy savings, DOE believes it is a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8675

reasonable threshold for significant relative savings achieved by DOE’s prior thresholds for significant energy savings energy savings. rulemakings when setting energy attempts to reduce the overall potential In future rules, DOE will quantify the conservation standards. As A.O. Smith regulatory burdens in the form of quads of site energy saved using the noted, the rulemakings listed in the reduced rulemakings while retaining the same methodology it has used for NODA do not all have the same vast majority of energy savings (over previous rulemakings to ensure that analytical period. However, DOE clearly 95%) when viewed against past standards meet the 0.3 quad threshold specifies in this rule that for future rulemakings. (See 84 FR 36037, 36038 over 30 years outlined in this rule. As rulemakings energy savings will be (July 26, 2019)). noted elsewhere in this document, DOE assessed over a 30-year analytical Further, use of a percentage threshold will continue to use FFC energy savings period, which clearly provides a addresses commenters’ concerns to calculate emissions reductions. As an uniform approach across rulemakings. regarding the ways in which a site alternate threshold, DOE will assess the With respect to the energy usage energy threshold could cause appliances energy savings percentage by assessing threshold that Congress imposed as a with different fuel sources to be treated the quads of energy saved relative to the mandatory prerequisite before differently, because the percentage baseline. DOE notes that, using this permitting DOE to set standards for a change remains constant regardless of method, the percentage of energy given product using its discretionary which energy metric is selected. See savings would be identical whether authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l), that generally 42 U.S.C. 6201(5) and 42 quads are assessed at the site energy or threshold is equivalent to 0.014335 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). See also primary energy level. In this way, use of quad of site energy use on an annual Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1376 (noting a percentage energy threshold in basis. When extrapolated over 30 years, that DOE may set levels of significance addition to the site energy threshold that total amount of quad savings— as a percentage of energy consumed by addresses some commenters’ concerns 0.43005 quad—would exceed the site a product ‘‘provided that the levels regarding whether a site energy energy-based equivalent level adopted selected reasonably accommodate the threshold would skew how the in this final rule. With the site energy- policies of the Act.’’ The 10 percent Department will treat standards for gas- based approach adopted in this rule, level being adopted in this rule accounts using versus electric appliances. DOE has decided to lower its quad- for potentially lower reductions in based threshold to 0.3 quad. energy savings that may occur as DOE Quad and Percentage Thresholds DOE notes that in those instances continues to incrementally amend the Regarding the various comments in where even this amount of savings may standards for regulated products and favor and against the proposed prove too high a hurdle to surmount, equipment. thresholds in light of the supplemental DOE would apply its percentage As DOE previously explained, its data furnished by the NODA and related threshold, which was intended to be a purpose in setting thresholds for docketed materials, DOE continues to measure that would be better tailored to significant energy savings was to take a believe that it has the authority to accommodate the particular energy middle ground when determining establish threshold levels for savings potential of the product/ significant savings of energy to improve determining significant energy savings. equipment under consideration. With the predictability and transparency of Nevertheless, DOE has revisited its respect to applying the percentage its standards rulemakings. (See 84 FR proposed threshold levels in light of the threshold, DOE notes that it has further 3910, 3923 (Feb. 13, 2019)) Further, comments it received in response to the examined its proposed 10 percent level. DOE must also consider ‘‘the overall NODA. After reviewing the quad site Under DOE’s proposed thresholds, conservation possible’’ under its energy savings from past energy approximately 95% of the total savings program in determining what would conservation standards rulemakings, from the 57 final rule would have been meet the ‘‘significant conservation of DOE has determined to revise its retained. Given the concerns raised by energy’’ requirement prescribed under proposed 0.5 quad threshold. The 0.5 the commenters, DOE adjusted its quad- EPCA. Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1378. In quad threshold was not based on a based threshold but has chosen to retain following this framework, and in consistent evaluation of energy use the proposed 10 percent threshold for contrast to its past approach of across rules. When the energy savings of this final rule. In DOE’s view, these emphasizing whether projected energy all rules are evaluated on a site energy thresholds together create a fair trade-off savings were ‘‘genuinely trivial,’’ DOE basis, the primary goals of the proposed to ensure that energy savings achieved gave careful consideration to the results threshold are best achieved at 0.3 quads by DOE’s rulemaking efforts produce of its past rulemaking actions and is of site energy. Namely, this threshold results that are consistent with the now seeking to better balance the clearly distinguishes between the balancing required under EPCA—i.e. to potential savings and potential burdens standards that accomplish the vast produce significant energy savings that involved to help ensure that DOE majority of total energy savings and are technologically feasible and produces rulemakings that achieve those that accomplish purely economically justified. This result is significant energy conservation as incremental savings at the same level of consistent with EPCA’s goal of required under EPCA while reducing administrative burden. When improving energy efficiency while also the overall burdens in achieving those considered in this light, DOE has ensuring that those energy savings savings. decided to adopt a threshold for achieved are significant in the first Regarding requests that DOE clarify significant energy savings at 0.3 quads instance. See generally 42 U.S.C. whether it is adopting a max-tech of site energy or, if that level is not met, 6201(5) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). See percentage threshold based on a a 10 percent reduction in site energy also Herrington, 768 F.2d at 1376 reduction in energy use or an use. (noting that DOE may set levels of improvement in energy efficiency, DOE As a preliminary matter, DOE notes significance as a percentage of energy has decided, as indicated earlier, to that the NODA data were intended to consumed by a product ‘‘provided that adopt the former. In addition to the present the projected energy savings the levels selected reasonably differences noted by commenters, DOE from past rulemakings in a uniform accommodate the policies of the Act.’’) believes that adopting a percentage manner consistent with the framework In DOE’s view, the adjustments it is threshold based on the reduction in established by Congress to illustrate the making in this final rule to establish energy use is preferable given that it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8676 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

more closely tracks the statutory particular class of that product type. Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at framework to directly address energy DOE has added language to the pp. 41–42; Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1; use and to reduce that usage to the regulatory text to mitigate the risk of Signify, No. 116 at p. 2; BHI, No. 135, extent possible within the limits potential manipulation of classes (or at p. 3; Westinghouse, April 11, 2019 prescribed by EPCA. See generally 42 subclasses) for the purposes of Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at p. U.S.C. 6291. attempting to solely satisfy (or not 38; Zero Zone, No. 102 at p. 2. satisfy) the thresholds. Most of the commenters agree that the Other Comments proposed 180-day time period is With respect to MHARR’s suggestion I. Finalization of Test Procedures Prior appropriate. Only three would prefer a to apply the Process Rule’s provisions to to Issuance of a Standards NOPR longer time period: NAFEM suggesting the separate rulemaking on Currently, the Process Rule states that a 270-day time period (NAFEM, No. manufactured housing that is currently DOE will propose any modifications to 122, at p. 4), Westinghouse suggesting a underway, while DOE appreciates this a test procedure prior to issuing an longer time period without a specific suggestion, we note that the statutory ANOPR for energy conservation proposal (Westinghouse, April 11, 2019 authorities for manufactured housing standards and finalize those Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at p. and the appliance standards that are modifications prior to issuing a NOPR 38), and ALA offering support for the addressed by this final rule are in for energy conservation standards. 180-day, although suggesting that more separate chapters within Title 42 of the However, DOE has deviated from this time would be beneficial (ALA, No. 104 U.S. Code and have no relationship with schedule in the past and conducted test at p. 2). each other—aside from applying procedure and standards rulemakings Zero Zone argued that test procedures generally to DOE. Consequently, DOE is concurrently. must be finalized before a standard is declining to adopt this suggestion. DOE recognizes that a finalized test developed. Zero Zone emphasized that, As for suggestions that DOE issue a procedure allows interested parties to due to EPCA’s anti-backsliding supplemental notice of proposed provide more effective comments on provision, energy conservation rulemaking, DOE is also declining this proposed standards. Further, if the test standards improperly set due to an suggestion. In DOE’s view, the proposal, procedure is finalized sufficiently in incomplete understanding of test related public meetings, and subsequent advance of the issuance of proposed procedure amendments cannot be NODA (and accompanying data), standards, interested parties will have adjusted downwards. According to Zero provided a sufficient opportunity for experience using the new test Zone, completion of a test procedure interested parties to meaningfully procedure, which may provide prior to standards initiation would help comment on the proposed rulemaking. additional insights into the proposed avoid such problems and ensure that Given the detailed feedback provided by standards. As a result, in its February standards are set at an appropriate level. commenters, and the nearly 200 days in 13th NOPR, DOE proposed to require (Zero Zone, No. 102 at p. 2) DOE agrees total that stakeholder have had to that test procedures used to evaluate with Zero Zone’s comment as another submit comments on these topics, DOE new or amended standards will be reason in support of DOE’s proposal. does not believe that a supplemental finalized at least 180 days before Several commenters believe that the notice is necessary. Should DOE decide, publication of a NOPR proposing new or requirement to finalize test procedures however, to amend the process rule at amended standards. (84 FR 3910, 3926) 180-days prior to proposing a related a later point in time, a new notice of In this final rule, DOE has adopted this standards rule is too restrictive. ACEEE proposed rulemaking would be issued proposal. stated that such a requirement would and published. Most commenters are in general not only prolong the process, but also Regarding how and when the agreement that test procedures should prevent the later proceedings from quantitative thresholds would be be finalized before DOE proposes new informing the earlier one, thus resulting applied, as noted elsewhere, these or amended standards. Commenters in worse test procedure decisions or thresholds would be applied at the agreeing include: CTA, No. 136 at p. 3; years-long delays as the earlier initiation of a review of potential A.O. Smith, March 21, 2019 Public rulemakings are repeated. ACEEE stated standards for a given product or Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 27; that it generally supports completion of equipment. Assuming that the max- Acuity, No. 95, at p.5; AHAM, April 11, test procedures well before the end of tech-based threshold for significant 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, the comment period on the standard energy savings is met, DOE would at p. 36; AHRI, March 21, 2019 Public NOPR, while leaving an ability to fix evaluate potential standards under Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 12; problems that may become apparent consideration against that threshold and AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting later. (ACEEE, NO. 123, at p. 2) whether those standards would be Transcript, No. 87, at p. 49; ASE, No. Similarly, the AGs Joint Comment economically justified—with 108 at p. 5; AGA, March 21, 2019 Public opposed the requirement for test technological feasibility already being Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at p. 20; procedures to be finalized 180 days addressed under the initial max-tech Joint Commenters, No. 112, at p.8; AGA, prior to issuance of a standards NOPR analysis. This review would be No. 114, at pp. 20–21; ALA, No. 104 at because it would unnecessarily delay conducted in a manner consistent with p. 2; APGA, March 21, 2019 Public the rulemaking process by imposing a the approach outlined in Figure III–1. Meeting Transcript, No. 87, at pp. 14– 180-day waiting period, thereby Relevant information collected by and 15; APGA, No. 106 at p. 4; ASAP, April threatening DOE’s ability to meet EPCA submitted to DOE at each respective 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. statutory deadlines. It agreed that DOE step will be used to assess any potential 92, at p. 43; BWC, No. 103 at p. 3; CTA, should strive to finalize test procedures standards under consideration. In No. 136 at p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. before a standards rulemaking applying these thresholds to multiple 112 at p. 8; Lutron, April 11, 2019 commences, but saw no reason to product classes belonging to a particular Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at impose an inefficient waiting period product type, as stated elsewhere in this pp. 52–53; Lutron, No. 137 at p. 2; which would be to the detriment of the document, the significant energy NEMA, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting interests of the public and other non- thresholds would apply to the product Transcript, No. 92, at pp. 47–48; NPGA, manufacturer stakeholders. type as a whole, not simply to a No. 110 at p. 2; PG&E, April 11, 2019 Furthermore, the AGs Joint Comment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8677

argued that manufacturers already have interval between the test procedure final accurate data can be produced using a very significant role in test procedure rule and the publication of the that test procedure to inform rulemakings, because they supply standards proposal. In its view, this decisionmaking in the standards information (e.g., product expertise and time period is both too long and rulemaking process. test data), so making the standards removes DOE’s flexibility to issue a One specific issue addressing rulemaking await completion of the test proposal in a shorter period of time in flexibility on which commenters have procedure rulemaking would give order to satisfy a related statutory generally expressed concern is how the manufacturers inordinate influence over deadline for a standards rulemaking. Department will handle technical when such standards rulemaking may NPCC also objected to the proposed corrections to a finalized test procedure, begin. According to the AGs Joint condition that the test procedure final either discovered during the standards Comment, DOE’s proposed approach is rule be ‘‘completely ‘finalized’ prior to rulemaking or perhaps, at a time after it contrary to the spirit of EPCA, which the [standards] rulemaking [being becomes final. Lennox suggested that if affords diverse stakeholders an equal initiated NPCC argued that DOE should such a situation arises, DOE should opportunity to participate in the continue to allow for flexibility if the assess the best course of action on a process, and any delay on the part of the rulemaking process reveals a need to case-by-case basis guided by principles manufacturers could render DOE unable modify the applicable test procedure. that: (1) Stakeholders have adequate to meet its statutory deadlines. (AGs (NPCC, No. 94, at p. 6) notice and opportunity to comment on Joint Comment, No. 111 at p. 7) Energy Solutions stated that DOE rulemakings; and (2) burdens on DOE disagrees with the proposition should aim to finalize a test procedure regulated-equipment manufacturers, from the AG’s Joint Comment that the before issuing a proposal for standards, including the burdens of the rulemaking 180-day waiting period will give but it should be non-binding guidance, process itself, are minimized. Lennox manufacturers excessive influence over not mandatory. If it is mandatory, it believes that DOE should not the timing of the standards rulemaking could cause DOE to miss statutory automatically be required to re-propose process. First, DOE approaches the deadlines. (Energy Solutions, April 11, the standards NOPR if the need for a rulemaking process expecting that all 2019 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 92, technical correction is discovered. stakeholders will act in good faith even at pp. 37–38, 56) Similarly, the Cal-IOUs (Lennox, No. 133, at pp. 6–7) On this while advocating for their particular support the current guidance approach, same topic, the AGs Joint Comment position. DOE notes that existing which is for DOE to aim to issue a final questioned whether the test procedure Process Rule, which has been in place test procedure rule prior to a standards problem would need to be resolved first for more than 20 years, has NOPR whenever feasible or practical so and then have the standards rulemaking contemplated that the test procedure that the standards rulemaking can start all over again. According to the would be finalized prior to the account for any test procedure updates. AGs Joint Comment, not only would publication of the proposed rule in the (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. 11) By linking this approach jeopardize DOE’s ability standards proceeding and the scenario a standards rulemaking directly to a test to meet statutory deadlines, but given posited by the AG’s Joint Comment has procedure rulemaking, the Cal-IOUs the ambiguity of this part of the agency’s never materialized. Second, the 180-day worried that this approach would proposal, stakeholders have not been period has its own clear purpose, that is, significantly hamper DOE’s ability to afforded adequate notice to allow a it is designed to ensure that during the meet statutory deadlines. Cal-IOUs, No. meaningful opportunity to comment. standards process all parties can rely on 124, at p. 11. ASE expressed concern (AGs Joint Comment, No. 111 at pp. 7– the accuracy of the related final test that a binding Process Rule would make 8) procedure. Most stakeholders agree with it impossible for DOE to resolve test Similarly, ASAP raised the concern as the underlying intent of the provision procedure issues which come to light to how DOE will make changes to the even if they disagree with the specific without losing time and potentially test procedure when the problems arise time period. missing statutory deadlines. (ASE, No. during the standards process after the The CEC asserted that DOE’s proposal 108 at p. 5) test procedure has been finalized. to insert an interval between the test The above comments reflect the Referring to the test procedure, ASAP procedure and standards rulemakings concern among several commenters that said ‘‘have it done but don’t have it so would introduce ‘‘unnecessary barriers’’ DOE needs to retain flexibility during done’’ that the Department cannot make to the standards process and would ‘‘do the rulemaking process. To a large changes if needed and still meet nothing to advance energy efficiency extent, the process of amending the statutory obligations for test procedures. under the statutory intent of EPCA’’ and Process Rule arose from complaints that (ASAP, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting harm consumers by delaying the DOE was exercising too much flexibility Transcript, No. 92, at pp. 44–46) ASAP effectiveness of standards that would during the rulemaking process and was urges the Department to retain otherwise save energy and money. (CEC, not following the current Process Rule. flexibility to address test procedure No. 121, at pp. 4–5) CT–DEEP asserted A number of those complaints were issues because it seems inevitable that generally that it opposed any changes situations in which DOE had not situations will arise that will require that would lengthen the rulemaking completed a test procedure rulemaking deviating from the general practice. process. (CT–DEEP, No. 93, at pp. 1–2) prior to proposing a new or revised ASAP, et al. believes that the language As noted above, the accuracy of test standard. In DOE’s experience, not in the current Process Rule that ‘‘final, procedures advances EPCA’s goal of following that step-wise approach modified test procedures will be issued energy efficiency. The standards resulted in disputes over data and prior to the NOPR on proposed rulemaking process cannot proceed technical issues that lead to delays. In standards,’’ is sufficient. ASAP, et al. without accurate test procedures. Thus, response, DOE has examined the issue states that an alternative could be to the 180-day period is not an and has decided to make the previously specify 180 days between the ‘‘unnecessary barrier.’’ existing concept of completing the test finalization of a test procedure and the NPCC supported the goal of procedure rulemaking prior to end of the comment periods on the developing a test procedure prior to the proposing a new or revised standard standards NOPR, which would give issuance of a standards NOPR but it mandatory and specify a period of time manufacturers enough time to evaluate objected to the fixed 180-day time that is of sufficient duration that the impact of any test procedure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8678 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

changes on the performance of the day period prior to use of the test codification of DOE established products. (ASAP, et al., No. 126, at pp. procedure for making representations practice.21 2, 11–12) In response, DOE takes the using the test procedure. Providing a DOE’s established practice has been to position that ASAP’s alternative 180-day period between a final test routinely adopt industry standards as proposed language is too open-ended procedure rule and a proposed DOE test procedures and in cases where and vague to create certainty for standards rule gives stakeholders the the industry standard does not meet stakeholders. opportunity to evaluate the new or EPCA statutory criteria for test Southern California Edison also amended test procedure and assess the procedures make modifications to these expressed its concern as to how test effects of the test procedure on standards as the DOE test procedure. procedure changes will be handled and upcoming proposed standards within a These modifications have always been is concerned about DOE giving up its specified reasonable time period. As handled during the individual notice flexibility. (Southern California Edison, AHAM stated at the April 11, 2019 and comment rulemaking proceeding April 11, 2019 Public Meeting public meeting, industry needs to have for the test procedure at issue. As noted Transcript, No. 92, at pp. 49–51). One some opportunity to work with the new in the NOPR, DOE recognizes that commenter specifically suggested that if or amended test procedure before modifications to these standards impose changes to the test procedure are made standards proposals can be effectively a burden on industry (i.e., after the 180-days, manufacturers will analyzed. (AHAM, April 11, 2019 Public manufacturers face increased costs if the need to re-test to the new standard and Meeting Transcript, No. 92, at p. 36) DOE modifications require different the 180-day period should be reset. APGA offered a similar comment stating testing equipment or facilities). Several commenters, CTA, the Joint (Lutron, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting that finalizing the test procedure first Transcript, No. 92, at pp. 52–53) The Commenters, and NEMA point to the gives stakeholders the opportunity to Joint Commenters recommended that fact that U.S. law and policy, that is, the work with the test procedure to help DOE include an opportunity for DOE to National Technology Transfer and ensure that it is technically correct and adjust and address test procedure Advancement Act (NTTAA) and OMB produces repeatable results, and that amendments on an expedited basis, Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal Participation such as a petition from stakeholders. interested parties can ascertain the in the Development and Use of This commenter stated that such a impacts of the test procedure on the Voluntary Consensus Standards and in process would not be intended to current energy efficiency rating of Conformity Assessment Activities,’’ address sweeping changes to the covered products. APGA argued that together direct Federal agencies to adopt method of test, but could fix errors or unless stakeholders know the exact and voluntary, private sector, consensus address burdensome practical settled procedure for testing, they standards to meet agency needs during challenges that had not been anticipated cannot meaningfully analyze and standards development activities, during the rulemaking stage. (Joint comment on the impacts of proposed thereby supporting the use of technical Commenters, No. 112, at p. 8; GEA, No. standards. (APGA, No. 106 at p. 4) And, standards that are developed or adopted 125 at pp. 2–3, also supporting a quick the Joint Commenters commented that by voluntary, private sector, consensus fix process) the appropriate sequencing allows standards bodies (rather than Generally speaking, DOE would not predictability, transparency, and the government-unique standards), unless expect that as soon as a test procedure opportunity for stakeholders to such standards are inconsistent with is finalized, DOE and stakeholders understand the ramifications of the applicable law or otherwise impractical. would immediately find significant DOE’s rulemaking proposals. Only after (National Technology Transfer and changes that need to be made to the just- real-world testing can manufacturers, Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104– finalized test procedure. In fact, and indirectly DOE and the public, be 113, Section 12 (March 7, 1996) and requiring the test procedure be comfortable that the implications for the revised Circular A–119, 81 FR 4673 completed prior to proposing a new or test procedure’s application to a revised (January 27, 2016)) The NTTAA revised energy conservation standard standard are fully understood. (Joint codified the policies in OMB Circular should ensure that these issues don’t Commenters, No. 112, at p. 8) A–119. The 2016 revised version of occur and, in the unlikely event that Accordingly, in light of the reasons OMB Circular A–119 is available and they do, DOE can make an amendment discussed above, DOE is adopting its can be accessed via PDF download at before getting too far along in the proposal to require that test procedures https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ standards rulemaking or before the used to evaluate new or amended information-for-agencies/circulars/. statute would require use of the test standards will be finalized 180 days 21 procedure to make representations. If it before publication of a NOPR proposing Throughout this discussion, DOE will use the was discovered that small, technical terminology ‘‘consensus standards’’ as opposed to new or amended standards. ‘‘industry standards’’ due to the fact that the changes are needed, DOE would hope National Technology Transfer and Advancement that all stakeholders would join together J. Adoption of Industry Standards Act (NTTAA) and OMB Circular A–119 address the with DOE to allow such minor changes use of private sector standards, developed by to be made without revisiting the entire As part of its February 13th NOPR, private, consensus organizations to meet Federal test procedure from the beginning. We DOE proposed to amend the Process agency needs in standards development activities. would expect that all stakeholders Rule to require adoption, without There was some debate during the course of this modification, of industry standards as rulemaking as to the meaning of ‘‘consensus.’’ would join in a common sense, NRDC specifically states that these standards expeditious solution. test procedures for covered products should not be rebranded as something they are not. The remote possibility of a worst-case and equipment unless such standards (NRDC, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at scenario happening, that is, significant do not meet the EPCA statutory criteria pp 79–80) Consensus means different things in for test procedures. (84 FR 3910, 3927) different context. (NRDC, April 11, 2019 Public errors being discovered during a Meeting Transcript at p. 87) EEI stated that the term standards rulemaking for a related, This Process Rule requirement would consensus is more than a simple majority but less recently finalized test procedure, should apply to covered products and than unanimity. (EEI, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting not diminish the positive impact of equipment where use of an industry Transcript at p. 82) Westinghouse requested that standard is not mandated by EPCA. In DOE change terminology from industry standards to providing for a specific 180-day period, consensus standards. (Westinghouse, April 11, 2019 which coincides with the statutory 180- effect, this requirement is merely a Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 39–40)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8679

Together, the commenters explain amendment to the Process Rule is applicable consensus standard to that several public policy objectives required.22 determine whether such consensus underlie the NTTAA and OMB Circular DOE also strongly agrees with standard meets the applicable above- A–119. These objectives include the stakeholders that the Department has a referenced EPCA requirements. If the intention to enhance technological fundamental obligation to apply all consensus standard does not meet both innovation for commercial public EPCA statutory requirements when it of the two criteria in the applicable purposes, to promote the adoption of promulgates any and all test procedures section of EPCA, DOE will not adopt the technological innovations, to encourage for covered consumer products and consensus standard ‘‘as is.’’ Stated long-term growth for U.S. enterprises, to commercial and industrial equipment. another way, the consensus standard promote efficiency and economic For certain covered products and under consideration must meet the equipment, EPCA specifically mandates competition through harmonization of EPCA statutory criteria for it to be used that DOE adopt certain consensus standards, and to eliminate the cost to verbatim. If it does not meet the standards, subject to certain conditions statutory criteria, it will then be the Federal government of developing as specified in EPCA. This latter its own standards and decrease the necessary for DOE and stakeholders, category is not the subject of this during the notice and comment burden of complying with agency discussion. Instead, the following regulation. CTA also points out that it rulemaking process, to determine what discussion applies only to covered specific modifications will bring the believes governmental use of products and equipment where use of consensus standard into compliance consultants to develop test procedures consensus standards is not mandated by with the statutory criteria in order for it is not only costly, but is less transparent EPCA. to be the basis for a final DOE test and open than the consensus standards In order to adopt any such test procedure. Logically speaking then, if development process. It states that such procedure, the Department must apply the applicable consensus standard standards development organizations certain EPCA statutory criteria. These under consideration fully meets both are accredited by national bodies and criteria are contained in two sections of statutory criteria, then DOE will adopt are open to all interested parties. (CTA, EPCA, that is, 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), and it pursuant to this provision in the No. 136, at pp. 2–3) NEMA added that (4), or 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3), amended Process Rule. If, on the other by adopting such industry test depending upon the specific covered hand, the consensus standard cannot be procedures as Federal test procedure, it product or covered commercial modified to meet the statutory criteria, is likely to facilitate expedited equipment to which the test procedure DOE will not use it and will need to compliance with DOE legally mandated would apply. Both of these sections craft its own test procedure from the test procedures. Also, NEMA states that contain similar language describing two beginning. As with all test procedure these consensus test procedure statutory criteria for the promulgation of rules and as we stated above, all of these a test procedure: (1) That the test standards are likely to meet the EPCA issues, including whether the consensus procedure shall be reasonably designed requirement that a test procedure not be standard meets the EPCA statutory to produce test results which measure ‘‘unduly burdensome to conduct’’ as criteria, will be discussed and decided energy efficiency, energy use, water use, they are likely already in use. (NEMA, in the regular notice and comment or estimated annual operating cost of a No. 107, at p. 6) And finally, the Joint rulemaking process. covered product during a representative Commenters point out that DOE’s average use cycle or period of use, as DOE hopes that the above discussion proposal aligns with decades-old determined by the Secretary, and (2) clarifies the application of DOE’s executive and Congressional policy that the test procedure shall not be proposal to the adoption of consensus goals and agrees with NEMA that this unduly burdensome to conduct.23 standards. In reviewing the many policy enables more rapid compliance. Accordingly, when DOE considers comments concerning this proposal, The Joint Commenters add that it also promulgating either a new or amended DOE observes that many commenters promotes confidence in the adoption of test procedure, DOE will evaluate the misunderstood DOE’s proposal. Many energy conservation standards by commenters objected to the proposal, regulated parties. (; NEMA, No. 107, at 22 Atlas Copco also proposed additional changes stating in various ways, that DOE pp. 5–6, and the Joint Commenters, No. to the amended Process Rule that relate to its should not have a mandatory rule to 112, at pp. 9–10) Accordingly, putting rulemaking petition concerning the Rotary Air rely on, or give deference to, consensus Compressor Test Procedure. This petition was DOE’s proposal in context, on its face, submitted in response to DOE’s request that test procedures. These commenters state this proposal explicitly implements and stakeholders identify existing test procedures that that they do not want DOE to abdicate is consistent with the NTTAA and OMB should be modified to conform to existing industry its responsibility for reviewing and Circular A–119. test procedures. (Miles & Stockbridge, on behalf of revising consensus test procedures since Atlas Copco, No. 100, at pp. 1–6) These matters will modifications may be necessary. Lastly, with respect to the NTTAA, be addressed during the DOE rulemaking that Generally, commenters want DOE to Atlas Copco suggested that language be considers Atlas Copco’s petition. 23 retain its independence and flexibility added to DOE’s proposal requiring The language in 42 U.S.C. 6314 (a)(2) and (3) differs slightly from its parallel sections in 42 when setting test procedures. It would procedural compliance with section U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) and (4). 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) reads appear that these commenters generally as follows: ‘‘(2) Test procedures prescribed in 12(d)(3) of the NTTAA. (Miles & believe that the DOE proposal does not Stockbridge on behalf on Atlas Copco, accordance with this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect require application of the EPCA No. 100, at p. 2–3) In order for DOE to energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated statutory criteria to the consensus consider adding new language to its operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or standard under consideration. (A.O. class thereof) during a representative average use proposal at this time, DOE would need Smith, March 21, 2019 Public Meeting to issue a supplemental notice of cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Transcript at p. 28; A.O. Smith, No. 127, proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) and re- Subparagraphs (3) for each of these two statutory at pp. 3–4; ASE, No. 108 at p. 5; AGA, open the comment period. Rather than provisions referenced above address test procedures No. 114, at pp. 21–22; ASAP, April 11, delay finalizing this rule, DOE will take for determining estimated annual operating costs 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. this recommendation under advisement have similar language but are not identical in order to reflect differences in criteria for covered products 70–71; ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp. 2, and decide at a later date if further and covered commercial equipment. 12–13; ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 3; NPCC,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8680 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

March 21, 2019 Public Meeting prevents DOE from using consensus criteria are not met, DOE will not adopt Transcript at p. 24; NPCC, No. 94, at pp. standards in test procedure rulemakings the consensus standard under 6–7; NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 11–12; PG&E, as long as DOE can demonstrate that consideration verbatim and April 11, 2019 Public Meeting these consensus standards meet the modifications will be made to the Transcript at pp. 228–229; Cal-IOUs, EPCA statutory criteria. Moreover, DOE consensus standard, if possible, so that No. 124, at pp. 6, 12–13; Southern believes that whether it uses consensus it will meet the statutory criteria. If this California Edison, April 11, 2019 Public standards or not in any given situation, latter result cannot be achieved, DOE Meeting Transcript at p. 65) One it can act as a neutral convener for the must develop a whole new test commenter, Energy Solutions, stated discussion and promulgation of test procedure. that outsourcing the test procedure procedures during the rulemaking Another commenter, ASAP, believes development process to industry is process. that DOE’s proposal favors problematic. (Energy Solutions, April Moreover, Earthjustice argues that the manufacturers. ASAP believes that DOE 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. NOPR fails to consider the implication is turning away from consumer needs 74) Whereas another commenter, CEC of Congress’s decision to explicitly for a representative test procedure and characterizes DOE’s proposal as a require DOE to adopt industry test the Department’s need to set standards ‘‘blanket approach’’ to adopting methods for specific products (i.e., that are representative of actual energy industry test procedures without many types of commercial equipment, use in the real world. (ASAP, April 11, providing reasoning that such test thus limiting its discretion to a narrow 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. procedures meet EPCA’s requirements. review of industry standards for specific 67–68) As with other commenters, it (CEC, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting products). (Earthjustice, No. 134, at p. 4) agrees that it is reasonable for DOE to Transcript at pp. 231–232; CEC, No. As we stated above in response to start with existing test procedures 121, at p. 9–10) Another commenter, the NRDC, nothing in EPCA prevents DOE (regardless of whether they are Cal-IOUs, questioned how the from using consensus standards in its ‘‘industry’’ test procedures). (ASAP, provisions in the NOPR regarding test procedure rulemakings, as long as April 11, 2019 Public Meeting industry test procedures help DOE DOE can demonstrate that these Transcript at p. 68) ASAP further states independently assess the consensus standards meet the EPCA their concern that the NOPR document representativeness and enforceability of statutory criteria. All commenters agree emphasizes a test procedure without DOE test procedures. (Cal-IOUs, No. that DOE must meet the EPCA statutory modification and it does not want DOE 124, at p. 2). As we have explained criteria for the establishment of test to tie its hands. (ASAP, April 11, 2019 previously, DOE has determined that it procedures and most, if not all agree Public Meeting Transcript at p. 71) will use industry test procedures as the that consensus standards are a logical ASAP, et al. further states that any initial basis for a DOE test procedure, foundation to begin the test procedure reference in the Process Rule to the but that is only the first step in the process. Furthermore, the NTTAA and criteria that DOE will use in adopting process. Most importantly, DOE must OMB Circular A–119 provide a context test procedures should simply refer to assess whether the industry standard for the use of consensus standards to the statutory criteria. (ASAP, et al., No. under consideration specifically meets meet agency needs. Accordingly, DOE 126 at pp. 12–13) In response to ASAP, the EPCA statutory criteria for the finds that this proposal implements DOE points out that this proposal establishment of a test procedure. So, in both the underlying purpose of EPCA requires DOE to unequivocally apply with respect to test procedures, and the the statutory criteria, with response to the Cal-IOUs above-stated NTTAA and OMB Circular A–119 with representativeness being part of that question, DOE is applying two separate respect to consensus standards and evaluation. Moreover, the regulatory principles; one does not support or help ultimately, is a reasonable exercise of text for section 8(c), Adoption of the other. the agency’s discretion in its test Industry Test Methods, contains the According to NRDC, DOE’s proposed procedure rulemaking activity. statutory criteria that DOE must satisfy. approach would conflict with EPCA, ACEEE also argued that consensus Next, the AGs Joint Comment faulted because unlike commercial equipment, test procedures are not generally DOE’s proposed approach for using Congress did not explicitly point DOE developed for regulatory purposes. industry consensus test procedures, toward industry consensus standards for ACEEE added that in developing and because it finds the approach to be consumer products. But NRDC agrees implementing mandatory standards, a overly deferential to industry and that industry test procedures can serve lack of clarity or different without sufficient weight given to DOE’s as a useful starting point for interpretations of the test procedures own analysis and determination. This discussions, even though they often may surface. It believes that a failure to commenter states that by making a require modification, for instance, to address these issues results in an presumption in favor of consensus test account for power consumption of new uneven playing field for manufacturers procedures, DOE’s flexibility would be features or to address loopholes. NRDC as well as inconsistent efficiency levels unnecessarily limited and it would states a preference for DOE’s current for consumers. New metrics or hinder DOE’s ability to satisfy EPCA’s approach to test procedures, whereby requirements may require additional test procedure requirements, as well as DOE acts as a neutral convener for test procedures. This commenter, and expose the Department to considerable discussion of test procedure issues. others, states that the Department litigation risk. It states that DOE cannot (NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 11–12) While it should have the ability to ensure its test presume that industry test procedures is true that EPCA does not require the procedures serve the purposes of the satisfy EPCA’s requirements. (AGs Joint use of consensus standards for certain program, and not be required to adopt Comment, No. 111 at pp. 4, 14) In test procedures for certain equipment, it industry procedures without response to the AGs Joint Comment, does not prohibit such use and the modification. (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 3) DOE can only reassure this commenter, NTTAA and OMB Circular A–119 favors DOE agrees with ACEEE that the agency and others who are similarly concerned, the use of consensus standards by should be able to modify the consensus that DOE takes its regulatory agencies, unless there is a conflict with standards. As we have already responsibility seriously and will analyze applicable law or it is otherwise discussed, and will reiterate throughout the appropriate consensus standards in impractical. Clearly, nothing in EPCA this discussion, if the EPCA statutory light of the EPCA statutory criteria to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8681

ensure that EPCA is not undermined. optional test requirements, multiple test continue to do so. Commenters need not DOE agrees with the AGs Joint set-ups, instances where testing worry that consensus standards will be Comment, and others like it, that DOE requirements are not specified and left automatically adopted as DOE test should not presume that the consensus to the testing lab’s discretion, or unclear procedures. As a matter of fact, test procedures meet the EPCA or overlapping definitions. As a result, commenters generally agree that using requirements; it will not do so. the CEC states that test results would consensus standards as a basis to begin According to the Attorneys General, vary between test labs (affecting considering the substance of new or the biggest problem with DOE’s reproducibility) and tested products amended DOE test procedures is proposed approach is that it would (affecting comparability, and leave open appropriate. At least one commenter, impose a duty on DOE to adopt the the potential for gaming by AHAM, recognized and agreed that industry test procedure unless the manufacturers. As a result the CEC DOE’s proposal on this matter is not a Department makes a contrary argues that consumers would not departure from DOE’s current, determination. The AGs Joint Comment receive the expected level of efficiency established process, and gave its argued that DOE would need to make an from their products, manufacturers support. (AHAM, April 11, 2019 Public affirmative finding that the industry test would not be held to the same efficiency Meeting Transcript at pp. 63–64) procedures would need to be modified standard for the same products, and Other commenters generally support prior to adoption, and that finding DOE would be unable to enforce its DOE’s proposal, without specifically would be subject to litigation in which standards effectively. (CEC, No. 121, at acknowledging that it is not a change the Department would bear the burden p. 10) Because, as one might expect, from its current practice. (Acuity, No. of proof that the industry test procedure consensus test procedures vary widely, 95, at p. 4; BWC, No. 103 at pp. 3–4; did not meet EPCA’s requirements. (AGs DOE takes the position that these CTA, No. 136 at pp. 2–3; GM Law, No. Joint Comment, No. 111 at p. 14) With hypothetical scenarios, if and when they 105 at p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. 112 respect to this point, DOE believes that materialize, must be addressed on a at p. 9; Lutron, No. 137 at pp. 2–3; the AGs Joint Comment has case-by-case basis during the specific NAFEM, No. 122, at p. 5; NEMA, No. superimposed requirements that do not rulemaking proceeding. 107 at pp. 5–6; Rheem, No. 101 at p. 1; exist, and has inserted steps into the CEC further asserted that where EPCA Signify, No. 116 at p.1; Westinghouse, process that are unnecessary. DOE will requires DOE to affirmatively determine April 11, 2019 Public Meeting proceed with its established practice to that amended test procedures are Transcript at pp. 72,74) In support of analyze the appropriate consensus reasonably designed to produce test the proposal, AHRI stated that this standards, and with the input of results that measure the energy use or proposal reflects renewed adherence to stakeholders either determine that the operating costs of appliances and is not the statutory requirements and makes EPCA statutory criteria are met and use unduly burdensome to conduct, DOE sense from the perspective of a cost- it as the DOE test procedure, modify it cannot require, by regulation, the public benefit analysis. (AHRI, March 21, 2019 so that it complies with the statutory instead to prove to DOE that an industry Public Meeting Transcript at p.12; criteria, or reject it and develop an test procedure does not meet these AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting entirely new test procedure. goals. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 10) DOE’s Transcript at pp 65–66) Stakeholders will have ample proposal does not shift the burden of In addition, many commenters opportunity to comment on DOE’s proof to stakeholders to demonstrate support DOE working with consensus ultimate approach for any given test that the applicable consensus standard standards development organizations to procedure under consideration. should not apply. During the address issues that would ensure that The AGs Joint Comment also argued rulemaking process, DOE will analyze relevant consensus standards can be that industry test procedures are the consensus standard and make a used as Federal test procedures. (AHRI, generally not created to measure energy determination as to whether the April 11, 2019 Public Meeting efficiency and are likely not appropriate statutory criteria are met. Stakeholders Transcript at p. 76; EEI, April 11, 2019 under EPCA. It alleges that industry will have the opportunity to give their Public Meeting Transcript, at p. 82; interests hostile to stronger efficiency comments. BWC, No. 103 at pp. 3–4; Signify, No. standards may try to manipulate the As DOE explained at the beginning of 116 at p. 2; Southern Company, April industry test procedures to their own this discussion, this proposal is merely 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. advantage. (AGs Joint Comment, No. codifying DOE established practice 78) Acuity specifically urged DOE to 111, at p. 14) While DOE appreciates the concerning the use of consensus work with the appropriate industry AGs perspective, we believe that this standards as DOE test procedures. standards development organization to point of view is speculative at best. Commenters are incorrect that DOE is update the relevant standard to The AGs Joint Comment also points proposing mandatory use of consensus minimize any gaps, duplication or out that some products may have standards without providing for an conflicts between testing standards and multiple industry test procedures which evaluation as to whether the EPCA statutory requirements. (Acuity, No. 95, could apply, but that the Process Rule statutory criteria are met. This proposal at p. 4) AGA stated that the use of NOPR does not explain how DOE would does not require the absolute adoption industry standards can minimize determine which procedure to adopt in of consensus standards verbatim in all regulatory burdens and improve those cases. (AGs Joint Comment, No. circumstances. If the EPCA statutory transparency. (AGA, March 21, 2019 111 at p. 14) Similarly, the CEC criteria are not met, in order to use the Public Meeting Transcript at p. 20; contends that the blind adoption of appropriate consensus standard, AGA, No. 114, at pp. 21–22) Similarly, industry test procedures would create modifications will need to be made so GM Law stated that adoption of existing confusion where multiple procedures that the consensus standard meets the industry standards would decrease exist for a given product since it would EPCA statutory criteria. Such unpredictability and the burdens of be unclear as to which procedure to use. modifications will be vetted during the regulation. (GM Law, No. 105 at p. 3) (CEC, No. 121, at p. 11) With respect to notice and comment rulemaking process ASHRAE emphasized that the standards its criticism of DOE’s approach, the CEC so that all interested stakeholders can development process is open to also argued that, in many cases, give DOE feedback. DOE follows this everybody, and its fairness, due process industry test procedures contain same analytical process now and will and transparency are ensured by its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8682 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

ANSI accreditation. (ASHRAE, April 11, procedures, while any given consensus relevant points of view,’’ provided DOE 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. test procedure is produced within determines the energy conservation 61–63) organizations that do not share these standards recommended in the joint BHI supports the adoption of industry same goals. The commenters fear that proposal conform with the requirements test standards, but would prefer a following the DOE’s proposed approach of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or section collaborative process and specifically would reduce transparency and increase 342(a)(6)(B) as applicable. (42 U.S.C. suggested adding language to DOE’s stakeholder burden by requiring 6295(p)(4)(A)) In the February 2019 proposal. BHI states that it disagrees stakeholder participation in at least two NOPR, DOE proposed to (1) clarify its with the expected comments that the test procedure rulemaking processes per authority under the DFR provision industry technical experts who design product—one led by standards setting found at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4); (2) and test the product are the best consensus organizations and the other provide guidance as to DOE’s informed to draft test procedures. It by DOE. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. 12) interpretation of ‘‘fairly representative,’’ states that industry technical experts Moreover, A.O. Smith specifically and (3) explain DOE’s obligations upon normally design and test products to requested that the Department issue a receipt of an adverse comment. (84 FR specific ANSI, UL or other construction supplemental proposal that would 3910, 3928) and performance standards primarily consider guidelines to help it better understand the facts underlying the 1. DOE’s Authority Under the DFR focused on safety and reliability. It Provision specifically suggested additional development of any new or revised language to the DOE proposal to require consensus test procedure including: (1) The DFR provision is found in EPCA the active DOE participation in the The representation on the committee; at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p), the heading and consensus standards process and (2) how innovative technologies are introduction of which state: ‘‘Procedure require DOE to make available, as addressed; (3) de-identified test data for prescribing new or amended necessary, the resources of the National showing the new or amended industry standards. Any new or amended energy Institute of Standards and Technology method is capable of being run in a conservation standard shall be (NIST). (BHI, No. 135, at pp. 5–6) While laboratory; and (4) the rationale for prescribed in accordance with the DOE appreciates BHIs suggestions, DOE associated changes. (A. O. Smith, No. following procedure.’’ Given the does not believe that the suggested 127, at p. 4) After carefully considering placement of the DFR provision within language itself will enhance DOE’s the request, DOE has determined that EPCA, DOE sought to clarify in the participation. DOE currently the request for a supplemental NOPR to February 2019 NOPR that 42 U.S.C. participates in the consensus standards- develop guidelines for use in the 6295(p)(4) is a procedural process for setting process and already has the consensus development process is a issuing a DFR and not an independent statutory authority to utilize NIST subject that will not change the outcome grant of rulemaking authority. As such, resources pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6314(e). of this specific proposal and would any standard issued as a DFR must Accordingly, DOE will not add this significantly delay implementation of comply with the provisions of the EPCA language which it considers the amended Process Rule. Accordingly, subsection under which the rule was duplicative.24 DOE rejects A.O. Smith’s request at the authorized. In response, AGA stated that the Several commenters expressed current time. We also note that proposed revisions in the revised concern with non-DOE consensus enhanced participation by DOE in the Process Rule will help to ensure that the groups. PG&E voiced its concern that it standards development processes, with DFR process is used only when all of is difficult to get changes to consensus or without this type of guidance, would the statutory requirements are met. standards in these groups, and that the not change DOE’s obligation during the (AGA, No. 114, at p. 24) Other standards do not work as they should. rulemaking process to review each commenters expressed concerns with Mostly, consumers are hurt, according consensus standard for adherence to the DOE’s clarification and its effect on to PG&E. (PG&E, April 11, 2019 Public EPCA statutory criteria on a case-by- achieving consensus agreements for new Meeting Transcript at pp. 59–61) case basis. standards. For example, ACEEE stated Another commenter, the Cal-IOUs After careful consideration of the many comments related to DOE’s that flexibility is needed in Direct Final believe that DOE would increase proposal concerning the adoption of Rules. DOE has interpreted the Direct stakeholder burden and reduce consensus standards during the DOE Final Rule authority to allow more transparency by requiring stakeholders test procedure rulemaking process, and flexibility in metrics, requirements, and to participate in non-DOE activities—or, for the reasons articulated above, DOE is compliance dates than it usually takes in the extreme case, have stakeholder adopting its proposal in the final rule. in setting standards. This flexibility has voices ignored entirely if these non-DOE been crucial to achieving consensus, activities are not administered in a way K. Direct Final Rules allowing more room for negotiation, for to incorporate stakeholder participation The Energy Independence Security example to trade stringency for lead or are otherwise headed by a biased Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’) (Pub. L. 110– time in ways that increase savings and committee. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124, at p. 6) 140) amended EPCA, in relevant part, to decrease burden on manufacturers. The Cal-IOUs take the position that grant DOE authority to issue a ‘‘direct (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 4) AHRI also EPCA provides a balanced approach to final rule’’ (i.e. DFR) to establish energy agreed that the ability to make create a repeatable, reproducible, conservation standards. As amended, important adjustments, particularly to representative, and enforceable test EPCA establishes requirements for when compliance timelines, has been a vital DOE uses this type of rulemaking aspect of being able to work together. 24 OMB Circular A–119 encourages agencies to participate fully in the private standards proceeding for the issuance of certain (AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting development process as equal parties. OMB, actions. Specifically, DOE may issue a Transcript, at 99) In addition to however, defers to individual agencies on their DFR adopting energy conservation concerns about reduced flexibility in policies for determining to what extent and under standards for a covered product or reaching consensus standards, what circumstances agency representatives are authorized to engage in particular activities, based equipment upon receipt of a joint commenters also disagreed with DOE’s on agency requirements and priorities. (OMB proposal from a group of ‘‘interested proposed clarification that the DFR Circular A–119, at pp. 7–8) persons that are fairly representative of provision is not an independent grant of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8683

rulemaking authority. For instance, A.O. and independent statutory authority for representative of relevant points of Smith stated that DOE did not provide issuing standards. view’’ must include businesses, an additional basis for its legal Similarly, 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) including small businesses in the reinterpretation in the proposed process outlines the procedural requirements for regulated industry/manufacturer rule and A.O. Smith does not believe issuing a standard as a DFR and should community, energy advocates, energy the reinterpretation is legally sound. also not be read as independent grant of utilities, as appropriate, consumers, and (A.O. Smith, No. 127, at p. 6) Similarly, rulemaking authority. Nor has DOE States. DOE also stated that it would be the Cal-IOUs stated that DOE’s proposed claimed that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is a necessary to determine whether a clarification is ‘‘incorrect and separate grant of rulemaking authority proposal was submitted by interested inconsistent.’’ (Cal-IOU, No. 124, at p. in its prior issuances of DFRs that persons that are ‘‘fairly representative of 13) differed from the requirements in a relevant points of view’’ on a case-by- DOE recognizes that the clarifications substantive provision of EPCA. This is case basis, subject to the circumstances made in the Process Rule mean there is a curious omission in that it means DOE of a particular rulemaking. In order to not flexibility in DFRs regarding certain relied on a substantive provision of assist DOE in making this case-by-case aspects of energy conservation EPCA, such as 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), to determination, upon receipt of a joint standards, e.g., compliance periods, authorize issuance of an energy statement recommending energy energy efficiency metrics, etc. That conservation standard but based conservation standards, DOE proposed being said, EPCA generally has very variance from the requirements in such to publish in the Federal Register the section on a procedural provision that specific requirements for compliance statement, as submitted to DOE, in order says nothing about such variance. Thus, periods and other aspects of energy to obtain feedback as to whether the the ‘‘silence’’ in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) conservation standards. For example, joint statement was submitted by a regarding compliance periods and other EPCA mandates either 3 or 5-year group that is fairly representative of requirements associated with standards compliance periods for standards issued relevant points of view. (84 FR 3910, cannot be interpreted as providing under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). EPCA also 3929) flexibility, but rather as simply the DOE received several comments on requires either 3 or 5-year compliance result of these requirements already these proposals. First, with regards to for standards issued in response to a being addressed by the statutory DOE’s explanation of what it means for petition for rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. provision that authorizes issuance of the a DFR to be ‘‘submitted jointly by 6295(n). The DFR provision in EPCA, on standard, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). interested persons that are fairly the other hand, is silent regarding Moreover, there is no limitation on a representative of relevant points of compliance periods and every other variance authorized by silence. That is, view,’’ Acuity stated that any DFR aspect of the substantive requirements the logic of the argument expressed by proposal should reflect a reasonable applicable to energy conservation commenters in favor of ‘‘flexibility’’ balance of representation and support standards. In the past, DOE has could be used to, for example, exempt from key stakeholders. (Acuity, No. 95, interpreted this silence as providing all domestic manufacturers from at p. 5) Spire stated that representation some flexibility regarding compliance compliance with a standard or permit of manufacturers of the covered periods and certain other aspects of backsliding on an existing standard. products at issue, suppliers of the energy conservation standards. Such positions would surely make energy used by such products, and However, that interpretation assumes reaching consensus on a measure more efficiency advocates should always, at a that the DFR provision is an enticing to some parties, but would be minimum, be required. (Spire, No. 97, at independent grant of rulemaking antithetical to the purposes of the p. 2) AGA and APGA stated that DOE authority that outlines its own set of statute. DOE cannot take a legal position should specify particular entity types or substantive requirements on the that statutory silence has authorized it interest groups that are relevant to establishment or amendment of an to pick and choose with interested certain categories of proposed energy conservation standard as parties the parts of the statute to standards, such as gas distribution opposed to a procedural option for negotiate away. The revised Process utilities and their customers for issuing a standard authorized under Rule clarifies that the DFR provision in appliances that use gas. (AGA, No. 114, another provision of EPCA, such as 42 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) is not an independent at pp. 24–25; APGA, No. 106, at p. 8) U.S.C. 6295(m) or 42 U.S.C. 6295(n). grant of rulemaking authority and DOE AGA and APGA also stated that the DFR However, there is no language in EPCA will not accept or issue as a DFR a process was intended to be used only in providing statutory support for that submitted joint proposal that does not circumstances in which representatives position. As stated previously, the DFR comply with all pertinent parts of of all relevant interests jointly submit a provision is found in EPCA at 42 U.S.C. EPCA, including those product specific proposed energy conservation standard 6295(p), the heading and introduction of requirements included in the provision for a product, i.e., when there is a clear which state: ‘‘Procedure for prescribing that authorizes issuance of the standard. consensus. (AGA, No. 114, at p. 24; new or amended standards. Any new or APGA, No. 106, at p. 6) The Joint 2. Interested Persons Fairly amended energy conservation standard Commenters and Lennox, on the other Representative of Relevant Points of shall be prescribed in accordance with hand, encouraged DOE to avoid an View the following procedure.’’ The first three interpretation where every possible subparagraphs of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) As part of the DFR process, DOE must point of view must be represented for a outline the process the Secretary must determine if a proposed standard has DFR to proceed. (Joint Commenters, No. follow to propose and finalize a been ‘‘submitted jointly by interested 112, at p. 11; Lennox, No. 133, at p. 5) standard using the ‘‘normal’’ rulemaking persons that are fairly representative of Lennox also commented that ‘‘DOE approach. These are procedural relevant points of view (including should not mandate the need for requirements that apply when DOE is representatives of manufacturers of separate ‘consumer’ representation for a exercising its rulemaking authority covered products, States, and efficiency joint proposal.’’ (Lennox, No. 133, at p. under a separate provision of EPCA. advocates). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) In 5) These subparagraphs could not be the February 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed As for DOE’s proposal to determine, interpreted as granting DOE a separate that at a minimum, ‘‘fairly after seeking public comment through a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8684 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register notice, whether a DFR provide a reasonable basis for at p. 9) Spire commented that DOE was submitted by parties ‘‘that are fairly withdrawing the direct final rule,’’ should withdraw a DFR if any interested representative of relevant points of based on the rulemaking record. (42 party submits comment that opposes the view’’ on a case-by-case basis, CEC and U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B), (C)(i)) In the past, adoption of a DFR as written and Signify agreed that the determination to determine whether a comment was provides relevant information or should be made on a case-by-case basis. sufficiently ‘‘adverse’’ so as to provide argument as a basis for such opposition. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 12; Signify, No. 116, a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the This approach would define ’’adversity’’ at p. 2) CEC, however, opposed the direct final rule, DOE weighed the in simple, easily-applied terms, and— addition of a public comment period as substance of any adverse comment consistent with both the statutory it would add process and delay without received against the anticipated benefits language and the principle that adding any meaningful opportunity for of the consensus agreement and the exceptions to notice and comment input. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 12) NPCC likelihood that further consideration of requirements should be narrowly commented that there may not always the comment would change the result of construed—it requires that any doubt be be a need for a public comment period the rulemaking (referred to as the resolved in favor of withdrawal of a DFR and encouraged DOE to assess the need ‘‘balancing test’’). This approach was when comment reflects substantive for that step on a case-by-case basis. outlined in recent DOE rulemakings, opposition.’’ (Spire, No. 97, at pp. 2–3) (NPCC, No. 94, at p. 7) such as DOE’s final rule for energy GWU commented that moving away In response, DOE notes that any conservation standards for dishwashers. from the balancing test is a positive concerns about whether a DFR was 77 FR 59712, 59714 (Oct. 1, 2012). development, since DFRs constrain submitted by parties ‘‘that are fairly In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE public input in the rulemaking process. representative of relevant points of proposed to consider the substance of (GWU, No. 132, at p. 9) view’’ can be raised during the public adverse comments and not the quantity The CA IOUs, on the other hand, comment period on the DFR. DOE will when determining if there is a commented that the balancing test ‘‘for raise this issue as a specific topic on reasonable basis for withdrawing the evaluating adverse comments to DFRs which it seeks input in the Federal DFR. For instance, one comment may was an effective approach and DOE’s Register notice publishing for public present an argument that could lead language reversal could allow a single comment on any DFR. After receiving DOE to conclude that it is an adverse commenter to derail the DFR process, public comment DOE will determine if comment providing a basis for even if that commenter had previous the submitting parties include, at a withdrawal of the DFR. Moreover, in opportunities to submit adverse minimum, businesses, including small contrast to previous policy, DOE also comments. The CA IOUs also requested businesses, in the regulated industry/ proposed to consider adverse comments that DOE provide more clarity on what manufacturer community, energy even if the issue was brought up constitutes a ‘‘substantive’’ comment in advocates, energy utilities, as previously during DOE-initiated this setting, especially in light of DOE appropriate, consumers, and States. As discussions (e.g. publication of a reserving the right to consider a for specific comments on which parties framework or RFI document) that previously-issued adverse comment as must be represented in a DFR, DOE preceded submission of a joint ‘‘substantive’’ enough to prevent agrees with AGA, APGA, and Spire that statement. In short, if DOE determines finalization of a DFR. (CA IOUs, No. suppliers of the energy used by a that one or more substantive comments 124, at p. 13) The Joint Commenters and covered product/equipment must be objecting to the final rule provides a Lennox encouraged DOE to maintain included, in relevant instances. This is sufficient reason to withdraw the DFR, flexibility in determining the quantity reflected in DOE’s list of mandatory DOE will do so, and instead proceed and quality of comments considered parties to a DFR, which includes with the published NOPR (which could ‘‘adverse.’’ (Joint Commenters, No. 112, ‘‘energy utilities, as appropriate.’’ DOE include withdrawal of that NOPR, as at p. 11; Lennox, No. 133, at p. 5) CEC does not agree with Lennox’s comment appropriate). (84 FR 3910, 3930) opposed DOE’s proposal to withdraw that separate consumer representation is DOE received numerous comments on the DFR upon receiving any substantive not necessary in a DFR. Consumer the revised approach to determining adverse comment that provides a concerns do not necessarily overlap whether an adverse comment provides a ‘‘sufficient reason’’ to withdraw the with those of manufacturers, efficiency reasonable basis for withdrawing a DFR. DFR, even if that comment raises issues advocates, or any of the other parties Acuity and AGA supported the revised previously considered by DOE and discussed previously. Finally, as the approach’s focus on the substance of the resolved. CEC further commented that comment period for determining adverse comments, as opposed to the this approach does not offer any clarity representativeness would occur during quantity of the adverse comments. on what DOE considers to be the time DOE analyzes the submission (Acuity, No. 95, at p. 5; AGA, No. 114, ‘substantive’ or ‘adverse,’ and could for other legal and analytical issues and at p. 25)) AGA also stated that result too easily in ideologically considers preparation of a rulemaking speculative and unsupported assertions opposed stakeholders commenting on document, it would not delay the may not warrant the withdrawal of a DFRs, using the exact arguments decision to publish a DFR. DFR, but positions supported by the considered and rejected in earlier material submitted in the proceeding comment periods, to ensure that the 3. Adverse Comments and precedent should be provided DFRs are withdrawn. (CEC, No. 121, at Simultaneous with the issuance of a sufficient weight when balancing p. 12) DFR, DOE must also issue a NOPR differing interests. (AGA, No. 114, at p. In response, DOE notes that the focus containing the same energy 25) APGA stated that the bar for on the substance, as opposed to conservation standards as in the DFR. withdrawal is ‘‘very low’’ and any quantity, of adverse comments, is Following publication of the DFR, DOE serious and substantive objections to a designed to ensure that DOE considers must solicit public comment for a DFR that are reasonably backed by adverse comments that may provide a period of at least 110 days; then, not argument—even if the Secretary reasonable basis for withdrawing a DFR. later than 120 days after issuance of the disagrees with them—should be deemed Thus, numerous speculative and DFR, the Secretary must determine to provide a reasonable basis for unsupported assertions will not whether any adverse comments ‘‘may withdrawing the DFR. (APGA, No. 106, constitute a reasonable basis for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8685

withdrawing a DFR, while one, well- negotiated rulemaking in the updated prepare multiple regulatory documents supported comment may provide a Process Rule. In the proposed section on through the ordinary rulemaking reasonable basis for withdrawing a DFR. negotiated rulemaking, DOE stated that process. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 13) GWU, With regards to issues previously raised negotiated rulemakings would go on the other hand, commented that during the rulemaking process (e.g., in through the ASRAC process outlined notice-and-comment procedures are response to a framework document or above, and that the appropriateness of a more likely to produce meaningful RFI), DOE recognizes that facts and negotiated rulemaking for any given public participation at a more effective circumstances may change or new rulemaking would be determined on a time in the process than a negotiated information may come to light, and, as case-by-case basis. In making this rulemaking process. (GWU, No. 132, at a result, DOE will not foreclose determination, DOE proposed to use a 10). consideration of adverse comments that convener to ascertain, in consultation DOE recognizes that, as GWU alluded, address issues previously raised during with relevant stakeholders, whether a negotiated rulemaking puts the onus the rulemaking process. review for a given product or equipment on the public to participate in the rulemaking process in a different L. Negotiated Rulemaking type would be conducive to negotiated rulemaking, with the agency evaluating manner than through traditional notice- Negotiated rulemaking is a process by the convener’s recommendation before and-comment rulemaking. However, which an agency attempts to develop a reaching a decision on such matter. DOE DOE believes that this concern is greatly consensus proposal for regulation in also proposed that the following five mitigated by the benefits to the data consultation with interested parties, factors would weigh in favor of a gathering and analytical process that are thereby addressing salient comments negotiated rulemaking: (1) Stakeholders accomplished through face-to-face from stakeholders before issuing a commented in favor of negotiated discussion of complex technical issues proposed rule.25 Consequently, when rulemaking in response to the initial that occur through negotiated done properly, negotiated rulemaking rulemaking notice; (2) the rulemaking rulemaking. The agency is committed to can yield better decisions, while analysis or underlying technologies in setting aside a portion of each ASRAC conserving time and resources of both question are complex, and DOE can working group meeting to receive input the agency and interested parties. To benefit from external expertise and/or and data from non-members (i.e., the facilitate potential negotiated real-time changes to the analysis based public). Further, DOE agrees with the rulemakings, DOE established the on stakeholder feedback, information, benefits cited by CEC and the Process Appliance Standards and Rulemaking and data; (3) the current standards have Rule is amended to include a section on Federal Advisory Committee (i.e., already been amended one or more negotiated rulemaking. ASRAC) to comply with the Federal times; (4) stakeholders from differing With regards to appointing a convener, AGA commented that the Advisory Committee Act (‘‘FACA’’), points of view are willing to participate; Process Rule should make clear that, Public Law 92–463 (1972) (codified at 5 and (5) DOE determines that the parties prior to initiating a negotiated U.S.C. App. 2). As part of the DOE may be able to reach an agreement. If a rulemaking, DOE will, pursuant to the process, working groups have been negotiated rulemaking is initiated, DOE APA, appoint a convener to: (i) Identify established as subcommittees of proposed to have a neutral and persons who will be significantly ASRAC, from time to time, for specific independent facilitator, who is not a affected by a proposed rule; and (ii) products, and one member from the DOE employee or consultant, present at conduct discussions with such persons ASRAC committee attends and all ASRAC working group meetings. to identify their issues of concern and participates in the meetings of a specific Additionally, DOE proposed to set aside to ascertain whether the establishment working group. Ultimately, the working a portion of each ASRAC working group group reports to ASRAC, and ASRAC of a negotiated rulemaking committee is meeting to receive input and data from feasible and appropriate in the itself votes on whether to make a non-members of the ASRAC working recommendation to DOE to adopt a particular rulemaking. (AGA, No. 114, at group. Finally, DOE stated that a pp. 26–27) CEC was neutral on whether consensus agreement. The negotiated negotiated rulemaking in which DOE rulemaking process allows real-time to engage a convener, but cautioned participates under the ASRAC process DOE against using a process that would adjustments to the analyses as the will not result in the issuance of a DFR. working group is considering them. result in unnecessary delays. (CEC, No. Further, any potential term sheet upon 121, at p. 14) NPCC commented that a Furthermore, it allows parties with which an ASRAC working group differing viewpoints and objectives to convener is not needed in all cases. reaches consensus must comply with all (NPCC, No. 94, at p. 8) Lennox sought negotiate face-to-face regarding the of the provisions of EPCA under which terms of a potential standard. revision of section 11(a)(3) that, the rule is authorized. (84 FR 3910, independent of the convener’s report, Additionally, it encourages 3950) manufacturers to provide data for the DOE can still proceed with a negotiated In response, several commenters analyses in a more direct manner, rulemaking based on the five proposed expressed their support for the thereby helping to better account for criteria. (Lennox, No. 133, at pp. 3–4) negotiated rulemaking process and its As for the five factors DOE listed manufacturer concerns. While inclusion in the Process Rule. (See, e.g., previously that would weigh in favor of negotiated rulemaking is not a topic A.O. Smith, No. 127, at p. 5; AGA, No. a negotiated rulemaking, the Joint directly addressed by the current 114, at p. 26; CEC, No. 121, at p. 13) In Commenters reiterated their support for Process Rule, the Process Rule does supporting the inclusion of negotiated the factors, while CEC recommended recognize the value and encourage rulemaking in the Process Rule, CEC that the five factors be used as a submission of joint stakeholder stated that negotiated rulemakings open balancing test rather than as a strict set recommendations. up the discussion between interested of requirements for whether a In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE parties on challenging but resolvable negotiation would work. (Joint proposed to include a section on issues in potential standards or test Commenters, No. 112, at p. 11; CEC, No. procedures, reduce the risk of litigation 121, at p. 14) CEC and the CA IOUs also 25 This process is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act on the rule, allow for public input, and recommended excluding the criterion (‘‘NRA’’), Public Law 104–320 (5 U.S.C. 561–570). reduce DOE’s burden in having to limiting negotiated rulemakings to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8686 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

products/equipment that have already (AGA, No. 114, at p. 27). DOE agrees M. Other Revisions and Issues undergone one or more rounds of with this comment. 1. DOE’s Analytical Methodologies, rulemaking. (CEC, No. 121, at p. 14; CA Finally, DOE received numerous Generally IOUs, No. 124, at p. 14) comments on its proposal that any After considering the many comments DOE notes that these five factors are negotiated rulemaking in which DOE on its analytical methodology in the not a required check-list for convening participates under the ASRAC process Process Rule RFI, DOE explained in the a negotiated rulemaking. Rather, they will not result in the issuance of a DFR, Process Rule NOPR its plan to convene are simply additional factors (to the but instead a proposed rule that convener’s report) that will help DOE an expert independent peer review complies with the provisions of EPCA, (consistent with OMB’s Information determine if a negotiated rulemaking is under which the rule is authorized. The appropriate. With regards to comments Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 26) of majority of commenters opposed this its assumptions, models, and that DOE should eliminate the factor proposal. For example, ACEEE stated limiting negotiated rulemakings to methodologies to ensure that its that a negotiated rulemaking should be approach is designed to provide products/equipment that have already able to result in a Direct Final Rule. If undergone one or more rounds of projections that are sufficiently rigorous the outcome of a formal negotiated for their intended use. 84 FR 3910, rulemaking, DOE notes that this factor is rulemaking meets the statutory not a requirement and it does not 3936–3938 (Feb. 13, 2019). The goals of requirements for a Direct Final Rule, the the peer review are to assess whether exclude newly covered products from Department should be able to use that being the subject of a negotiated any changes are needed to the agency’s process to issue the standard. Banning analytical methodologies and rulemaking. Further, DOE believes that it makes a consensus agreement less there is an advantage to focusing potentially to the Process Rule. In order likely. (ACEEE, No. 123, at p. 2) The to ensure that the analytical models and negotiated rulemakings on products/ Joint Commenters generally agreed with equipment that already have standards approaches that DOE regulatory uses are DOE’s negotiated rulemaking proposals as DOE will already have a good grasp as up-to-date and accurate as possible, with the exception of DOE’s proposed on which parties should be included in DOE committed to undertaking a discontinuance of DFRs. (Joint the working group and manufacturers recurring peer review of the Commenters, No. 112, at p. 11) NPCC will already be familiar with DOE’s Department’s analytical methods at least commented that abandoning the use of regulatory scheme. On the other hand, once every 10 years. DOE tentatively direct final rules in all cases—rather if DOE engages in negotiated rulemaking concluded that the investment of than retaining the flexibility to use DFRs for newly covered products, DOE may resources in both immediate and long- when appropriate following a negotiated be able to gather data and information term peer review by the Department and rulemaking—will simply result in about the product and vet issues interested parties would help improve prolonging the agency process, applicable to such product more the overall rulemaking process and effectively than through traditional increasing the agency’s own costs often ensure the credibility and validity of the notice and comment rulemaking. This is to no useful end, and increasing the results of that process. DOE also why these factors are listed as regulatory process burden on committed to making its peer review considerations rather than requirements. manufacturers and other stakeholders available to the public, and during its rather than reducing it. (NPCC, No. 94, In regards to DOE’s proposal that an initial peer review meeting on at p. 8) Some commenters did express independent, neutral facilitator (who November 19–20, 2019, provided the support for DOE’s proposed plan to cannot be a DOE employee) be present public with an opportunity to observe separate DFRs and negotiated at all ASRAC working group meetings, and raise issues for peer reviewers’ several commenters expressed their rulemakings. GWU commented that the consideration. The Process Rule NOPR support. For example, Acuity stated that decision to separate DFRs and went on to identify and discuss 12 a neutral, qualified facilitator is negotiated rulemaking and establish that potential focus areas for the peer review, essential for a successful negotiated the outcome of negotiated rulemaking including: rulemaking process. A facilitator helps would be a proposed rule are positive • Analytical time horizon(s) ensure that processes are followed and developments. (GWU, No. 132, at p. 10) • Baseline efficiency estimates • that all participants have an equal AGA also supports DOE separating Consumer choice model DFRs from negotiated rulemakings and • Emissions analysis opportunity to contribute to the • discussion. (Acuity, No. 95, at p. 6) requiring that the outcome of a Fuel switching analysis negotiated rulemaking be a proposed • Indirect employment effects Similarly, BWC commented that use of • an experienced facilitator will enable rule, subject to a comment period. Marginal manufacturer mark-up • Product price forecasts the working group to . . . work towards (AGA, No. 114, at p. 27) • Product performance an amenable consensus. (BWC, No. 103, As stated in the February 2019 NOPR, • Subgroup analysis at p. 4) DOE agrees with these DOE is modifying its negotiated • Use of proprietary data comments as it has found independent, rulemaking process to be more • Welfare analysis and deadweight loss neutral facilitators to be essential in consistent with the NRA which DOE requested comments and other moving working group discussions contemplates that the committee will relevant information on these topics, as along and reaching consensus. transmit to the agency a report well as other related issues which With respect to DOE’s proposal that a containing a proposed rule (or more stakeholders wish to raise. The dedicated portion of each ASRAC applicable in DOE’s use of the process, Department explained that any potential working group meeting will be set aside a term sheet specifying the potential changes to the Process Rule that might to receive input and data from non- standard levels to be incorporated into be appropriate based on the results of members of the ASRAC working group, a proposed rule). If the Department the peer review and any methodological AGA commented that allowing for determined to act on the term sheet, it would be in the form of a proposed rule public comment before the working 26 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005) (Available at: group will help ensure the participation open for notice and comment rather https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ of all relevant interests in the process. than a direct final rule. files/omb/memoranda/2005/m05-03.pdf).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8687

updates would be addressed in a review over a longer term (e.g., every 10 Technical Support Documents (TSDs) subsequent proceeding. (For a more years). Overall, commenters on the that the Department relies on when detailed discussion of DOE’s past and Process Rule NOPR expressed support issuing a proposed and final standard planned peer reviews, please consult for DOE’s plans to conduct a peer contain influential scientific the relevant discussion in the February review of it analytical methodologies, information that DOE has disseminated, 13, 2019 Process Rule NOPR at 84 FR although one commenter (Spire) AGA concluded that such information 3910, 3936–3938.) expressed some misgivings as to the should be peer reviewed and up-to-date. In response to the Process Rule NOPR, Department’s ability to conduct such AGA also considered the long term and DOE received a variety of comments review in a fair and effective fashion. expressed support for the Department from approximately 22 discrete The following comments focused on the conducting a peer review, at least once commenters regarding its analytical peer review itself (rather than the every ten years, of its assumptions, methodologies, with recommendations subject matter to be addressed by the models, and methodologies to ensure that, in many cases, that are both peer review). that its approach is designed to provide detailed and specific. These A number of commenters expressed reasonable, accurate projections. (AGA, submissions generally fell into one of general support for DOE’s planned peer No. 114 at pp. 28–29) several discrete areas—peer review, review of its analytical methodologies, Likewise focusing on the immediate DOE’s analytical methodologies including Acuity and NAFEM. (Acuity, peer review, the Joint Commenters and generally (e.g., transparency of models No. 95, at p. 6; NAFEM, No. 122 at p. AHRI strongly urged DOE not to delay and assumptions, public access to data, 7) APGA also expressed support for a in commencing its peer review of its discount rates, marginal energy prices, peer review, which it believes will analytical methodologies. (Joint life-cycle cost and payback period allow stakeholders to have assurance Commenters, No. 112 at p. 12; AHRI, issues, the screening analysis, use of that the standards development process April 11, 2019 Public Meeting proprietary data, the Social Cost of is based on sound scientific and Transcript at p. 157) The Joint Carbon), and the walk-down approach economic data and methods. (APGA, Commenters asserted that the current to standard-setting. March 21, 2019 Public Meeting DOE methodologies are seriously For the reasons discussed Transcript at p. 15) Likewise, Energy flawed. Furthermore, the Joint subsequently, DOE has decided as part Solutions stated that it supports DOE’s Commenters stated that a sound peer of this final rule to move forward with plans for peer review, suggesting that review process should be conducted by a peer review of its analytical product price forecasts should be one of methodologies, models, and the focus areas for that review. (Energy a third-party panel, not by DOE. (Joint assumptions, so DOE will summarize Solutions, April 11, 2019 Public Commenters, No. 112 at p. 12) In and respond to the peer review Meeting Transcript at p. 156) furtherance of this point, the Joint comments it received on the Process Other commenters stated support for Commenters suggested several Rule NOPR in the paragraphs below. DOE’s planned peer review and principles to guide the peer review Likewise, DOE will summarize and followed up with additional thoughts process including: (1) The composition respond to the comments on its and recommendations regarding that of the peer review panels must include proposed walk-down approach to process. Some of those commenters people who are technically competent standard setting, because any upcoming focused on the peer review to be to review economic, cost, energy, and energy conservations standards conducted in the near term, while other matters. The composition of the rulemaking would confront that part of others concentrated on the long-term, panels should be determined in a public the rulemaking process and require a recurring peer review, and some process with advice and comment from path forward. However, the Department addressed both. the public on the panels’ composition; is not addressing the other substantive Focusing on the need for an (2) The members of the peer review comments on and critiques of its immediate peer review, AGA panels should conform to the standards analytical methodologies and models in recommended that DOE conduct a peer for ‘‘Highly Influential Scientific this final rule, because those are the review of its assumptions, models, and Assessments;’’ (3) The peer review types of issues that will be addressed methodologies as soon as possible to panels should not be constrained by the during the course of the peer review and ensure that its processes are current. By twelve topics identified by DOE, but stakeholders will have a separate not conducting peer reviews in a timely these should instead be viewed as a opportunity to weigh in on that manner, AGA argued that the minimum scope. The peer review proceeding. Relevant comments on Department deprives the public of panels should look at DOE’s analytical those topics submitted to the docket for certain regulatory protections—such as processes with a clean slate. Additional this rulemaking will be referred to the standards based on current scientific topics for consideration may include independent expert peer reviewers to be information that has been tested consumer discount rates, the use of addressed as part of their charge in that impartially and deemed appropriate and learning and experience curves in separate proceeding. reliable by a group of relevant experts. projecting future product prices, mark- For example, the commenter stated that ups across the total chain from factory a. Peer Review the regulatory guidelines established by to consumer, and the definition of As noted previously, peer review was the Office of Management and Budget maximum technically feasible product a topic of discussion in the Process Rule (OMB) require a peer review of any configuration; (4) The peer review NOPR, because DOE identified that changes to scientific data and/or panels should hold hearings to help approach as a suitable and effective way methodologies used in the development guide them in determining which topics to evaluate the concerns raised by of rules or regulations. Specifically, they should pursue and what various stakeholders about the agency’s AGA noted that OMB’s Final alternatives they should consider; and analytical methodologies. 84 FR 3910, Information Quality Bulletin for Peer (5) The peer review panels should 3936–3938 (Feb. 13, 2019). The Review requires each Federal agency to present their tentative findings for Department foresees both an immediate conduct a peer review of all influential public review and comment prior to peer review of its analytical scientific information that the agency finalizing their reports. (Joint methodologies, as well as recurring peer intends to disseminate. Because the Commenters, No. 112 at p. 13–14)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8688 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Lennox and AHRI echoed some of the energy’’ mission. As a result, the models already meet the requirements points raised by the Joint Commenters. commenter suggested that DOE should of OMB Circular A–4 27 and the Lennox commented that DOE’s peer eliminate peer reviews until Information Quality Act,28 the review should be transparent, with fundamental changes are made, such as Department is committed to ensuring stakeholders such as industry allowed reconvening its general purpose that its analytical models and to provide input, and peer review advisory board as laid out in the 1996 methodologies continue to meet a high panels should present their tentative Process Rule. (Spire, No. 139 at p. 7) standard of integrity and to be based on findings for public review and comment (DOE notes that it is unclear what Spire sound scientific methods and prior to finalizing their reports. (Lennox, is referring to here.) Spire argued that principles. DOE believes that peer No. 133 at pp. 8–9) Although the peer review process under DOE’s review advances this objective and is commending DOE on beginning a peer current approach would not have consistent with the principles of good review process, AHRI made a similar identified in a timely manner the means government, and consequently, the point urging the Department to open up by which DOE uses to justify a given agency is moving expeditiously to the process of selecting a peer review standard through its LCC analyses. commence its next review. Such action panel by getting interested parties to (Spire, No. 139 at p. 8) Spire added that should also satisfy DOE’s obligations comment on the charter and the the multiple adverse effects it identified under OMB’s Final Information Quality candidates for the peer review panel. in its comments would have cumulative Bulletin for Peer Review. AHRI added that it does not agree that impacts on consumers as the time DOE further agrees with commenters one of the 12 focus areas should be period between peer reviews lengthens. that this peer review should be part of incremental margins at the Rather than conduct periodic peer an open and transparent process, with manufacturer level, a concept which it reviews, Spire recommended that DOE opportunities for public input and believes is flawed and should be should adopt a ‘‘Continual Improvement public availability of the removed. (AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public Process’’ to change the frequency of recommendations made by the Meeting Transcript at pp. 146–148) reviews and reconsider the make-up of reviewers. The Department also agrees Instead, AHRI recommended that peer its advisory committee, given what the that the peer review should be review should look at the whole commenter characterizes as ASRAC’s conducted by independent, third-party modeling effort. (AHRI, April 11, 2019 current lack of ‘‘requisite diversity.’’ experts drawn from the relevant Public Meeting Transcript at p. 158) (Spire, No. 139 at pp. 9–10) As part of disciplines. DOE would make clear that Regarding long-term peer review, its suggestion that DOE apply a the peer reviewers are not limited to APGA stated that it is in favor of a continuous improvement approach, consideration of the 12 topic areas recurring peer review of DOE’s Spire stressed that there should be mentioned in the Process Rule NOPR, analytical assumptions, models, and independent review of the agency’s but they instead have license to conduct methodologies, at least once every 10 ‘‘misuse’’ of Monte Carlo simulations, as a comprehensive review of the models, years, so as to ensure that such analyses well as other DOE methodologies that methodologies, and assumptions used are based on sound scientific and Spire alleged distort the Department’s in DOE’s rulemakings. Those peer economic data. The commenter stated determinations and drive unwarranted reviewers would be free to consider that such approach is consistent with increases in energy efficiency. (Spire, relevant subjects presented by DOE, OMB’s regulatory guidelines and its No. 139 at p. 10) public comments, and other stakeholder Final Information Quality Bulletin for input, as well as those identified by Peer Review. However, APGA reiterated In response, DOE appreciates the their own initiative. DOE will also its belief that DOE’s models are too many thoughtful comments it received ensure that there is an opportunity for complex and burdensome and urged on peer review of its analytical public engagement with the peer replacing the current complicated life- methodologies, models, and reviewers as part of this process. The cycle cost analysis with a simple assumptions. The Department agrees Department believes that such approach payback analysis based on real with the commenters as to the will ensure that it is receiving an numbers’’. (APGA, No. 106 at pp. 10– importance of using the best available objective and unbiased assessment of its 12) scientific, technical, and economic data analytical methodologies and models, Finally, Spire’s comments reflected that contribute to it decision-making while inspiring public confidence along some skepticism of DOE’s efforts to when setting energy conservation those same lines. To this end, DOE has conduct a peer review of its analytical standards. Because such standards contracted with the National Academy methodologies and urged caution to typically generate significant public of Sciences (NAS) to independently ensure a fair and balanced outcome. benefits and costs to the regulated conduct its peer review. All information More specifically, one representative of community, it is incumbent upon DOE and announcements regarding this peer Spire criticized peer review as a useless to utilize the best available data and review, including the group’s charter, appendage of the past. (Spire, April 11, practices in developing such standards. topics to be addressed, announcements 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. Given the passage of time since the last of public meetings, and availability of 145) However, another Spire peer review of the Appliance Standards the final peer review report, are representative expressed mixed feelings Program, DOE has commenced a new available via the NAS website. Any about peer review, suggesting that it can peer review, but it also plans to conduct necessary changes to the Process Rule be helpful with some types of issues but an ongoing, periodic peer review on a arising from the peer review and stating that there are a lot of issues 10-year cycle. Because the technical methodological updates will be where it is not suitable. (Spire, April 11, support documents for energy addressed in a separate proceeding. 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. conservation standards rulemakings 149–150) Spire indicated that a peer contain influential scientific/technical/ 27 Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ review within the context of setting economic information that underpins whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. standards for regulated appliances DOE’s standards, it is crucial that such 28 Section 515 of Public Law 106–554. OMB issued final guidelines to implement the continues to be problematic when DOE information be current, validated, and of Information Quality Act on February 22, 2002 (67 selects ‘‘experts’’ whose interests are high quality. Although it is DOE’s FR 8452) (available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/ already aligned with EERE’s ‘‘clean position that its data, methods, and content/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8689

DOE disagrees with Spire as to the would recognizes that the ‘‘economic AHAM stated that because DOE’s walk- value of a peer review of DOE’s justification’’ of any particular option down proposal was not sufficiently analytical methodologies, and the depends on a broader comparison of clear and fully articulated, it was not in agency expects that an independently economic attributes relative to other a position to comment at this time, but conducted peer review, as DOE available options, rather than relative to it added that the concept should not be envisions and presents here, will just one baseline, particularly one that discarded. However, AHAM concluded alleviate many of Spire’s concerns. In is likely to be of little relevance to a that just because the walk-down addition, DOE notes that it is not consumer when choosing which proposal is not fully developed, that officially adopting Spire’s product(s) are economically justified for should not slow down consideration recommendation for a ‘‘continual their purchase. Rather that person is and finalization of the rest of the improvement process,’’ although the likely to be focused on the set of Process Rule proposal. (AHAM, April Department is always open to actually available products at the time 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. constructive feedback about its of purchase, rather than some 169) Similarly, a representative for processes. Interested parties are free to hypothetical baseline representing the AHAM, AHRI, and the Joint raise methodological issues as part of set of products that would have been Commenters stated that it is impossible their public comments on various available in the absence of the standard to evaluate DOE’s walk-down proposal rulemakings or to bring the matter to (including perhaps the model currently and that commenters would need more DOE’s attention through other being replaced). DOE sought public information before they could do so, correspondence. DOE will carefully comment on its proposal to refine the such as by the agency publishing an consider such comments, and in ‘‘walk-down’’ approach to require example as to how the revised process appropriate cases where the agency determinations of economic justification would work. (Everett Shorey, April 11, finds merit, it may take action outside to consider comparisons of 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. the normal 10-year peer review cycle. In economically relevant factors across 174) such cases, options might include TSLs, consistent with both economic NYU Law stated that DOE’s proposed immediate corrective action, initiation theory and the actual purchasing replacement of its walk-down approach of rulemaking, or early commencement behavior of rational consumers. (84 FR with an ‘‘economically rational of the next peer review cycle. 3910, 3938) consumer’’ test is insufficiently defined DOE received a substantial amount of and inadequately justified. NYU Law b. Walk-Down comment on its proposal related to the noted the following reasons to support In the Process Rule NOPR, DOE walk-down and as a consequence is its opinion: The Department vaguely specifically sought comment on its issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking alludes to ‘‘economic theory’’ but ‘‘walk-down’’ approach to assessing published elsewhere in this issue of the provides no citations; it does not detail different potential standards. DOE Federal Register to further clarify how it is defining a ‘‘rational consumer’’ explained that using this approach, DOE amendments to the walk-down or how the test will be conducted; it starts from the most stringent choice to approach. Although one commenter does not explain whether or how the determine both economic justification supported DOE’s proposal as presented new test will weigh important social and technological feasibility by (APGA), the rest of the comments on externalities; and it does not provide ‘‘walking-down’’ through the available this topic generally ranged from neutral any illustrations or guidance on how the choices by stringency until arriving at (citing a lack of information necessary to new test will compare to the old one. the first choice that meets all of the comment and move forward) to strongly Accordingly, the commenter concluded statutory criteria. In the proposal, DOE negative (arguing that the proposed that DOE has failed to sufficiently noted that economic theory suggests approach would be illegal under EPCA). justify its proposal and has not provided that the most logical way to determine These comments are summarized below, the public with enough information to if a particular option is ‘‘economically followed by DOE’s response. offer meaningful comments. (NYU Law, justified’’ is to compare it to the full Alone among the commenters, APGA No. 119, at p. 1) range of available choices, rather than expressed unqualified support for DOE’s Likewise, NAFEM stated that it is not just one baseline. Applying economic proposal to modify its walk-down expressing any view as to the proposed theory, DOE proposed at 10 CFR part approach to standard setting. The ‘‘walk-down’’ approach specifically. 430, subpart C, appendix A, sec. commenter explained how it has long However, NAFEM commented generally (7)(e)(2)(G) to require the Secretary to complained that DOE uses a materially- that it does support approaches that determine whether a candidate/trial flawed analysis which the commenter evaluate customer choice based on standard level would be economically argued overstates potential benefits of models that are economically viable justified when compared to the full standards and underestimates their with commercially available range of other feasible TSLs. The costs, thereby failing to meet EPCA’s technologies contemporaneously with proposal stated that in making this requirements for economic justification. the review, rather than purely determination, the Secretary is to APGA stated that in order to determine theoretical models based on consider whether an economically whether a potential standard is technologies that may or may not be rational consumer would choose a economically justified, it should be available in the future. (NAFEM, No. product meeting the candidate/trial compared to the full range of available 122 at p. 7) standard level over products meeting consumer choices reflected by the entire NEMA stated that while it is not the other feasible TSLs levels after suite of TSLs. (APGA, No. 106 at pp. opposed to considering the behavior of considering all relevant factors, 12–13) consumers as part of the walk-down to including but not limited to, energy A number of other commenters determine the economic justification of savings, efficacy, product features, and expressed varying degrees of theoretical potential standards, it would need to life-cycle costs. If an economically support for potential modifications to know more about how such approach rational consumer would not choose the DOE’s walk-down but concluded that would work in regulatory practice. candidate TSL after considering these the Process Rule NOPR did not present NEMA expressed concern that different factors, it would be rejected as enough detail or explanation to support perspectives about the ‘‘rational economically unjustified. This approach a change at this time. Among this group, consumer’’ are capable of being variably

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8690 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

applied, and consequently, it the authority to reconsider its economic Even if the term ‘‘economically recommended that DOE approach this justification analysis. (AHRI, April 11, rational consumer’’ were to be defined, issue on a case-by-case basis in 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. some of the commenters expressed rulemakings where there is an 172–173) concerns with any such attempt. For opportunity for notice and comment. The Joint Commenters expressed their example, ASAP, et al. argued that Thus, NEMA suggested that these support for a full consideration of the seeking to define who a ‘‘rational principles would need to evolve before consumer choice frameworks used by consumer’’ is and to assess what choices being incorporated into the Process the DOE, including both the current such a person would make would be Rule. (NEMA, No. 107 at pp. 7–8) ‘‘walk-down’’ and alternatives, as well fraught with problems, and the Southern Company characterized the as the random assignment of base-case commenter reminded DOE that the Process Rule NOPR’s walk-down efficiencies currently used in the life- NOPR provided no information about proposal as a major improvement, cycle costing analysis. These how DOE would make such particularly since it deemed consumer commenters made clear that they are not determinations. (ASAP, et al., No. 126 at discount rates to have been significantly taking a position on the proposed pp. 15–16) The AGs Joint Comment underestimated in the past. (Southern ‘‘walk-down’’ approach and alternatives likewise stated that there is widespread Company, April 11 Public Meeting until all possible approaches have been skepticism surrounding the concept of Transcript at p. 162) However, Southern reviewed in the context of how they the ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ Company ventured that the topic of the would affect particular analyses. because economists and social scientists walk-down proposal is likely to be very According to the Joint Commenters, the recognize that many times consumers intertwined with methodological issues complexity and subtlety of translating act irrationally, so this theory may not that are being handled in a separate theoretical approaches to practical reflect real-world conditions. (AGs Joint proceeding, and the commenter added situations are high and fraught with Comment, No. 111 at pp. 15–16) NRDC that it would like to see a separate unintended consequences. Thus, the argued that there are varying academic proceeding conducted every three or Joint Commenters suggested that this opinions regarding the decisions four years on the economic assumptions subject should be addressed during the consumers make, whether an that are being used in different peer review process. (Joint Commenters, economically rational consumer exists, rulemakings. (Southern Company, April No. 112 at p. 14) and the value of such a construct, so 11 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 170) The balance of the comments opposed much energy and money could be lost Spire expressed support for these DOE’s walk-down proposal to move if a standard is rejected simply because comments of Southern Company, from its current analytical methodology a consumer were to make an irrational echoing the need for further details and and walk-down standards selection choice under such test. (NRDC, No. 131 perhaps a definition of ‘‘economically process to an ‘‘economically rational at pp. 17) Furthermore, NRDC asserted rational consumer.’’ 29 (Spire, April 11, consumer’’ test, as presented in the that the Process Rule NOPR’s efforts to 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. Process Rule NOPR, for a variety of advance the concept of an economically 163) Nonetheless, Spire viewed DOE’s reasons. (ASE, No. 108 at pp. 6–7; rational consumer overlook the fact that proposal as an attempt to improve the ACEEE, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting not all consumers purchase their status quo which has prevailed for Transcript at pp. 171–172; ASAP, et al., appliances or equipment (i.e., renters), many years. (Spire, April 11, 2019 No. 126 at pp. 15–16; AGs Joint so the commenter questioned how, Public Meeting Transcript at p. 168) Comment, No. 111 at pp. 15–16; under this type of approach, DOE would Similarly, AHRI stated that it would Earthjustice, No. 134 at p. 5; NRDC, No. account for the benefits of standards to be interested to see what DOE comes up 131 at pp. 15–17; NPCC, No. 94 at p. 8; low-income people or renters who with and what it thinks is advisable to Cal-IOUs, No. 124 at p. 14; PG&E, April would not necessarily be making consider in terms of the walk-down 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at purchasing decisions. (NRDC, April 11, proposal. The trade association pp. 164–165; Southern California 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. concluded that the walk-down proposal Edison, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting 164) Similarly, CT–DEEP opposed does not currently provide enough Transcript at p. 222; CEC, No. 121 at p. DOE’s proposal walk-down approach information to allow it to offer 14; CT–DEEP, No. 93 at p. 4) based on what it characterized as a meaningful comment, although the More specifically, many commenters hypothetical and arbitrary organization noted that it looks forward were concerned that DOE did not define ‘economically rational consumer,’ to subsequently seeing the agency’s the term ‘‘economically rational arguing that modern economic theory analysis and a more formal proposal. consumer’’ in the NOPR. (ASE, No. 108 suggests that such consumer does not (AHRI, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting at pp. 6–7; ACEEE, April 11, 2019 truly exist. (CT–DEEP, No. 93 at p. 4) Transcript at pp. 165–166) AHRI Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 171– PG&E stated that the concept of a commented that it does not think the 172) ASAP (and others) argued that rational consumer is a difficult one to walk-down approach is statutorily particularly because DOE did not define quantify and that it could potentially mandated, and it also pointed out that that key term, it is unclear precisely contribute error to DOE’s analyses. More the language ‘‘maximum improvement what DOE is proposing for a revised specifically, PG&E argued that the in energy efficiency that is walk-down methodology, so the proposed change to the walk-down technologically feasible and organization does not know how to would add complexity to the analysis, economically justified’’ only applies to comment. (ASAP, April 11, 2019 Public and with more complexity would come consumer products, not to commercial Meeting Transcript at pp. 166–167; AGs the possibility of more mistakes. equipment. Thus, AHRI suggested that Joint Comment, No. 111 at pp. 15–16; Furthermore, the commenter ventured DOE has more flexibility with NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 15–17) ACEEE that the relevant information may be commercial equipment and that it has added that if DOE were to choose to unknown and would then require move forward with this concept, a estimation. (PG&E, April 11, 2019 29 Although the transcript shows the commenter Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 164) referring to an ‘‘environmentally-rational supplemental NOPR would be required. consumer,’’ DOE assumes that Spire meant to say (ACEEE, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting Southern California Edison made a ‘‘economically-rational consumer’’ in this context. Transcript at pp. 171–172) similar point that the proposal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8691

surrounding the rational consumer walk-down approach (as described in Earthjustice, No. 134 at p. 5; NRDC, No. looks very difficult to quantify, which the Process Rule NOPR) is consistent 131 at pp. 15–16; CEC, No. 121 at p. 14) runs counter to the goal of making with the statutory directive that Among this group, the AGs Joint DOE’s process more transparent. standards must be set at the maximum Comment strongly disfavored DOE’s use (Southern California Edison, April 11, level of efficiency that is technically of an ‘‘economically rational 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. feasible and economically justified, no consumer,’’ as arbitrary and capricious 222) further refinement of this aspect of and inconsistent with EPCA. According Several commenters in this group DOE’s existing rulemaking process is to the AGs Joint Comment, DOE has questioned how DOE could meet its needed. (NPCC, No. 94 at p. 8) failed to describe how it would conceive statutory obligations under EPCA while ACEEE argued that the current walk- this purported rational consumer or following this new approach. ASE and down approach has a clear process of detail how this approach would be put ACEEE argued that Congress has choosing the maximum improvement into practice. According to the AGs, mandated that the Department set level required under the statute, but DOE may only consider an standards at the maximum level that is once the current process is abandoned ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ technologically feasible and in favor of a rational consumer consistent with EPCA’s payback economically justified, and has approach, the commenter asserted that presumption in 42 U.S.C. specified seven considerations to be the Department would be ignoring the 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), and diverging from balanced in determining what is law, because the ‘‘preferred’’ level is not that presumption in favor of a what is in the statute. (ACEEE, April 11, economically justified; the statute does hypothetically economically rational 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. not direct DOE to choose the most consumer would violate EPCA. 171–172) On this point, ASAP, et al. economically justified level. (ASE, No. Furthermore, the AGs Joint Comment similarly stated that DOE’s proposed 108 at pp. 6–7; ACEEE, April 11, 2019 argued that EPCA already explains how approach, as presented, would appear to Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 171– consumer interests are to be addressed instead hinge on whether an ill-defined 172; ACEEE, No. 123 at p. 4) ASAP, et as one of the seven factors for economic ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ al. explained its understanding of how justification, a consideration to be would choose a product meeting a DOE has implemented the current weighed but not to be valued certain efficiency level. (ASAP, et al., process by first looking at the ‘‘max- predominantly or exclusively. (AGs No. 126 at pp. 16) ACEEE expressed its Joint Comment, No. 111 at pp. 15–16) tech’’ level and evaluating whether that view that the Department has not made level is economically justified; if DOE clear how selection of a consumer’s Although Earthjustice suggested that concludes that that level is not preferred level, among all the options, the Process Rule NOPR’s proposed economically justified, it proceeds to would yield the maximum level that changes shifting the focus of DOE’s the next-highest level and makes the meets the statutory criteria. Moreover, economic justification inquiry to a same evaluation until reaching a level ACEEE argued that it is even less clear hypothetical ‘‘economically rational (if any) that the Department determines how consideration of a single consumer consumer’’ are not clearly explained in is economically justified. The would incorporate, or would be the NOPR, the commenter stated that commenter expressed its opinion that incorporated with, the seven required any such change abandoning the walk- the process used to date implements considerations. As the Department has down approach the Department has long what the statute requires. Specifically, provided no information on how the used to assess the economic justification by starting at the ‘‘max-tech’’ level and rational consumer would make their for each TSL under consideration would working its way down, ASAP, et al. choice, ACEEE opined that DOE’s walk- be impermissible. Earthjustice stated argued that the Department ensures that down proposal also would introduce that as the D.C. Circuit has explained, it does in fact adopt the maximum level significant uncertainty and potentially EPCA ‘‘establishes a clear decision- that is technologically feasible and arbitrary decisions for manufacturers making procedure’’ that applies when economically justified. (ASAP, et al., and consumers (e.g., What rational DOE selects energy conservation No. 126 at pp. 15–16) In contrast, ASAP consumer will be considered, based on standard levels (citing NRDC v. and ASAP, et al. questioned that fact what financial situation, with what Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1391 (D.C. that the NOPR leaves unclear how economic utilities? How will this be Cir. 1985)). Specifically, the commenter DOE’s proposed approach would fit determined?). These considerations stated that DOE must first identify, for with the statutory requirement to shaped ACEEE’s view that the all product types or classes, the consider the seven factors in ‘‘economically rational consumer,’’ maximum improvement in energy determining whether a standard is while well-studied in the economics efficiency that is technologically ‘‘economically justified,’’ except maybe literature, does not appear to be a feasible, and if a standard at that level factor 7 (i.e., other factors the Secretary concept in current Federal law, and, would be economically justified, DOE considers relevant). (ASAP, April 11, thus, it is a likely subject for litigation, must set the standard there. Earthjustice 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at pp. if adopted. Consequently, ACEEE added that if a standard requiring the 166–167; ASAP, et al., No. 126 at pp. concluded that a theoretical, maximum technologically feasible level 15–16) ASAP stated that it cannot find economically rational consumer cannot would not be economically justified, a legal justification for the agency’s be used to choose an energy DOE must set the standard at the next proposed change to the walk-down or conservation standard level. (ACEEE, highest level that is both technologically how one would conduct such revised No. 123 at p. 4) feasible and economically justified. In walk-down from a process point of Still others characterized DOE’s that event, Earthjustice stated that EPCA view, expressing unease with what proposed walk-down approach more requires DOE to explain specifically appears to be DOE’s suddenly reworking strongly; arguing either that the why a standard achieving the maximum of how the entire standards process has proposed approach is impermissible technologically feasible improvement in been conducted for over 30 years. and illegal under EPCA or arguing that efficiency was rejected (citing Id. at (ASAP, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting the current approach is legally 1391–1392 (citations omitted)). To the Transcript at pp. 166167) NPCC mandated by EPCA. (AGs Joint extent the NOPR would substitute a recommended that because the current Comment, No. 111 at pp. 15–16; different approach, the commenter

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8692 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

argued that that proposal is unlawful. measured case to prevent double- This proposal will respond to public Earthjustice stated that if that is not counting. (Cal-IOUs, No. 124 at p. 14) comment requesting further clarity on what DOE intended, the Department In response, DOE recognizes that its DOE’s initial proposal that in making must provide stakeholders with a clear walk-down proposal, as presented in the the determination of economic understanding of how the reliance on an Process Rule NOPR, could be viewed as justification, DOE would choose a TSL ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ a fundamental shift in the way the over other feasible TSLs after would change DOE’s evaluation of Department has historically selected considering all relevant factors, whether a TSL is economically justified. energy conservation standards for including, but not limited to, energy (Earthjustice, No. 134 at p. 5) NRDC’s adoption. Some commenters favored savings, efficacy, product features, and comments used much the same logic as further examination of the subject life-cycle costs. Earthjustice in opposing DOE’s matter of the proposal (perhaps as part DOE encourages interested parties to proposed ‘‘walk-down’’ approach, of a peer review) but stated that the lack review DOE’s proposal and provide because in its view, such approach is of clarity and sufficient detail rendered comment for consideration. them unable to express an opinion or prohibited by EPCA. According to c. Other NRDC, basing such decisions on an comment further. Those commenters ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ is were clear that, while they believed In commenting on DOE’s analytical problematic for a number of reasons, DOE should look into the issues methodologies, Lutron suggested that as particularly since EPCA does not permit presented by the walk-down proposal, part of the Department’s analysis, DOE DOE to prioritize an ‘‘economically they were opposed to delaying the should assess the impacts on customers rational consumer’’ test higher than remainder of the Process Rule’s related to the potential elimination of other factors the agency is required to improvements while that work was desirable product features. According to consider for economic justification. done. Others not only questioned the the commenter, DOE should not (NRDC, No. 131 at pp. 15–17) workability and academic promulgate rules that would eliminate In objecting to DOE’s proposed underpinnings of DOE’s proposal but features that are highly valued by change to the current walk-down flatly challenged the legal basis for the customer subgroups. (Lutron, No. 137 at analytical approach, the CEC argued agency’s proposed approach (citing both p. 3) In response, DOE notes that EPCA that the factors for economic the statute and case precedent), specifically addresses this issue, stating justification are described in, and suggesting that it would invite litigation. at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) that DOE may limited to, those in EPCA, which makes Upon further reflection and after not prescribe an amended or new no mention of an ‘‘economically rational reviewing the public comments received standard if it finds (and publishes such consumer’’ for purposes of DOE’s on the matter, DOE has come to finding) that interested persons have required analysis. Moreover, the CEC understand that its walk-down proposal established by a preponderance of the added that practical experience and would benefit from further elaboration evidence that the standard is likely to results over decades of implementing and opportunity for public comment. result in the unavailability in the United the appliance efficiency program show Accordingly, DOE has decided not to States in any covered product type (or that there is a need for efficiency finalize its proposed revised walk-down class) of performance characteristics standards to overcome information approach in this rule. Instead, elsewhere (including reliability), features, sizes, barriers, cost barriers, and corporate in this issue of the Federal Register, capacities, and volumes that are inertia that stymie the otherwise DOE has proposed revisions to its substantially the same as those generally rational economic consumer. (CEC, No. existing walk-down methodology available in the United States at the time 121 at p. 14) together with added explanation to of DOE’s finding. Thus, in keeping with Finally, BWC and the Cal-IOUs address some of the concerns raised by its statutory mandate, DOE routinely offered some suggestions as to other stakeholders. This supplemental evaluates the effects its potential energy alternatives DOE might consider when proposal will revise 10 CFR part 430, conservation standards would have on revising its walk-down approach. BWC subpart C, appendix A, sec. (7)(e) of the identified product features and takes stated that it does not support DOE’s Process Rule. Specifically, the proposal action consistent with 42 U.S.C. proposed revised ‘‘walk-down’’ clarifies that the process by which DOE 6295(o)(4). (These same principles approach, but instead favors a ‘‘walk- selects among alternative energy apply to covered commercial and up’’ approach that looks at the TSL just efficiency standards under EPCA, industrial equipment through operation above the current standard (i.e., the satisfies the requirement that standards of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa), 42 baseline). From there, BWC suggested achieve the ‘‘‘‘maximum improvement U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i), and 42 U.S.C. that each level would be compared in energy efficiency, or in the case of 6316(b).) independently to the baseline. showerheads, faucets, water closets, or 2. Cumulative Regulatory Burden According to BWC, such approach urinals, water efficiency, which the would better reflect its experience that Secretary determines is technologically In the Process Rule NOPR, DOE most consumers want the least feasible and economically justified.’’ 42 acknowledged that its past treatment of expensive option that provides them the U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). In response to the cumulative regulatory burdens faced by same utility as their current appliance. concerns and requests for further regulated entities may have lacked the (BWC, No. 103 at p. 4)As an alternative explanation related to the economically comprehensiveness sought by some to DOE’s potential use of an rational consumer mentioned in DOE’s industry stakeholders. However, DOE ‘‘economically rational consumer’’ as prior proposal, DOE is: (1) Clarifying attempted to address these burdens in a part of the agency’s analytical process how impacts are considered in consistent manner to ensure that it (to which they objected), the Cal-IOUs determining economic justification accounts for them in each of DOE’s instead suggested that DOE should align through the seven factors specified in energy conservation standards its approach with the one already in use EPCA; and (2) explaining that the rulemakings. DOE committed to in California—where energy efficiency requirement to determine economic improving its assessments of the measures are evaluated using the justification is based on comparisons potential burdens (i.e., costs) faced by current standard as the baseline and to across the full range of trail standard industry in implementing potential factor in natural market adoption in the levels (TSLs) is consistent with EPCA. standards by improving its analysis. As

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8693

part of this effort, DOE stated that it will justified. Lennox argued that while DOE to prioritize rulemakings in terms of attempt to account for these potential actions impose a significant burden on allocating agency and industry costs through its modeling approaches, manufacturers, several other Federal resources. AHAM, April 11, 2019 Public but the Department welcomed and State regulations may also Meeting Transcript at pp. 175–176) constructive feedback on particular significantly burden manufacturers of AHRI commenter argued that in the steps it should take (consistent with its the same products. Under section 10 of past, DOE has run the numbers for legal obligations) that would help the existing Process Rule (now proposed cumulative regulatory burden, but the improve its evaluation of the cumulative section 14(g)), DOE is to ‘‘recognize and Department has failed to make clear regulatory burdens faced by regulated seek to mitigate the overlapping effects what it is doing with them. (AHRI, April entities within the energy conservation on manufacturers of new or revised DOE 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. standards context. 84 FR 3910, 3939 standards and other regulatory actions 180) AHRI also stated that it also (Feb. 13, 2019). affecting the same products.’’ However, supports DOE’s proposal regarding In response to the Process Rule NOPR, according to the commenter, DOE cumulative regulatory burden, and it DOE received several comments on the insufficiently considers the impacts of echoed the comments of AHAM. AHRI topic of cumulative regulatory burden, these other regulations, so the Process advocated that (AHRI, April 11, 2019 primarily from individual companies Rule should clarify that the cumulative Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 177– and industry trade associations. Most of impacts analysis should include all 178) these commenters supported DOE’s regulations that impact manufacturers of Still other commenters either proposal to strengthen its analysis of DOE-regulated products, including requested further clarification of DOE’s cumulative regulatory burden, often other Federal and State regulations proposal regarding cumulative reiterating their view of the perceived (particularly regarding those States regulatory burden or offered specific problem, stressing the importance of where significant volumes of equipment recommendations as to potential addressing it, and sometimes offering are distributed and regulations are improvements to that process. Along suggestions for how the Department can rapidly evolving, such as California). this line, NAFEM requested that DOE improve its process. For example, (Lennox, No. 133 at p. 7) clarify the scope of regulations it will Rheem expressed strong support for Further, Southern California Edison consider in the cumulative regulatory DOE’s efforts to improve the stated that in DOE’s rulemakings, the burden analysis. The commenter stated Department’s consideration of Department has overestimated the that DOE’s proposed language provides cumulative regulatory burden and to burden on manufacturers and taken a a temporal scope (i.e., within three years reduce complexity as part of the conservative approach. The commenter of the compliance date of another DOE standards rulemaking process. (Rheem, argued that manufacturers need to standard), but argued that there is No. 101 at pp. 1–2) MHI expressed a provide cost data to DOE in a ambiguity as to whether DOE will similar sentiment, stating that it is methodical and historical manner, and consider non-DOE regulations. As an critical that the process by which DOE the Department should consider such example of the problems arising from an sets rules for energy standards must data. (Southern California Edison, April inadequate cumulative regulatory carefully consider the cost impacts and 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at burden analysis, NAFEM challenged the work together with other Federal pp. 178–179) However, in contrast, last commercial refrigeration equipment agencies so that cumulative regulatory Westinghouse strongly disagreed with (CRE) rulemaking, because DOE’s costs are accounted for in the any suggestion that DOE overestimates analysis included equipment that used rulemaking process. (MHI, No. 130 at p. the costs of its rulemakings on industry. refrigerants that EPA no longer 3) These comments are discussed in the The commenter suggested that although permitted. The commenter stressed that paragraphs immediately below, along manufacturers routinely provide data DOE should set forth procedures for with DOE’s response. through industry associations and ensuring robust analyses of the overall As noted, DOE’s past practices (and in confidential manufacturer interviews, burdens and costs on all regulated some cases its NOPR proposal) DOE typically underestimates costs and entities associated with its various regarding cumulative regulatory burden is not transparent as to where they get rulemakings. (NAFEM, No. 122 at pp. 7– were criticized by a number of the their alternate numbers that do not 8) commenters on the Process Rule NOPR. match those provided by manufacturers. In response to the Process Rule NOPR, For example, Lennox faulted DOE’s Westinghouse went on record to state its DOE received a number of actions in recent energy efficiency opinion that DOE has never properly recommendations as to the types of rulemakings for what it characterized as accounted for the costs of regulations in information that should be included in the agency’s consistent failure to any of the rulemakings. (Westinghouse, any cumulative regulatory burden undertake a meaningful analysis of the April 11, 2019 Public Meeting analysis conducted by the Department. cumulative impacts of multiple Transcript at pp. 179–180) For example, Lennox recommended that regulations, beyond merely listing Other commenters, such as AHAM improvements to the Process Rule factors such as the industry conversion and AHRI, expressed concerns about should include an assessment of the costs of separate rulemakings in DOE’s past cumulative regulatory generally known regulatory burdens and isolation (citing DOE’s supplemental burden practices but were optimistic systematic analysis of the cumulative notice of proposed rulemaking for that the Department’s proposal could impacts of any new or amended residential furnaces at 81 FR 65720, lead to improvements in this area. regulation, including economic 65824–65825 (Sept. 23, 2016) as an AHAM commended DOE’s Process Rule modelling to show how multiple example). According to Lennox, DOE’s proposal for its efforts to make its regulatory actions impact manufacturers cumulative regulatory burden analysis analysis of cumulative regulatory and employment related to DOE- has often been a perfunctory exercise, burden clear and explicit. DOE should regulated products. (Lennox, No. 133 at identifying harms to industry and lost always consider cumulative regulatory p. 7) More specifically, BWC urged DOE jobs, but failing to meaningfully weigh burden (as early in the process as to consider cumulative regulatory these harms and instead emphasizing possible) even if it does not ultimately burden from a domestic standpoint at energy saved without properly assessing change the course of regulatory action, the Federal, State, and regional/local whether a standard is economically suggesting that this concept offers a way level. According to the commenter,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8694 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

some of those requirements—such as NAFEM also stated that DOE should other Federal, State, and local certain emission limits (e.g., Ultra-Low incorporate a comprehensive process regulations of which it is aware and NOX for the California Air Quality into its Process Rule that fairly and which are expected to have a significant Management or Air Pollution Control adequately implements the RFA, that impact. Nonetheless, DOE Districts)—can significantly affect fosters engagement with the SBA Office acknowledges that its cumulative allocation of manufacturer resources. of Advocacy, and that contemplates regulatory burden analysis has not been BWC also stated that DOE should either different standards or more as comprehensive nor its impacts as account for situations where reasonable compliance deadlines for transparent as some might have liked. manufacturers might have multiple small business manufacturers subject to The Department also recognizes the rulemakings, possibly of different EPCA standards. (NAFEM, No. 122 at negative effects that excessive regulatory product types, going on at the same pp. 7–8) AHRI also commented that burdens can have on corporate resource time. The commenter added that when cumulative regulatory burden might be allocations. While DOE avers that manufacturers are forced to spend most included in the Regulatory Flexibility cumulative regulatory burden was one of their limited resources on regulatory Act (RFA) analysis, and it urged DOE to of the factors the agency weighed changes, it inhibits work on new, consider relevant governmental actions carefully when considering potential higher-efficiency products. (BWC, No. beyond its own regulations. (AHRI, energy conservation standards, it is 103 at p. 4) April 11, 2019 Public Meeting committed to working towards the NAFEM stated that DOE should Transcript at pp. 177–178) development of a more robust and include within its burden review the Finally, certain commenters focused transparent approach going forward. on the types of impacted entities that scope all of the regulations, even from DOE agrees with AHRI that the should be examined under DOE’s other Federal agencies, that affect the inquiry into cumulative regulatory cumulative regulatory burden analysis, viability of the equipment DOE is burden should begin as early in the which has typically focused on targeting at the TSLs. Specifically, rulemaking process as possible, and the manufacturers of the products/ NAFEM argued that the Regulatory Department continues to welcome data equipment subject to new or amended Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that and information regarding such burdens energy conservation standards. Spire regulations from other Federal agencies during comment opportunities at the made the point that regulatory burden is must be reviewed, noting that the Small various stages of a standards not limited to manufacturers, and other Business Administration (SBA) rulemaking. To NAFEM’s point, DOE publishes the RFA Guide as a tool for entities, such as utilities, also face significant regulatory burdens. does strive to carefully and fully Federal agencies to use to help ensure consider the impacts of its rulemakings compliance with the RFA and related Accordingly, Spire cautioned DOE not to limit its consideration of cumulative on small entities through its analysis laws and Executive Orders (providing in regulatory burdens to manufacturers. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act relevant part that ‘‘[r]ules are conflicting (Spire, April 11, 2019 Public Meeting (RFA) and related Executive Orders. when they impose two conflicting Transcript at p. 177) NAFEM added that Although cumulative regulatory burden regulatory requirements on the same as part of its cumulative regulatory is certainly a consideration in that classes of industry’’). (NAFEM, No. 122 burden analysis, DOE should ensure context, it is a matter of more global at pp. 7–8) that there are no disproportional concern to all manufacturers subject to Commenters also discussed the impacts on small businesses. (NAFEM, the energy conservation standards at mechanism for considering the No. 122 at pp. 7–8) issue. Consequently, DOE does not information obtained through the In response, DOE is both cognizant of believe that the RFA analysis would be cumulative regulatory burden analysis. and sensitive to the cumulative the appropriate locus for a broad Relatedly, the Joint Commenters urged regulatory burden faced by regulated consideration of cumulative regulatory DOE to modify its current rulemaking parties subject to the Department’s burden. In response to NAFEM’s other process so as to incorporate the energy conservation standards. As DOE comments regarding small businesses, financial results of the current fulfills its statutory mandate under DOE notes that it cannot set cumulative regulatory burden analysis EPCA, it is obligated to consider the differentiated standards under EPCA directly into the Manufacturer Impact economic impacts of potential standards (e.g., one set of requirements applicable Analysis. They suggested that this can on manufacturers; however, the to small businesses and another set of be done by adding the combined costs Department’s understanding of those requirements applicable to large of complying with multiple regulations impacts is arguably incomplete unless manufacturers). Any test procedure or into the product conversion costs in the one assesses the overall regulatory energy conservation standard DOE Government Regulatory Impact Analysis environment facing the relevant promulgates must be equitable to all (GRIM) model. The Joint Commenters industry. In addition to the energy industry participants, meaning that all argued that this would be an conservation standard at issue in a given participants, regardless of size, must be appropriate approach to include the rulemaking, a manufacturer or industry held to the same testing and energy costs to manufacturers of responding to may be simultaneously subject to other conservation standards criteria. and monitoring regulations, noting that DOE appliance standards rulemakings, However, additional compliance in the past, AHRI has submitted such regulations of other Federal agencies, as flexibilities may be available to small information to DOE. (Joint Commenters, well as State and regional/local businesses through other means. For No. 112 at p. 14) regulatory requirements. Assembling example, individual manufacturers may Energy Solutions stated that although and analyzing data relevant to petition DOE for a waiver of the it does not object to DOE’s cumulative examining cumulative regulatory applicable test procedures. (See 10 CFR regulatory burden analysis, it burden is a complex task. DOE has 430.27) Furthermore, EPCA provides recommends that such review should generally sought to examine other that a manufacturer whose annual gross not be included in the life-cycle cost appliance standards rulemakings revenue from all of its operations does analysis. (Energy Solutions, April 11, coming into effect within three years of not exceed $8,000,000 may apply for an 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. the anticipated compliance date of the exemption from all or part of an energy 180) standard under development, as well as conservation standard for a period not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8695

longer than 24 months after the effective methodologies underpinning the Commenters on the Process Rule date of a final rule establishing the Appliance Standards Program. NOPR expressed divergent viewpoints standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(t); 10 CFR Finally, in response to Spire’s on the need to conduct a retrospective part 430, subpart E) Additionally, comment regarding the cumulative review in the context of DOE’s section 504 of the Department of Energy regulatory impacts on utilities, DOE appliance standards rulemaking Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, notes that the Appliance Standards process. The following commenters provides authority for the Secretary to Program regulates covered products and supported DOE’s use of a retrospective adjust a rule issued under EPCA in equipment constructed and/or imported review as a mechanism to improve the order to prevent ‘‘special hardship, and certified by manufacturers. DOE’s quality and effectiveness of the agency’s inequity, or unfair distribution of program does not directly regulate rulemakings. BWC recommended that burdens’’ that may be imposed on that entities such as utilities, although they DOE conduct a retrospective review to manufacturer as a result of such rule. may experience some ancillary effects. determine whether products and Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR However, DOE is open to exploring markets have materialized as the part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part potential impacts of its Appliance Department anticipated in its 1003 for additional details. Regarding Standards Program on non- rulemaking, and if not, that DOE NAFEM’s comment about engagement manufacturer third parties as part of the investigate to understand why its with the SBA Office of Advocacy, DOE peer review of DOE’s analytical previous analysis was incorrect. (BWC, notes that that office closely follows and processes and addressing such impacts No. 103 at p. 5) Similarly, Signify regularly participates in DOE’s as necessary and appropriate. expressed support for the concept of appliance standards rulemakings, and 3. Should DOE conduct retrospective retrospective reviews to see what past the Department always appreciates reviews of the energy savings and costs rulemakings actually accomplished and SBA’s involvement and insights. of energy conservation standards? to save time and money by avoiding iterative rulemakings that are not As a general path forward, DOE At the January 9, 2018 Process Rule expects that the scope and timeframe for realizing significant energy savings. RFI public meeting and also in the (Signify, No. 116 at p. 2) APGA also the cumulative regulatory burden Process Rule NOPR, DOE solicited analysis, as well as related economic supported DOE’s use of routine feedback as to whether it should retrospective reviews generally. (APGA, models, will be among the topics conduct a retrospective review of the examined in depth by peer reviewers. No. 106 at p. 13) energy savings and costs for its current GWU emphasized retrospective Based upon the results and conclusions standards as well as associated costs review as essential to making DOE’s of that peer review, DOE may take and benefits as part of any pre- standards rulemaking process more further action, as necessary, to modify rulemaking process that it ultimately effective and transparent. GWU argued its processes accordingly. adopts. 84 FR 3910, 3939 (Feb. 13, that because DOE relies heavily on The issue of the specific mechanism 2019). In responding to the numerous assumptions about future prices of for considering cumulative regulatory comments on this topic, DOE energy and other goods, opportunity burden in DOE’s standard-setting acknowledged that a broad and costs, and producer and consumer process is an interesting question which comprehensive retrospective review of preferences, it is reasonable for DOE to will likely require further consideration DOE’s current and past energy assess the outcomes and effects of its and study. To date and as noted conservation standards could provide past rulemaking so as to better inform previously, DOE has considered significant data for DOE to consider as its next rulemaking. According to GWU, cumulative regulatory burden as a factor part of future standards rulemakings. such review would allow DOE to contributing to the economic impacts on The Department stated that while it measure the efficacy of its assumptions manufacturers, which is one of the recognizes the potential benefits of and to use a real (rather than criteria for assessing the economic conducting this type of retrospective hypothesized) baseline in its next set of justification of a potential energy review on a periodic basis, it also rulemaking analyses. In addition to conservation standard. The Joint recognizes that it faces limits on its own reviewing existing standards and Commenters’ suggestion to somehow resources to conduct the broad and analytical assumptions, GWU also sees incorporate a quantitative assessment of comprehensive analyses that would be the potential for reviewing how new cumulative regulatory burden into the needed to collect and analyze this standards are established by building in MIA through DOE’s GRIM model will information. Accordingly, DOE stated metrics, indicators, and timelines at the have to be evaluated further. Regarding that it is continuing to evaluate the rule’s outset. (GWU, No. 132 at pp. 11– the cautionary statement of Energy prospect of conducting these types of 12) Solutions not to include assessment of reviews, including on a longer-term AGA expressed its belief that DOE cumulative regulatory burden as part of (e.g., 10-year) basis but has not, as of should not commence a new minimum the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, the yet, reached a final decision as to how energy efficiency standards process Department agrees that the two are not to proceed. DOE did note that its until the existing standards have been linked. The LCC analysis estimates of proposed early assessment processes do reviewed. According to AGA, an consumer benefits, whereas cumulative incorporate an element of retrospective effective retrospective review would regulatory burden involves review. That is, by beginning a potential include objective, verifiable manufacturer costs. Regarding the best proceeding to amend existing energy quantification, and if done right, this mechanism for incorporating conservation standards or test sort of retrospective review should cumulative regulatory burden into procedures for a product by asking if enhance DOE’s modeling and analyses DOE’s standard-setting process anything has changed since issuance of and should avoid any material flaws in (including the specific suggestions the last standard or test procedure, DOE DOE’s current modeling. If a raised by these commenters), the will be seeking input in what effectively retrospective review demonstrates that a Department has once again concluded amounts to a retrospective review of the substantial percentage of high-efficiency that this matter would benefit from impact and effectiveness of its most appliances exceeding the current examination by the peer reviewers who recent regulatory action for the product standard within the type (or class) will be examining the analytical at issue. (Id. at 84 FR 3940.) already exists, the commenter reasoned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8696 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

that no new minimum standard would incredibly complicated process and that such forecasting was in actual be needed. AGA further stated that it there is no public data to support such application. (NEMA, April 11, 2019 understands that DOE has limited an analysis. In addition, the Joint Public Meeting Transcript at p. 184) resources to conduct a retrospective Commenters explained that the cost to Southern Company remarked that review and is still evaluating how to manufacturers to develop this data is retrospective review looks good in effectively proceed. In the meantime, very substantial, as the information is theory, but it wondered how it would AGA commented that the retrospective not readily available and is highly work out in practice. Due to statutory review can occur during the comment proprietary and confidential. (Joint cycles (6 and 7 years), Southern period of the applicable early Commenters, No. 112 at p. 15) Along Company reasoned that it is difficult to stakeholder process. AGA argued that these lines, a consultant to AHAM/ judge the impact of the last standard, interested parties can and should AHRI and the Joint Commenters, alerted and it reiterated the need for good provide data demonstrating changes any potential peer reviewers that documentation of assumptions made in since the issuance of the last standard looking at manufacturer costs is an rulemakings. (Southern Company, April or test procedure, and the impact and expensive and difficult process. The 11, 2019 Public Meeting Transcript at p. effectiveness of its most recent commenter took issue with the notion 183) Although BHI pointed out that regulatory action for the product at that DOE’s price forecasts are incorrect most project management systems issue. According to AGA, the and that DOE has underestimated conclude with a lessons learned session Department, as part of the Process Rule, manufacturing costs, arguing that there to identify administrative issues that should commit to such retrospective is no data to support that conclusion. hindered the completion of the project, reviews when data is submitted as part (Everett Shorey, April 11, 2019 Public the company did not recommend a of the stakeholder process. (AGA, No. Meeting Transcript at pp. 185–186) retrospective review. However, BHI 114 at p. 30) However, the Joint Commenters did does recommend reviewing and Citing Executive Order 13563 support a review of what has changed documenting principles and procedures (particularly section 6 of that Order in the cost or energy savings projections that have resulted in effective which contains retrospective review for the design options considered in rulemaking processes. (BHI, No. 135 at requirements), Spire expressed support previous standards. If nothing or very p. 7) for the idea of DOE performing a little has changed, then the Joint Finally, United Cool Air raised an retrospective analysis of its rules. (Spire, Commenters suggested that the example of why it presumably thinks April 11, 2019 Public Meeting presumption should be that the existing Transcript at p. 186; Spire, No. 139 at standards are appropriate, and DOE retrospective review would be necessary p. 24) Spire argued that retrospective should not make a change. These in the context of DOE energy review should be conducted almost commenters concluded that it should be conservation standards rulemakings. every time you are considering new determinative that DOE concluded in More specifically, United Cool Air set efficiency standards to see how well the previous rulemaking that no more- forth a number of allegations regarding estimates of claimed consumer savings stringent standard met its own criteria. DOE’s past approaches with respect to have done. (Spire, April 11, 2019 Public (Joint Commenters, No. 112 at p. 15) the Process Rule. In particular, it Meeting Transcript at p. 182) The Lennox agreed that the Process Rule highlighted what it characterized as commenter suggested that retrospective NOPR’s proposed early assessment for illegal efforts by DOE to avoid the reviews should be conducted on a rulemakings already contains an current requirements of 10 CFR part continuous basis, rather than element of retrospective review and that 430, subpart C, appendix A. In its view, sporadically. (Spire, No. 139 at p. 10) requiring a formal retrospective review that approach resulted in the fabrication Spire also criticized DOE’s use of for all rulemakings would unnecessarily of data to enable DOE to ‘‘rush through’’ Energy Information Agency (EIA) data burden DOE and manufacturers alike. dozens of new regulations. (UCA–1, No. by asserting that these data routinely Moreover, Lennox stated that EPCA 96 at p. 1) The commenter cited to what over-estimate consumer gas price already requires an extensive economic it believed was evidence that DOE did increases and under-estimates justification test (e.g., 42 U.S.C. not have any record of collecting data electricity price increases, and it argued 6295(o)). As a result, Lennox reasoned that the agency purportedly had that DOE’s reliance on these data should that a full and burdensome retrospective collected. (See UCA–1, No. 96, at p. 1 be subject to retrospective review. Spire review of market impacts some six years and related attachments comprising of: also suggested that the appropriate or more before a rulemaking is not (1) A FOIA request to DOE seeking the length of time for analysis should be the necessarily relevant to determining identities of the five small businesses useful lifetime of the product under whether a standard under consideration that DOE had noted in a published consideration. (Spire, No. 139 at p. 22) is economically justified, but instead, Federal Register document related to Other commenters cautioned against DOE should make common sense certification requirements for the initiation of a comprehensive inquiries such as what, if anything, has commercial HVAC, water heater, and retrospective review, which they changed since a previous DOE refrigeration equipment manufacturers, characterized as a complex and costly appliance efficiency standards final rule and (2) the agency’s response stating endeavor. However, even these for that product was adopted. The that no responsive documents were commenters generally supported the commenter stated that this seems in line found (EERE–2017–BT–STD–0062–0096 type of more limited retrospective with the Process Rule NOPR approach (‘‘FOIA Request for 5 Small Business review proposed as part of the early on this issue, and to that extent Lennox Names’’ and ‘‘Final Letter’’))) United assessment provisions in DOE’s Process concurs. (Lennox, No. 133 at p. 6) Cool Air also alleged that small Rule NOPR. Among this group of A few other commenters expressed businesses are not being informed of the commenters, the Joint Commenters support for a more limited or targeted new regulations being developed or stated that they do not support a form of retrospective review. On this having any input into them, which have separate retrospective review process, topic, NEMA stated that it would like to led to small businesses being harmed. arguing that trying to determine what see the models and other forecasting (UCA–1, No. 96 at p. 1) Furthermore, actually happened following the tools put to the test in order to assess the company added that the standards implementation of standards is an how they performed and how accurate being developed only apply to large

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8697

manufacturers who have greater appliance standards rulemakings. One ambit of the peer reviewers’ work vis-a`- resources compared to small businesses aspect of this approach can be vis retrospective review. After carefully (i.e., 1–250 employees). (UCA–1, No. 96 commenced immediately. Namely, considering the results and at p. 1) through its early assessment process, the recommendations coming out of such In response, DOE notes that the agency believes it is possible to conduct peer review, DOE will consider what comments on retrospective review—as a timely and useful assessment of further actions, if any, should be diverse as they were—all seemed to developments since the last rulemaking undertaken in this area. agree that an understanding of the for the product/equipment in question. Regarding other matters raised by impacts of the Department’s past To this end, DOE welcomes comments, commenters on retrospective review, regulations (and the predictive power of data, and other information on costs, DOE does not agree with AGA’s the analytical tools employed in support prices, shipments, and other relevant suggestion that if a retrospective review of the adoption of those regulations) factors, such that the Department might demonstrates that a substantial could contribute to more targeted and refine its analyses and models to better percentage of high-efficiency appliances less burdensome regulations in the prospectively capture the real world exceeding the current standard within future. The disagreement among impacts of its standards. Along with this the type (or class) already exists, then commenters seemed to center on useful feedback, stakeholders may no new minimum standard would be whether it would be feasible to generate provide other information to suggest needed. The criteria for promulgating the requisite data for such an analysis that the technologies, costs, or energy energy conservation standards are (which may be proprietary, if it exists at use profiles for the product/equipment established under EPCA (i.e., significant all) and to do so in a cost-effective at issue have not changed, such that energy savings, technological feasibility, fashion. If those hurdles are amended standards are unlikely to be and economic justification) and do not surmounted, further questions arise as cost-justified, or information suggesting hinge on the percentage of high- to the proper scope of the retrospective just the opposite. (DOE does not agree efficiency products in the marketplace. review (e.g., whether to assess the with the Joint Commenters that a DOE must follow its statutory mandate effectiveness of the Appliance presumption to this effect is for standard setting and may not Standards Program as a whole, of an appropriate, given the variety of substitute other criteria or tests along individual product/equipment type over relevant data to be considered, but the lines the commenter suggests. time, or of a specific, most recent instead, the Department would DOE likewise does not agree with rulemaking) and the appropriate undertake such assessment in each Spire’s criticism of DOE’s use of EIA frequency of such review (e.g., every ten individual case based upon the data in its analyses. Although Spire years, prior to the next round of information before it.) DOE believes that asserts that these data overestimate consumer gas price increases and rulemaking for a given product, on a this is a practical mechanism for the underestimate electricity price continuous basis). However, most near term, because DOE faces a number increases, the Department has commenters appeared to favor an early of statutory deadlines for rulemaking entertained these arguments in past assessment analysis of the technological actions, so it cannot simply hold rulemakings and found them to be and market developments since the last rulemaking in abeyance until a unproven and without merit. EIA data standards rulemaking, which would be comprehensive retrospective review is are based on sound scientific and a limited but practical form of completed, as AGA suggested. retrospective review. economic principles, and they are used DOE is in full accord with such The other, more long-term aspect of on a government-wide basis for a variety sentiments regarding the potential DOE’s approach to retrospective of regulatory analyses, which are not benefits of retrospective review. It analysis will involve consideration of limited to DOE. Thus, DOE does not would be valuable to understand the retrospective review as a topic under the agree that the totality of EIA data should impacts of the Department’s past peer review of DOE’s analytical be subjected to retrospective review or regulatory actions and the predictive methodologies used in the Appliance that the Department should otherwise power of its analytical tools, thereby Standards Program. The peer reviewers be limited in its use of such data. enhancing the quality and effectiveness will examine the feasibility of and Finally, in response to United Cool of DOE’s rulemakings and conserving options for conducting a comprehensive Air, DOE appreciates the commenter’s resources by avoiding iterative retrospective review of the Department’s interest in the Department’s shared goal rulemakings resulting in standards that past appliance standards rulemakings, of increasing the transparency of its do not realize significant energy savings. either at a programmatic or individual decision-making and public The Department also agrees with GWU product level. Peer reviewers will participation through this revised that given DOE’s reliance on consider the scope, costs, and Process Rule. DOE cannot readily assumptions about future prices of anticipated benefits of such address the particulars of the energy and other goods, opportunity retrospective review(s) and seek to commenter’s concerns about the prior costs, and producer and consumer ensure that results generated are rulemaking it mentioned, although the preferences, it would be reasonable to objective and verifiable to the maximum Department suspects that it may have assess the outcomes and effects of its extent practicable. As GWU suggested, involved proprietary data obtained past rulemakings so as to better inform in addition to reviewing existing under nondisclosure agreement(s), the its next rulemaking. As GWU suggests, standards and analytical assumptions, type of information which would not be such review may allow DOE to measure peer reviewers might also consider how subject to release under FOIA. DOE the efficacy of its assumptions and to new standards are established by respectfully disagrees with United Cool use a real (rather than hypothesized) building in metrics, indicators, and Air’s contention that DOE has not baseline in its next set of rulemaking timelines at a rule’s outset. An considered small businesses in its analyses. examination of the efficacy of DOE’s rulemakings (as its RFA analysis After carefully considering these models, assumptions, forecasting, demonstrates), and contrary to the comments, DOE has decided, at least timeframe for analysis, and the commenter’s assertions, DOE’s energy initially, to bifurcate its approach to documentation of principles and conservation standards are applicable to retrospective review of its past procedures all might fall within the all manufacturers of the covered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8698 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

product or covered equipment that is terms of reducing unnecessary accordance with those provisions. the subject of a rulemaking, regardless regulatory burdens and serving the Specifically, with certain limited of the size of that manufacturer. DOE’s Program’s purposes. (Acuity, No. 95 at exceptions, the general rule of proposals are published in the Federal p. 7) NEMA similarly encouraged DOE preemption for energy conservation Register, and thus, they are publicly to continue working on ways to refine standards, before Federal standards available to all interested stakeholders, the CCE process, including doing more have become effective, is that no State including small businesses. DOE to ensure that products coming through regulation, or revision thereof, encourages public participation and ports of entry are compliant. (NEMA, concerning the energy efficiency, energy maintains a transparent process with April 11, 2019 Public Meeting use, or water use of the covered product, open public meetings and the Transcript at pp. 189–190) Finally, at shall be effective with respect to such opportunity for public comment on its the April 11, 2019 public meeting, AHRI covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6297(b)) In proposals and other rulemakings sought clarification as to whether DOE addition, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii), there documents which are published in the would do one global rulemaking when is a specific preemption provision that Federal Register. DOE fully addresses updating its CCE regulations or making applies to new coverage determinations, public comments on its proposal in the changes as individual energy certain lamps (i.e., rough service lamps, final rule. conservation standards and test vibration service lamps, 3-way procedures are done. In this context, incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen 4. Certification, Compliance, and AHRI expressed support for an industry- general service incandescent lamps, and Enforcement (CCE)-Related Issues by-industry approach to addressing shatter-resistant lamps), battery While certification, compliance, and CCE. (AHAM, April 11, 2019 Public chargers, external power supplies, and enforcement (CCE) are important Meeting Transcript at pp. 190–191) At refrigerated beverage vending machines, standards-related matters for DOE, that public meeting, DOE responded which provides that the preemption regulated entities, and other interested that the agency expects to now examine provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297 apply to stakeholders, DOE’s Process Rule NOPR CCE-related issues on an industry-by- products for which energy conservation explained in response to CCE-related industry basis. (DOE, April 11, 2019 standards are to be established under comments on its Process Rule RFI that Public Meeting Transcript at p. 191) subsections (l), (u), and (v) of 42 U.S.C. such matters are largely beyond the In response, DOE affirms its 6295 beginning on the date on which a scope of the current proceeding. commitment to continue examining its final rule is issued by DOE, but any However, DOE stated that it is willing CCE regulations and consider amending State or local standard prescribed or to evaluate this topic in further detail those regulations, as necessary, through enacted for the product before the date through separate rulemaking. (84 FR future rulemaking, and it will on which the final rule is issued shall 3910, 3940) The Department reconsider the substance of these not be preempted until the energy acknowledged that in 2010–2011 when comments in such venues, including the conservation standard established under DOE changed its CCE requirements for port-of-entry issue raised by NEMA. In subsection (l), (u), or (v) of 42 U.S.C. all products in a single rulemaking, that short, however, DOE agrees with Acuity 6295 for the product takes effect. process was unwieldy, particularly that improvements to DOE’s CCE Similarly, with certain limited given the level of interest from various regulations have the potential to exceptions, the general rule of parties and volume of comments complement the improvement made to preemption when Federal standards received (see 76 FR 38287 (June 30, the Process Rule through this final rule. become effective for the product, no 2011) 30). In the Process Rule NOPR, The Department notes that it expects to State regulation concerning the energy DOE explained that its plan is to address CCE-related issues on an efficiency, energy use, or water use of address changes to its CCE regulations, industry-by-industry basis in the such covered product shall be effective and related provisions in 10 CFR parts context of individual product/ with respect to such covered product. 430 and 431, in separate rulemakings equipment rulemakings, for the reasons (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)) DOE may waive with separate public meetings to help previously stated. Federal preemption in appropriate cases consistent with the provisions of 42 manage comments and to allow DOE to 5. Other Issues consider industry-specific issues in a U.S.C. 6297(d). In addition, the statute more focused format. DOE stated that it DOE also received a number of also provides that a State (and its may ultimately adopt different comments on its Process Rule NOPR political subdivisions) requiring testing provisions for different products based that did not fit neatly into any of the or labeling regarding the energy on comments and would make categories discussed previously, so consumption or water use of any appropriate changes to regulatory text to those issues are set forth and addressed covered product may do so only if such be more general or product-specific in a here. requirements are identical to those established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293 final rule. (84 FR 3910, 3940 (Feb. 13, Preemption 2019)) and 42 U.S.C. 6294, respectively. These Acuity sought a clear statement from Despite DOE’s pronouncement that same provisions generally apply to DOE on the preemptive effects of a ‘‘no the Department would be addressing covered commercial and industrial amended standard’’ or ‘‘no new CCE-related issues in separate equipment through operation of 42 standard’’ determination. In the rulemakings, DOE did received a few U.S.C. 6316, except for the provisions at commenter’s view, these situations further comments on this issue. More 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii) which only apply to should trigger Federal preemption, and specifically, Acuity argued that DOE consumer products. States should be prohibited from should streamline and modernize its imposing their own regulations Specific Products Recommended for CCE processes, as improvements in regarding a given covered product. Regulatory Review these areas will help bolster any (Acuity, No. 95 at p. 7) In response, AHRI requested that DOE address four improvements to the Process Rule in EPCA explicitly addresses the regulatory concerns (as set forth in five 30 Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–CE–0014, preemptive effects of regulatory actions exhibits submitted as part of AHRI’s https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2010- taken by DOE under the Appliance written comments) in future BT-CE-0014. Standards Program, and DOE acts in rulemakings or, preferable, by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8699

interpretive rule. These topics included: with the CEC’s assessment that its stated that because the proposed Process (1) Furnace fan test procedure clarifications run afoul of section Rule applies to DOE’s Appliance clarifications; (2) Central air- 323(c)(2) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)); Standards program and both the conditioning and heat pump test instead, section 12 of the Process Rule previously proposed June 17, 2016 DOE procedure calculation corrections; (3) is integrally linked to that statutory standards for such homes (81 FR 39756) Water heater recovery energy efficiency provision. To be clear, DOE is not and the currently pending proposed calculations; and (4) Instantaneous expanding the 180-day timeframe that energy standards for manufactured water heater test procedure tolerances. regulated entities have to begin making homes set forth in the August 3, 2018 (AHRI, No. 117 at p. 1) In response, DOE representations consistent with a new or NODA (83 FR 38073) derive directly appreciates stakeholder efforts to make amended test procedure after from a negotiated rulemaking process the Department aware of identified publication in the Federal Register. conducted by and within the DOE problems with its energy conservation Consequently, DOE is adopting the Appliance Standards Program, the standards or test procedure regulations. proposed Process Rule provisions for The Appliance Standards Program will distinguishing between effective dates pertinent provisions of the Process Rule examine the exhibits submitted by AHRI and compliance dates in this final rule. should apply. (MHAAR, No. 115 at pp. to determine what actions, if any, are 2–3) Judicial Review necessary. In response, DOE’s authority for GWU urged DOE to consider manufactured housing is derived from Effective Date vs. Compliance Date strengthening its commitments toward Clarifications free-standing authority in EISA 2007, process improvement by making the which is separate and apart from the The CEC supported DOE’s attempt to agency accountable in court. Although EPCA provisions governing the distinguish between ‘‘effective dates’’ GWU noted that DOE’s proposal Appliance Standards Program. DOE’s and ‘‘compliance dates’’ but noted that removed the prior provision precluding Process Rule is strictly focused on the the terms are not clearly distinguished judicial review, it suggested that the Appliance Standards Program and in the statute. As a result, it asserted agency should consider an affirmative that DOE’s efforts could lead to further statement subjecting itself to judicial related provisions of EPCA. confusion rather than clarity. The CEC review, a step which studies have Consequently, DOE does not find it added that DOE’s definition of a shown improves the quality of agency appropriate to conflate these two compliance date for a test procedure is analyses. (GWU, No. 132 at pp. 3–4) In programs or the procedures that apply inconsistent with EPCA’s requirement response, DOE does not believe it to them. Furthermore, DOE notes that its that newly prescribed or established test necessary to include a specific judicial manufactured housing rule is currently procedures take effect for representation review provision in the Process Rule, the subject of litigation in the U.S. of energy efficiency or energy use 180 because a comprehensive judicial District Court for the District of days after that procedure has been review provision for covered consumer Columbia, so the Department does not prescribed or established. Consequently, products already exists at 42 U.S.C. wish to undertake any action that would the CEC asserted that DOE’s proposed 6306 (which is extended to covered impact its position in that case. approach would be invalid under EPCA. commercial and industrial equipment (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) (CEC, No. 121 through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)). This Market-Based Approach to Energy at pp. 14–15) In response, DOE provision applies to final rules for Conservation Standards appreciates that the CEC recognizes the energy test procedures, labelling, and Samsung responded to DOE’s difficulty that the agency, regulated conservation standards, and it had been indication in the Process Rule NOPR entities, and other interested used by litigants on a number of that it would continue to contemplate stakeholders have had in distinguishing occasions. Consequently, a separate additional topics to update the Process between ‘‘effective dates’’ and judicial review provision in the Process ‘‘compliance dates’’ under relevant Rule would be largely redundant of the Rule. Along those lines, the commenter provisions of EPCA. However, contrary existing statutory provision. Agencies encouraged DOE to consider a pilot to what the CEC suggests, DOE does not cannot create judicial review when market-based approach to energy believe that allowing such confusion to Congress has not provided it. conservation standards rulemaking persist should be the preferred option. when considering other potential Instead, DOE has sought to clarify this Manufactured Housing revisions to the Process Rule. Samsung matter in the Process Rule through a MHAAR requested that in any final pointed out that in 2018, DOE dedicated section 12. DOE has received Process Rule, DOE expressly apply all considered such innovative approach in many questions along these lines over pertinent procedural protections and the Appliance and Equipment the years, and the Department has safeguards set out in its Process Rule Standards Program Design (82 FR sought to foster a general understanding NOPR to any manufactured housing 56181(Nov. 28, 2017), and it urged DOE that the ‘‘effective date’’ is the point at energy conservation standards or to further pursue that concept that which a rule becomes legally operative revisions to those standards, or any allows the market to drive energy after publication in the Federal Register applicable test procedures developed efficiency, which helps consumers save (typically 60 days after publication) and pursuant to section 413 (42 U.S.C. money. (Samsung, No. 129 at p. 2) In that the ‘‘compliance date’’ is the point 17071) of the Energy Independence and response, DOE appreciates the at which regulated entities must meet Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). commenter’s suggestion to further the requirements of the rule. DOE’s MHAAR pointed out that DOE’s consider market-based approaches to inclusion of such provision in the proposal does not specifically reference energy conservation standards standards development and/or testing Process Rule has not altered the rulemaking. The Department is approach the agency has historically procedures under section 413 of EISA currently reviewing the comments it taken when dealing when giving 2007, concerning energy conservation received on the November 2017 RFI and meaning to the somewhat unclear standards for Federally-regulated statutory language. DOE does not agree manufactured homes. The commenter evaluating potential next steps.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8700 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory C. Economic Analysis National Small Business Association’s Review DOE estimated cost savings for the (NSBA) 2017 Small Business A. Review Under Executive Orders final Process Rule by quantifying the Regulations Survey further states that 12866 and 13563 reduction in administrative burden that although 72 percent of small firms results from new streamlined report having read through proposed This regulatory action is a significant rulemaking procedures, namely, the regulations, the majority of those who regulatory action under section 3(f) of energy savings threshold. DOE do so (63 percent) report that they have Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory quantified these savings by identifying to comply with the rules they read only Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 each of its previous rulemakings that 33 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this half of the time, or less frequently. would not have met the final threshold proposed regulatory action was subject This indicates that the number of and tallying the total administrative to review under the Executive Order by comments submitted on a given rule, or burden associated with each. DOE the Office of Information and Regulatory even the number of affected quantified the average administrative Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of stakeholders, may not adequately burden per rulemaking and forecast how Management and Budget (OMB). capture the number of people who bear many rulemakings per year are likely to administrative burden from DOE’s B. Review Under Executive Orders be affected in the future. rulemakings. In light of the FDA 13771 and 13777 In July 2019, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of data estimate above and NSBA survey data, On January 30, 2017, the President DOE conservatively estimates that 1.75 issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, availability (NODA) outlining the energy savings of each of its energy people read a proposed rule for every ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling comment submitted to the docket. Regulatory Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339 (Jan. 30, conservation standards issued since 2017). That Order states that the policy 1989. DOE used these data, which were The NSBA survey also provides data of the Executive Branch is to be prudent available for public comment, to on the number of hours it takes small and financially responsible in the identify rules that would be affected by business to submit comments.34 DOE expenditure of funds, from both public a potential threshold at the max tech uses the weighted average of these and private sources. More specifically, and the adopted standard level. Based survey data to estimate the average time the Order provides that it is essential to on this review, DOE expects that it takes a small business to submit a manage the costs associated with the approximately half of the rulemakings comment on a DOE regulation. DOE governmental imposition of that fail to meet the significant energy assumes that other stakeholders, such as requirements necessitating private threshold will do so at the outset of trade associations, spend approximately expenditures of funds required to rulemaking (i.e. the RFI/NODA stage) 10 hours on writing and submitting comply with Federal regulations. This and half will do so at the proposed rule comments (to include time spend final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 (i.e., the NOPR/NOPD) stage. DOE assessed administrative burden collecting data from members and deregulatory action. Details on the potential test follow-up). estimated cost savings of this proposed by aggregating the key regulatory DOE monetizes the cost savings using rule can be found in the rule’s economic documents in each regulatory docket analysis. and estimating the average word count the cost of labor to represent the In addition, on February 24, 2017, the using several samples from each docket. opportunity cost of participating in a President issued Executive Order 13777, For regulations that include several rulemaking. For industry wages, we use ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform different product types, DOE broke out 2016 mean wage estimates from the Agenda.’’ 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). the portion of the docket attributable to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National The Order requires the head of each the product in question. Industry-Specific Occupational agency to designate an agency official as DOE used methodology established by Employment and Wage Estimates for the its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). the U.S. Food and Drug Administration household appliance manufacturing Each RRO is tasked with overseeing the (FDA) to estimate the administrative industry. The table below shows the implementation of regulatory reform burden of reading DOE regulatory mean hourly wages, the fully loaded documents. DOE additionally estimates initiatives and policies to ensure that wages, and the public meeting and the administrative burden of attending individual agencies effectively carry out public comment-weighted wages that public meetings and submitting regulatory reforms, consistent with are used in this analysis. (For example, comments. The Department of Health applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 DOE assumes that compliance officers requires the establishment of a and Human Services provides guidelines regarding the reading speed are less involved in attending public regulatory task force at each agency. The meetings than they are in reading and regulatory task force is required to make of regulation reviewers, which assumes a normal distribution with a mean of commenting on regulations.) recommendations to the agency head 31 regarding the repeal, replacement, or 225 words per minute. DOE estimated modification of existing regulations, administrative burden at the mean Requirements: Preliminary Regulatory Impact reading speed and at one standard Analysis; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; consistent with applicable law. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis. Docket To implement these Executive Orders, deviation to provide a range. In implementing this guideline, FDA No. FDA–2019–N–2854. Page 35. https:// the Department, among other actions, www.fda.gov/about-fda/economic-impact-analyses- issued a request for information (RFI) recognizes that due to the complexity of fda-regulations/premarket-tobacco-product- seeking public comment on how best to some rules multiple individuals may applications-and-recordkeeping-requirements- read a rule for a single stakeholder (for proposed-rule-preliminary. achieve meaningful burden reduction 33 example, 2 lawyers for a small firm or 2017 NSBA Small Business Regulations while continuing to achieve the 32 SURVEY. Page 10. https://www.nsba.biz/wp- Department’s regulatory objectives. 82 4 lawyers for a large firm). The content/uploads/2017/01/Regulatory-Survey- FR 24582 (May, 30, 2017). In response 2017.pdf. 31 https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/242926/ 34 2017 NSBA Small Business Regulations to this RFI, the Department received HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf Table 4.1. SURVEY. Page 11. https://www.nsba.biz/wp- numerous and extensive comments 32 U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Premarket content/uploads/2017/01/Regulatory-Survey- pertaining to DOE’s Process Rule. Tobacco Product Applications and Recordkeeping 2017.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8701

NAICS Occupation 335200 Mean hourly Fully-loaded (Household Appliance Manufacturing) wage wage

Management Occupations ...... $63.97 $127.94 Compliance Officers ...... 23.90 47.80 Engineers ...... 41.14 82.28 Lawyers * ...... 83.73 167.46

DOE anticipates that the changes $53.5 million and $59.7 million savings of between $0.5 million to $0.6 finalized in this rule will reduce total (undiscounted) for annualized cost million, discounted at 7%. administrative burdens by between

TABLE NUMBER—TOTAL AND ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS

Primary Low-end estimate High-end

Total Savings (2016$): ...... $53,505,672 $56,189,431 $59,698,963 NPV, 3% ...... 16,907,207 17,755,245 18,864,219 NPV, 7% ...... 7,634,859 8,017,811 8,518,595 Annualized Savings (7%) ...... 534,440 561,247 596,302

D. Review Under the Regulatory E. Review Under the Paperwork collection of information requirement Flexibility Act Reduction Act of 1995 that would trigger the PRA. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Manufacturers of covered products/ F. Review Under the National U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the equipment must certify to DOE that Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement their products comply with any In this document, DOE revises its Fairness Act of 1996) requires applicable energy conservation Process Rule, which outlines the preparation of an initial regulatory standards. In certifying compliance, procedures DOE will follow in flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule manufacturers must test their products conducting rulemakings for new or that by law must be proposed for public according to the DOE test procedures for amended energy conservation standards comment and a final regulatory such products/equipment, including and test procedures for covered flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such any amendments adopted for those test consumer products and commercial/ rule that an agency adopts as a final procedures, on the date that compliance industrial equipment. DOE has rule, unless the agency certifies that the is required. DOE has established determined that this rule falls into a rule, if promulgated, will not have a regulations for the certification and class of actions that are categorically recordkeeping requirements for all excluded from review under the significant economic impact on a covered consumer products and National Environmental Policy Act of substantial number of small entities. A commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s regulatory flexibility analysis examines (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, implementing regulations at 10 CFR part the impact of the rule on small entities 2015). The collection-of-information 1021. Specifically, this final rule is and considers alternative ways of requirement for certification and strictly procedural and is covered by the reducing negative effects. Also, as recordkeeping is subject to review and Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part required by Executive Order 13272, approval by OMB under the Paperwork 1021, subpart D, paragraph A6. ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement Accordingly, neither an environmental in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 has been approved by OMB under OMB assessment nor an environmental (August 16, 2002), DOE published control number 1910–1400. Public impact statement is required. procedures and policies on February 19, reporting burden for the certification is G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 2003, to ensure that the potential estimated to average 30 hours per impacts of its rules on small entities are response, including the time for Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ properly considered during the DOE reviewing instructions, searching 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE existing data sources, gathering and certain requirements on Federal has made its procedures and policies maintaining the data needed, and agencies formulating and implementing available on the Office of the General completing and reviewing the collection policies or regulations that preempt Counsel’s website at: http://energy.gov/ of information. State law or that have Federalism gc/office-general-counsel. implications. The Executive Order Notwithstanding any other provision requires agencies to examine the Because this final rule does not of the law, no person is required to constitutional and statutory authority directly regulate small entities but respond to, nor shall any person be supporting any action that would limit instead only imposes procedural subject to a penalty for failure to comply the policymaking discretion of the requirements on DOE itself, DOE with, a collection of information subject States and to carefully assess the certifies that this final rule will not have to the requirements of the PRA, unless necessity for such actions. The a significant economic impact on a that collection of information displays a Executive Order also requires agencies substantial number of small entities, currently valid OMB Control Number. to have an accountable process to and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility Specifically, this final rule, ensure meaningful and timely input by analysis is required. Mid-Tex Elec. Co- addressing clarifications to the Process State and local officials in the Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 773 F.2d 327 (1985). Rule itself, does not contain any development of regulatory policies that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8702 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

have Federalism implications. On meets the relevant standards of K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 March 14, 2000, DOE published a Executive Order 12988. Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, statement of policy describing the I. Review Under the Unfunded ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference intergovernmental consultation process Mandates Reform Act of 1995 with Constitutionally Protected Property it will follow in the development of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has DOE has determined that this final rule examined this final rule and has Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires will not result in any takings that might determined that it will not have a each Federal agency to assess the effects require compensation under the Fifth substantial direct effect on the States, on of Federal regulatory actions on State, Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. the relationship between the national local, and Tribal governments and the government and the States, or on the private sector. (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 L. Review Under the Treasury and distribution of power and (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531)) For a General Government Appropriations responsibilities among the various proposed regulatory action likely to Act, 2001 result in a rule that may cause the levels of government. It will primarily Section 515 of the Treasury and affect the procedure by which DOE expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the General Government Appropriations develops proposed rules to revise Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides energy conservation standards and test private sector of $100 million or more for Federal agencies to review most procedures. EPCA governs and in any one year (adjusted annually for disseminations of information to the prescribes Federal preemption of State inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires public under information quality regulations that are the subject of DOE’s a Federal agency to publish a written guidelines established by each agency regulations adopted pursuant to the statement that estimates the resulting pursuant to general guidelines issued by statute. In such cases, States can costs, benefits, and other effects on the OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published petition DOE for exemption from such national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and preemption to the extent, and based on The UMRA also requires a Federal DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. agency to develop an effective process FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 6297(d)) Therefore, Executive Order to permit timely input by elected 13132 requires no further action. officers of State, local, and Tribal reviewed this final rule under the OMB governments on a proposed ‘‘significant and DOE guidelines and has concluded H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 intergovernmental mandate,’’ and that it is consistent with the applicable Regarding the review of existing requires an agency plan for giving notice policies in those guidelines. regulations and the promulgation of and opportunity for timely input to M. Review Under Executive Order 13211 new regulations, section 3(a) of potentially affected small governments Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice before establishing any requirements Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), that might significantly or uniquely Concerning Regulations That imposes on Federal agencies the general affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE Significantly Affect Energy Supply, duty to adhere to the following published a statement of policy on its Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting process for intergovernmental 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to errors and ambiguity; (2) write consultation under UMRA. (62 FR prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 12820) (This policy is also available at Statement of Energy Effects for any provide a clear legal standard for http://www.energy.gov/gc/office- proposed significant energy action. A affected conduct rather than a general general-counsel under ‘‘Guidance & ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as standard; and (4) promote simplification Opinions’’ (Rulemaking)) DOE any action by an agency that and burden reduction. Regarding the examined the final rule according to promulgates or is expected to lead to review required by section 3(a), section UMRA and its statement of policy and promulgation of a final rule, and that: 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 has determined that the rule contains (1) Is a significant regulatory action specifically requires that Executive neither an intergovernmental mandate, under Executive Order 12866, or any agencies make every reasonable effort to nor a mandate that may result in the successor order; and (2) is likely to have ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly expenditure by State, local, and Tribal a significant adverse effect on the specifies the preemptive effect, if any; governments, in the aggregate, or by the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) clearly specifies any effect on private sector, of $100 million or more (3) is designated by the Administrator of existing Federal law or regulation; (3) in any year. Accordingly, no further OIRA as a significant energy action. For provides a clear legal standard for assessment or analysis is required under any proposed significant energy action, affected conduct while promoting UMRA. the agency must give a detailed simplification and burden reduction; (4) statement of any adverse effects on specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) J. Review Under the Treasury and energy supply, distribution, or use adequately defines key terms; and (6) General Government Appropriations should the proposal be implemented, addresses other important issues Act, 1999 and of reasonable alternatives to the affecting clarity and general Section 654 of the Treasury and action and their expected benefits on draftsmanship under any guidelines General Government Appropriations energy supply, distribution, and use. issued by the Attorney General. Section Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires DOE has tentatively concluded that 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Federal agencies to issue a Family the regulatory action in this document, Executive agencies to review regulations Policymaking Assessment for any rule which makes clarifications to the in light of applicable standards in that may affect family well-being. This Process Rule that guides the Department sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine final rule will not have any impact on in proposing energy conservation whether they are met or it is the autonomy or integrity of the family standards is not a significant energy unreasonable to meet one or more of as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has action because it would not have a them. DOE has completed the required concluded that it is not necessary to significant adverse effect on the supply, review and has determined that, to the prepare a Family Policymaking distribution, or use of energy, nor has it extent permitted by law, the final rule Assessment. been designated as a significant energy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8703

action by the Administrator of OIRA. determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Therefore, it is not a significant energy rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Consumers action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory V. Approval of the Office of the prepared a Statement of Energy Effects Approaches Secretary 17. Cross-cutting Analytical Assumptions for this final rule. The Secretary of Energy has approved 1. Objectives N. Review Consistent With OMB’s publication of this final rule. Information Quality Bulletin for Peer This appendix establishes procedures, List of Subjects interpretations, and policies that DOE will Review follow in the consideration and promulgation On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 10 CFR Part 430 of new or revised appliance energy conservation standards and test procedures consultation with the Office of Science Administrative practice and and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued under the Energy Policy and Conservation procedure, Confidential business Act (EPCA). This appendix applies to both its Final Information Quality Bulletin information, Energy conservation, for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR covered consumer products and covered Household appliances, Imports, commercial/industrial equipment. The 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin Incorporation by reference, Department’s objectives in establishing these establishes that certain scientific Intergovernmental relations, Small procedures include: information shall be peer reviewed by businesses, Test procedures. (a) Provide for early input from qualified specialists before it is stakeholders. The Department seeks to disseminated by the Federal 10 CFR Part 431 provide opportunities for public input early Government, including influential Administrative practice and in the rulemaking process so that the scientific information related to agency procedure, Confidential business initiation and direction of rulemakings is regulatory actions. The purpose of the informed by comment from interested information, Incorporation by reference, parties. Under the procedures established by bulletin is to enhance the quality and Reporting and recordkeeping credibility of the Government’s this appendix, DOE will seek early input requirements, Test procedures. from interested parties in determining scientific information. Under the whether establishing new or amending Bulletin, the energy conservation Signed in Washington, DC, on December 31, 2019. existing energy conservation standards will standards rulemaking analyses are Daniel R Simmons, result in significant savings of energy and is ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ economically justified and technologically which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and feasible. In the context of test procedure information the agency reasonably can Renewable Energy. rulemakings, DOE will seek early input from determine will have or does have a clear For the reasons stated in the interested parties in determining whether— and substantial impact on important preamble, DOE amends parts 430 and (1) Establishing a new or amending an public policies or private sector 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal existing test procedure will better measure decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. Regulations as set forth below: the energy efficiency, energy use, water use In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE (as specified in EPCA), or estimated annual PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION operating cost of a covered product/ conducted formal in-progress peer equipment during a representative average reviews of the energy conservation PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS use cycle or period of use (for consumer standards development process and products); and analyses and has prepared a Peer ■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 (2) Will not be unduly burdensome to Review Report pertaining to the energy continues to read as follows: conduct. conservation standards rulemaking (b) Increase predictability of the analyses. Generation of this report Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. rulemaking timetable. The Department seeks involved a rigorous, formal, and 2461 note. to make informed, strategic decisions about documented evaluation using objective ■ 2. Appendix A to subpart C of part how to deploy its resources on the range of 430 is revised to read as follows: possible standards and test procedure criteria and qualified and independent development activities, and to announce reviewers to make a judgment as to the Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430— these prioritization decisions so that all technical/scientific/business merit, the Procedures, Interpretations, and interested parties have a common actual or anticipated results, and the Policies for Consideration of New or expectation about the timing of different productivity and management Revised Energy Conservation Standards rulemaking activities. Further, DOE will offer the opportunity to provide input on the effectiveness of programs and/or and Test Procedures for Consumer projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation prioritization of rulemakings through a Products and Certain Commercial/ request for comment as DOE begins Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Industrial Equipment Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been preparation of its Regulatory Agenda each 1. Objectives spring. disseminated and is available at the (c) Eliminate problematic design options following website: http:// 2. Scope 3. Mandatory Application of the Process Rule early in the process. The Department seeks to www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ eliminate from consideration, early in the _ _ 4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity appliance standards/peer review.html. 5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings process, any design options that present Because available data, models, and 6. Process for Developing Energy unacceptable problems with respect to technological understanding have Conservation Standards manufacturability, consumer utility, or changed since 2007, DOE is committing 7. Policies on Selection of Standards safety, so that the detailed analysis can focus in this proceeding to engage in a new 8. Test Procedures only on viable design options. Under the peer review of its analytical 9. ASHRAE Equipment procedures in this appendix, DOE will eliminate from consideration design options methodologies. 10. Direct Final Rules 11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process if it concludes that manufacture, installation O. Congressional Notification 12. Principles for Distinguishing Between or service of the design will be impractical, Effective and Compliance Dates or that the design option will have a material As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 13. Principles for the Conduct of the adverse impact on the utility of the product, report to Congress on the promulgation Engineering Analysis or if the design option will have a material of this rule prior to its effective date. 14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on adverse impact on safety or health. DOE will The report will state that it has been Manufacturers also eliminate from consideration proprietary

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8704 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

design options that represent a unique 4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity completing a coverage determination, DOE pathway to achieving a given efficiency level. (a) In establishing its priorities for finds it necessary and appropriate to expand This screening will be done at the outset of undertaking energy conservation standards or reduce the scope of coverage, a new a rulemaking. and test procedure rulemakings, DOE will coverage determination process will be (d) Fully consider non-regulatory consider the following factors, consistent initiated and finalized prior to moving approaches. The Department seeks to with applicable legal obligations: forward with the test procedure or standards understand the effects of market forces and (1) Potential energy savings; rulemaking. voluntary programs on encouraging the (2) Potential social and private, including 6. Process for Developing Energy purchase of energy efficient products so that environmental or energy security, benefits; Conservation Standards the incremental impacts of a new or revised (3) Applicable deadlines for rulemakings; This section describes the process to be standard can be accurately assessed and the (4) Incremental DOE resources required to used in developing energy conservation Department can make informed decisions complete the rulemaking process; (5) Other relevant regulatory actions standards for covered products and about where standards and voluntary equipment other than those covered programs can be used most effectively. DOE affecting the products/equipment; (6) Stakeholder recommendations; equipment subject to ASHRAE/IES Standard will continue to support voluntary efforts by 90.1. manufacturers, retailers, utilities, and others (7) Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new or revised standards; (a) Early Assessment. (1) As the first step to increase product/equipment efficiency. in any proceeding to consider establishing or (e) Conduct thorough analysis of impacts. (8) Status of required changes to test procedures; and amending any energy conservation standard, In addition to understanding the aggregate (9) Other relevant factors. DOE will publish a document in the Federal social and private costs and benefits of (b) DOE will offer the opportunity to Register announcing that DOE is considering standards, the Department seeks to provide input on prioritization of initiating a rulemaking proceeding. As part of understand the distribution of those costs rulemakings through a request for comment that document, DOE will solicit submission and benefits among consumers, as DOE begins preparation of its Regulatory of related comments, including data and manufacturers, and others, as well as the Agenda each spring. information on whether DOE should proceed uncertainty associated with these analyses of with the rulemaking, including whether any costs and benefits, so that any adverse 5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings new or amended rule would be cost effective, impacts on subgroups and uncertainty (a) DOE has discretion to conduct economically justified, technologically concerning any adverse impacts can be fully proceedings to determine whether additional feasible, or would result in a significant considered in selecting a standard. Pursuant consumer products and commercial/ savings of energy. Based on the information to this appendix, the analyses will consider industrial equipment should be covered received in response to the notice and its the variability of impacts on significant under EPCA if certain statutory criteria are own analysis, DOE will determine whether to groups of manufacturers and consumers in met. (42 U.S.C. 6292 and 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) for proceed with a rulemaking for a new or addition to aggregate social and private costs consumer products; 42 U.S.C. 6312 for amended energy conservation standard or an and benefits, report the range of uncertainty commercial/industrial equipment) amended test procedure. If DOE determines associated with these impacts, and take into (b) If DOE determines to initiate the that a new or amended standard would not account cumulative impacts of regulation on coverage determination process, it will first satisfy applicable statutory criteria, DOE manufacturers. The Department will also publish a notice of proposed determination, would engage in notice and comment rulemaking to issue a determination that a conduct appropriate analyses to assess the providing an opportunity for public comment of not less than 60 days, in which DOE will new or amended standard is not warranted. impact that new or amended test procedures explain how such products/equipment that it If DOE receives sufficient information will have on manufacturers and consumers. seeks to designate as ‘‘covered’’ meet the suggesting it could justify a new or amended (f) Use transparent and robust analytical statutory criteria for coverage and why such standard or the information received is methods. The Department seeks to use coverage is ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to inconclusive with regard to the statutory qualitative and quantitative analytical carry out the purposes of EPCA. In the case criteria, DOE would undertake the methods that are fully documented for the of commercial equipment, DOE will follow preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or public and that produce results that can be the same process, except that the Department amend an energy conservation standard, as explained and reproduced, so that the must demonstrate that coverage of the discussed further in paragraph (a)(2) of this analytical underpinnings for policy decisions equipment type is ‘‘necessary’’ to carry out section. on standards are as sound and well-accepted the purposes of EPCA. (2) If the Department determines it is as possible. (c) DOE will publish its final decision on appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, (g) Support efforts to build consensus on coverage as a separate notice, an action that the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to standards. The Department seeks to will be completed prior to the initiation of issue or amend an energy conservation encourage development of consensus any test procedure or energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a proposals for new or revised standards standards rulemaking (i.e., DOE will not Framework Document and Preliminary because standards with such broad-based issue any Requests for Information (RFIs), Analysis, or an Advance Notice of Proposed support are likely to balance effectively the Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), or any Rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for various interests affected by such standards. other mechanism to gather information for Information (RFI) and Notices of Data the purpose of initiating a rulemaking to Availability (NODA) could be issued, as 2. Scope establish a test procedure or energy appropriate, in addition to these preliminary- The procedures, interpretations, and conservation standard for the proposed stage documents. policies described in this appendix apply to covered product/equipment prior to (3) In those instances where the early rulemakings concerning new or revised finalization of the coverage determination). If assessment either suggested that a new or Federal energy conservation standards and DOE determines that coverage is warranted, amended energy conservation standard might test procedures, and related rule documents DOE will proceed with its typical rulemaking be justified or in which the information was (i.e., coverage determinations) for consumer process for both test procedures and inconclusive on this point, and DOE products in Part A and commercial and standards. Specifically, DOE will finalize undertakes the preliminary stages of a industrial equipment under Part A–1 of the coverage for a product/equipment at least 180 rulemaking to establish or amend an energy Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), days prior to publication of a proposed rule conservation standard, DOE may still as amended, except covered ASHRAE to establish a test procedure. And, DOE will ultimately determine that such a standard is equipment in Part A–1 are governed complete the test procedure rulemaking at not economically justified, technologically separately under section 9 in this appendix. least 180 days prior to publication of a feasible or would not result in a significant proposed energy conservation standard. savings of energy. Therefore, DOE will 3. Mandatory Application of the Process Rule (d) If, during the substantive rulemaking examine the potential costs and benefits and The rulemaking procedures established in proceedings to establish test procedures or energy savings potential of a new or amended this appendix are binding on DOE. energy conservation standards after energy conservation standard at the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8705

preliminary stage of the rulemaking. DOE publishing a proposed rule to establish or Document (TSD) to accompany the notes that it will, consistent with its statutory amend standards, DOE will identify the appropriate rulemaking documents. obligations, consider both cost effectiveness product/equipment categories and design (1) Identification of engineering analytical and economic justification when issuing a options to be analyzed in detail, as well as methods and tools. DOE will select the determination not to amend a standard. those design options to be eliminated from specific engineering analysis tools (or (b) Significant Savings of Energy. (1) In further consideration. During the pre- multiple tools, if necessary to address evaluating the prospects of proposing a new proposal stages of the rulemaking, interested uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the or amended standard—or in determining that parties may be consulted to provide design options identified as a result of the no new or amended standard is needed— information on key issues through a variety screening analysis. DOE will first look to the projected energy of rulemaking documents. The preliminary (2) Engineering and life-cycle cost analysis savings that are likely to result. DOE will stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an of design options. DOE and its contractor will determine as a preliminary matter whether energy conservation standard that DOE will perform engineering and life-cycle cost the rulemaking has the potential to result in undertake will be a framework document and analyses of the design options. ‘‘significant energy savings.’’ If the preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of (3) Review by stakeholders. Interested rulemaking passes the significant energy proposed rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for parties will have the opportunity to review savings threshold, DOE will then compare Information (RFI) and Notice of Data the results of the engineering and life-cycle these projected savings against the Availability (NODA) could also be issued, as cost analyses. If appropriate, a public technological feasibility of and likely costs appropriate. workshop will be conducted to review these necessary to meet the new or amended (2) Identification and screening of design results. The analyses will be revised as standards needed to achieve these energy options. During the pre-NOPR phase of the appropriate on the basis of this input. savings. rulemaking process, the Department will (4) New information relating to the factors (2) Under its significant energy savings develop a list of design options for used for screening design options. If further analysis, DOE will examine both the total consideration. Initially, the candidate design information or analysis leads to a amount of projected energy savings and the options will encompass all those determination that a design option, or a relative percentage decrease in energy usage technologies considered to be technologically combination of design options, has that could be obtained from establishing or feasible. Following the development of this unacceptable impacts, that design option or amending energy conservation standards for initial list of design options, DOE will review combination of design options will not be a given covered product or equipment. This each design option based on the factors included in a candidate standard level. examination will be based on the applicable described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section (5) Selection of candidate standard levels. product or equipment type as appropriate and the policies stated in section 7 of this Based on the results of the engineering and and will not be used to selectively examine Appendix (i.e. Policies on Selection of life-cycle cost analysis of design options and classes or sub-classes of products and Standards). The reasons for eliminating or the policies stated in paragraph (c) of this equipment solely for the purposes of retaining any design option at this stage of section, DOE will select the candidate projecting whether potential energy savings the process will be fully documented and standard levels for further analysis. would satisfy (or not satisfy) the applicable published as part of the NOPR and as (e) Pre-NOPR Stage—(1) Documentation of thresholds detailed in this rule. Under the appropriate for a given rule, in the pre-NOPR decisions on candidate standard selection. first step of this approach, the projected documents. The technologically feasible (i) If the early assessment and screening energy savings from a potential maximum design options that are not eliminated in this analysis indicates that continued technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) screening will be considered further in the development of a standard is appropriate, the standard will be evaluated against a Engineering Analysis described in paragraph Department will publish either: threshold of 0.3 quads of site energy saved (d) of this section. (A) A notice accompanying a framework over a 30-year period. (3) Factors for screening of design options. document and, subsequently, a preliminary (3) If the projected max-tech energy savings The factors for screening design options analysis or; does not meet or exceed this threshold, those include: (B) An ANOPR. The notice document will max-tech savings would then be compared to (i) Technological feasibility. Technologies be published in the Federal Register, with the total energy usage of the covered product incorporated in commercial products or in accompanying documents referenced and or equipment to calculate a potential working prototypes will be considered posted in the appropriate docket. percentage reduction in energy usage. technologically feasible. (ii) If DOE determines at any point in the (4) If this comparison does not yield a (ii) Practicability to manufacture, install pre-NOPR stage that no candidate standard reduction in site energy use of at least 10 and service. If mass production of a level is likely to produce the maximum percent over a 30-year period, the analysis technology under consideration for use in improvement in energy efficiency that is both will end, and DOE will propose to determine commercially-available products (or technologically feasible and economically that no significant energy savings would equipment) and reliable installation and justified or constitute significant energy likely result from setting new or amended servicing of the technology could be achieved savings, that conclusion will be announced standards. on the scale necessary to serve the relevant in the Federal Register with an opportunity (5) If either one of the thresholds described market at the time of the effective date of the for public comment provided to stakeholders. in paragraphs (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section standard, then that technology will be In such cases, the Department will proceed is reached, DOE will conduct analyses to considered practicable to manufacture, with a rulemaking that proposes not to adopt ascertain whether a standard can be install and service. new or amended standards. prescribed that produces the maximum (iii) Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or (2) Public comment and hearing. The improvement in energy efficiency that is both Product Availability. length of the public comment period for pre- technologically feasible and economically (iv) Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety. NOPR rulemaking documents will vary justified and still constitutes significant (v) Unique-Pathway Proprietary depending upon the circumstances of the energy savings (using the same criteria of Technologies. If a design option utilizes particular rulemaking, but will not be less either 0.3 quad of aggregate site energy proprietary technology that represents a than 75 calendar days. For such documents, savings or a 10-percent decrease in energy unique pathway to achieving a given DOE will determine whether a public hearing use, as measured in quads—both over a 30- efficiency level, that technology will not be is appropriate. year period) at the level determined to be considered further. (3) Revisions based on comments. Based on economically justified. (d) Engineering analysis of design options consideration of the comments received, any (6) In the case of ASHRAE equipment, DOE and selection of candidate standard levels. necessary changes to the engineering analysis will examine the potential energy savings After design options are identified and or the candidate standard levels will be involved across the equipment category at screened, DOE will perform the engineering made. issue. analysis and the benefit/cost analysis and (f) Analysis of impacts and selection of (c) Design options—(1) General. Once the select the candidate standard levels based on proposed standard level. After the pre-NOPR Department has initiated a rulemaking for a these analyses. The results of the analyses stage, if DOE has determined preliminarily specific product/equipment but before will be published in a Technical Support that a candidate standard level is likely to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8706 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

produce the maximum improvement in (vi) Impacts on the environment. The EPCA and do not preclude DOE’s energy efficiency that is both technologically analysis of environmental impacts will consideration of any other information feasible and economically justified or include estimated impacts on emissions of consistent with the relevant statutory criteria. constitute significant energy savings, carbon and relevant criteria pollutants, and The Department will consider pertinent economic analyses of the impacts of the impacts on pollution control costs. information in determining whether a new or candidate standard levels will be conducted. (vii) Impacts of non-regulatory approaches. revised standard is consistent with the The Department will propose new or The analysis of energy savings and consumer statutory criteria. amended standards based on the results of impacts will incorporate an assessment of the (b) Screening design options. These factors the impact analysis. impacts of market forces and existing will be considered as follows in determining (1) Identification of issues for analysis. The voluntary programs in promoting product/ whether a design option will receive any Department, in consideration of comments equipment efficiency, usage, and related further consideration: received, will identify issues that will be characteristics in the absence of updated (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies examined in the impacts analysis. efficiency standards. that are not incorporated in commercial (2) Identification of analytical methods and (viii) New information relating to the products or in commercially-viable, existing tools. DOE will select the specific economic factors used for screening design options. prototypes will not be considered further. analysis tools (or multiple tools if necessary (g) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—(1) (2) Practicability to manufacture, install to address uncertainty) to be used in the Documentation of decisions on proposed and service. If it is determined that mass analysis of the candidate standard levels. standard selection. The Department will production of a technology in commercial (3) Analysis of impacts. DOE will conduct publish a NOPR in the Federal Register that products and reliable installation and the analysis of the impacts of candidate proposes standard levels and explains the servicing of the technology could not be standard levels. basis for the selection of those proposed achieved on the scale necessary to serve the (4) Factors to be considered in selecting a levels, and will post on its website a draft relevant market at the time of the compliance proposed standard. The factors to be TSD documenting the analysis of impacts. date of the standard, then that technology considered in selection of a proposed The draft TSD will also be posted in the will not be considered further. standard include: appropriate docket on http:// (3) Impacts on product utility. If a (i) Impacts on manufacturers. The analysis www.regulations.gov. As required by 42 technology is determined to have significant of private manufacturer impacts will include: U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) of EPCA, the NOPR also adverse impact on the utility of the product/ Estimated impacts on cash flow; assessment will describe the maximum improvement in equipment to subgroups of consumers, or of impacts on manufacturers of specific energy efficiency or maximum reduction in result in the unavailability of any covered categories of products/equipment and small energy use that is technologically feasible product type with performance manufacturers; assessment of impacts on and, if the proposed standards would not characteristics (including reliability), manufacturers of multiple product-specific achieve these levels, the reasons for features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that Federal regulatory requirements, including proposing different standards. are substantially the same as products efficiency standards for other products and (2) Public comment and hearing. There generally available in the U.S. at the time, it regulations of other agencies; and impacts on will be not less than 75 days for public will not be considered further. manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and comment on the NOPR, with at least one (4) Safety of technologies. If it is loss of capital investment. public hearing or workshop. (42 U.S.C. determined that a technology will have (ii) Private Impacts on consumers. The 6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6306). significant adverse impacts on health or analysis of consumer impacts will include: (3) Revisions to impact analyses and safety, it will not be considered further. Estimated private energy savings impacts on selection of final standard. Based on the (5) Unique-pathway proprietary consumers based on national average energy public comments received, DOE will review technologies. If a technology has proprietary prices and energy usage; assessments of the proposed standard and impact analyses, protection and represents a unique pathway impacts on subgroups of consumers based on and make modifications as necessary. If to achieving a given efficiency level, it will major regional differences in usage or energy major changes to the analyses are required at not be considered further, due to the prices and significant variations in this stage, DOE will publish a Supplemental potential for monopolistic concerns. installation costs or performance; sensitivity Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR), (c) Identification of candidate standard analyses using high and low discount rates when required. DOE may also publish a levels. Based on the results of the engineering reflecting both private transactions and social NODA or RFI, where appropriate. and cost/benefit analyses of design options, discount rates and high and low energy price (h) Final Rule. The Department will DOE will identify the candidate standard forecasts; consideration of changes to product publish a Final Rule in the Federal Register levels for further analysis. Candidate utility, changes to purchase rate of products, that promulgates standard levels, responds to standard levels will be selected as follows: and other impacts of likely concern to all or public comments received on the NOPR, and (1) Costs and savings of design options. some consumers, based to the extent explains how the selection of those standards Design options that have payback periods practicable on direct input from consumers; meets the statutory requirement that any new that exceed the median life of the product or estimated life-cycle cost with sensitivity or amended energy conservation standard which result in life-cycle cost increases analysis; consideration of the increased first produces the maximum improvement in relative to the base case, using typical fuel cost to consumers and the time required for energy efficiency that is both technologically costs, usage, and private discount rates, will energy cost savings to pay back these first feasible and economically justified and not be used as the basis for candidate costs; and loss of utility. constitutes significant energy savings, standard levels. (iii) Impacts on competition, including accompanied by a final TSD. (2) Further information on factors used for industry concentration analysis. screening design options. If further (iv) Impacts on utilities. The analysis of 7. Policies on Selection of Standards information or analysis leads to a utility impacts will include estimated (a) Purpose. (1) Section 5 describes the determination that a design option, or a marginal impacts on electric and gas utility process that will be used to consider new or combination of design options, has costs and revenues. revised energy efficiency standards and lists unacceptable impacts under the policies (v) National energy, economic, and a number of factors and analyses that will be stated in this Appendix, that design option employment impacts. The analysis of considered at specified points in the process. or combination of design options will not be national energy, economic, and employment Department policies concerning the selection included in a candidate standard level. impacts will include: Estimated energy of new or revised standards, and decisions (3) Selection of candidate standard levels. savings by fuel type; estimated net present preliminary thereto, are described in this Candidate standard levels, which will be value of benefits to all consumers; and section. These policies are intended to identified in the pre-NOPR documents and estimates of the direct and indirect impacts elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in on which impact analyses will be conducted, on employment by appliance manufacturers, 42 U.S.C. 6295 of EPCA. will be based on the remaining design relevant service industries, energy suppliers, (2) The procedures described in this options. suppliers of complementary and substitution section are intended to assist the Department (i) The range of candidate standard levels products, and the economy in general. in making the determinations required by will typically include:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8707

(A) The most energy-efficient combination expected benefits of the standard would (e)(2)(i) of this section and the basis for a of design options; outweigh this and any other expected determination that an applicable (B) The combination of design options with adverse effects. presumption has been rebutted will be the lowest life-cycle cost; and (B) If the Department determines that a supported by substantial evidence in the (C) A combination of design options with candidate/trial standard level would be the record and the evidence and rationale for a payback period of not more than three direct cause of plant closures, significant making these determinations will be years. losses in domestic manufacturer explained in the NOPR. (ii) Candidate standard levels that employment, or significant losses of capital (iv) If none of the policies in paragraph incorporate noteworthy technologies or fill in investment by domestic manufacturers, that (e)(2)(i) of this section is found to be large gaps between efficiency levels of other standard level will be presumed not to be dispositive, the Department will determine candidate standard levels also may be economically justified unless the Department whether the benefits of a candidate standard selected. determines that specifically identified level exceed the burdens considering all the (d) Pre-NOPR Stage. New information expected benefits of the standard would pertinent information in the record. provided in public comments on any pre- outweigh this and any other expected (f) Selection of a final standard. New NOPR documents will be considered to adverse effects. information provided in the public determine whether any changes to the (C) If the Department determines that a comments on the NOPR and any analysis by candidate standard levels are needed before candidate/trial standard level would have a the Department of Justice concerning impacts proceeding to the analysis of impacts. significant adverse impact on the on competition of the proposed standard will (e) Selection of proposed standard. Based environment or energy security, that standard be considered to determine whether issuance on the results of the analysis of impacts, DOE level will be presumed not to be of a new or amended energy conservation will select a standard level to be proposed for economically justified unless the Department standard produces the maximum public comment in the NOPR. As required determines that specifically identified improvement in energy efficiency that is both under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), any new or expected benefits of the standard would technologically feasible and economically revised standard must be designed to achieve outweigh this and any other expected justified and still constitutes significant the maximum improvement in energy adverse effects. energy savings or whether any change to the efficiency that is determined to be (D) If the Department determines that a proposed standard level is needed before technologically feasible and economically candidate/trial standard level would not proceeding to the final rule. The same result in significant energy conservation, that justified. policies used to select the proposed standard standard level will be presumed not to be (1) Statutory policies. The fundamental level, as described in this section, will be economically justified. policies concerning the selection of standards used to guide the selection of the final (E) If the Department determines that a include: standard level or a determination that no new candidate/trial standard level is not (i) A candidate/trial standard level will not practicable to manufacture or has a negative or amended standard is justified. be proposed or promulgated if the impact on consumer utility or safety, that Department determines that it is not 8. Test Procedures standard level will be presumed not to be technologically feasible and economically (a) General. As with the early assessment economically justified unless the Department process for energy conservation standards, justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 determines that specifically identified DOE believes that early stakeholder input is U.S.C. (o)(3)(B)) For a standard level to be expected benefits of the standard would economically justified, the Secretary must outweigh this and any other expected also very important during test procedure determine that the benefits of the standard adverse effects. rulemakings. DOE will follow an early exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. (F) If the Department determines that a assessment process similar to that described 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) A standard level is subject to candidate/trial standard level is not in the preceding sections discussing DOE’s a rebuttable presumption that it is consistent with the policies relating to consideration of amended energy economically justified if the payback period consumer costs in paragraph (c)(1) of this conservation standards. Consequently, DOE is three years or less. (42 U.S.C. section, that standard level will be presumed will publish a notice in the Federal Register 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) not to be economically justified unless the whenever DOE is considering initiation of a (ii) If the Department determines that a Department determines that specifically rulemaking to amend a test procedure. In that standard level is likely to result in the identified expected benefits of the standard notice, DOE will request submission of unavailability of any covered product/ would outweigh this and any other expected comments, including data and information equipment type with performance adverse effects. on whether an amended test procedure rule characteristics (including reliability), (G) If the Department determines that a would: features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that candidate/trial standard level will have (1) More accurately measure energy are substantially the same as products significant adverse impacts on a significant efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified generally available in the U.S. at the time, subgroup of consumers (including low- in EPCA), or estimated annual operating cost that standard level will not be proposed. (42 income consumers), that standard level will of a covered product during a representative U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) be presumed not to be economically justified average use cycle or period of use without (iii) If the Department determines that a unless the Department determines that being unduly burdensome to conduct; or standard level would not result in significant specifically identified expected benefits of (2) Reduce testing burden. DOE will review conservation of energy, that standard level the standard would outweigh this and any comments submitted and, subject to statutory will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C. other expected adverse effects. obligations, determine whether it agrees with 6295(o)(3)(B)) (H) If the Department of Energy and the the submitted information. If DOE (2) Considerations in assessing economic Department of Justice determine that a determines that an amended test procedure is justification. candidate/trial standard level would have not justified at that time, it will not pursue (i) The following considerations will guide significant anticompetitive effects, that the rulemaking and will publish a notice in the application of the economic justification standard level will be presumed not to be the Federal Register to that effect. If DOE criterion in selecting a proposed standard: economically justified unless the Department receives sufficient information suggesting an (A) If the Department determines that a of Energy determines that specifically amended test procedure could more candidate/trial standard level would result in identified expected benefits of the standard accurately measure energy efficiency, energy a negative return on investment for the would outweigh this and any other expected use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or industry, would significantly reduce the adverse effects. estimated annual operating cost of a covered value of the industry, or would cause (ii) DOE will, consistent with paragraph (f) product during a representative average use significant adverse impacts to a significant of this section, account for the views cycle or period of use and not be unduly subgroup of manufacturers (including small expressed by the Department of Justice burdensome to conduct, reduce testing manufacturing businesses), that standard regarding a given proposal’s effects on burden, or the information received is level will be presumed not to be competition. inconclusive with regard to these points, economically justified unless the Department (iii) The basis for a determination that DOE would undertake the preliminary stages determines that specifically identified triggers any presumption in paragraph of a rulemaking to amend the test procedure,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8708 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

as discussed further in the paragraphs that more-stringent standard would result in include larger concerns and small businesses follow in this section. significant additional conservation of energy in the regulated industry/manufacturer (b) Identifying the need to modify test and is technologically feasible and community, energy advocates, energy procedures. DOE will identify any necessary economically justified; or utilities, as appropriate, consumers, and modifications to established test procedures (2) The test procedure would not meet the States. However, it will be necessary to prior to initiating the standards development requirements for such test procedures evaluate the meaning of ‘‘fairly process. It will consider all stakeholder specified in EPCA. In such case, DOE must representative’’ on a case-by-case basis, comments with respect to needed test adopt the more stringent standard not later subject to the circumstances of a particular procedure modifications. If DOE determines than 30 months after the date of publication rulemaking, to determine whether additional that it is appropriate to continue the test of the amendment to ASHRAE/IES Standard parties must be part of a joint statement in procedure rulemaking after the early 90.1 for the affected equipment. order to be ‘‘fairly representative of relevant assessment process, it would provide further (b) For ASHRAE equipment, DOE will points of view.’’ opportunities for early public input through adopt the revised ASHRAE levels or the (2) This paragraph (a)(2) describes the steps Federal Register documents, including industry test procedure, as contemplated by DOE will follow with respect to a DFR. NODAs and/or RFIs. EPCA, except in very limited circumstances. (i) DOE must determine whether the energy (c) Adoption of Industry Test Methods. With respect to DOE’s consideration of conservation standard recommended in the DOE will adopt industry test standards as standards more-stringent than the ASHRAE joint proposal is in accordance with the DOE test procedures for covered products levels or changes to the industry test requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or section and equipment, unless such methodology procedure, DOE will do so only if it can meet 342(a)(6)(B) as applicable. Because the DFR would be unduly burdensome to conduct or a very high bar to demonstrate the ‘‘clear and provision is procedural, and not a separate would not produce test results that reflect the convincing evidence’’ threshold. Clear and grant of rulemaking authority, any standard energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as convincing evidence would exist only where issued under the DFR process must comply specified in EPCA) or estimated operating the specific facts and data made available to fully with the provisions of the EPCA costs of that equipment during a DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE subsection under which the rule is representative average use cycle. amendment demonstrates that there is no authorized. DOE will not accept or issue as (d) Issuing final test procedure substantial doubt that a standard more a DFR a submitted joint proposal that does modification. Test procedure rulemakings stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE not comply with all applicable EPCA establishing methodologies used to evaluate Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted requirements. proposed energy conservation standards will because it would result in a significant (ii) Upon receipt of a joint statement be finalized at least 180 days prior to additional amount of energy savings, is recommending energy conservation publication of a NOPR proposing new or technologically feasible and economically standards, DOE will publish in the Federal amended energy conservation standards. justified, or, in the case of test procedures, Register that statement, as submitted to DOE, (e) Effective Date of Test Procedures. If that the industry test procedure does not in order to obtain feedback as to whether the required only for the evaluation and issuance meet the EPCA requirements. DOE will make joint statement was submitted by a group that of updated efficiency standards, use of the this determination only after seeking data is fairly representative of relevant points of modified test procedures typically will not be and information from interested parties and view. If DOE determines that the DFR was required until the implementation date of not submitted by a group that is fairly updated standards. the public to help inform the Agency’s views. DOE will seek from interested stakeholders representative of relevant points of view, 9. ASHRAE Equipment and the public data and information to assist DOE will not move forward with a DFR and (a) EPCA provides that ASHRAE in making this determination, prior to will consider whether any further rulemaking equipment are subject to unique statutory publishing a proposed rule to adopt more- activity is appropriate. If the Secretary requirements and their own set of timelines. stringent standards or a different test determines that a DFR cannot be issued More specifically, pursuant to EPCA’s procedure. based on the statement, the Secretary shall statutory scheme for covered ASHRAE (c) DOE’s review in adopting amendments publish a notice of the determination, equipment, DOE is required to consider based on an action by ASHRAE to amend together with an explanation of the reasons amending the existing Federal energy Standard 90.1 is strictly limited to the for the determination. conservation standards and test procedures specific standards or test procedure (iii) Simultaneous with the issuance of a for certain enumerated types of commercial amendment for the specific equipment for DFR, DOE must also publish a NOPR and industrial equipment (generally, which ASHRAE has made a change (i.e., containing the same energy conservation commercial water heaters, commercial determined down to the equipment class standards as in the DFR. Following packaged boilers, commercial air- level). DOE believes that ASHRAE not acting publication of the DFR, DOE must solicit conditioning and heating equipment, and to amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a public comment for a period of at least 110 packaged terminal air conditioners and heat decision that the existing standard remain in days; then, not later than 120 days after pumps) when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is place. Thus, when undertaking a review as issuance of the DFR, the Secretary must amended with respect to standards and test required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE determine whether any adverse comments procedures applicable to such equipment. would need to find clear and convincing ‘‘may provide a reasonable basis for Not later than 180 days after the amendment evidence, as defined in this section, to issue withdrawing the direct final rule,’’ based on of the standard, the Secretary will publish in a standard more stringent than the existing the rulemaking record. If DOE determines the Federal Register for public comment an standard for the equipment at issue. that one or more substantive comments analysis of the energy savings potential of objecting to the DFR provides a sufficient 10. Direct Final Rules amended energy efficiency standards. For reason to withdraw the DFR, DOE will do so, each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if (a) A direct final rule (DFR), as and will instead proceed with the published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, not later contemplated in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), is a NOPR (unless the information provided than 18 months after the date of publication procedural mechanism separate from the suggests that withdrawal of that NOPR would of the amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, negotiated rulemaking process outlined likewise be appropriate). In making this DOE must adopt amended energy under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 determination, DOE may consider comments conservation standards at the new efficiency U.S.C. 563). DOE may issue a DFR adopting as adverse, even if the issue was brought up level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as the energy conservation standards for a covered previously during DOE-initiated discussions uniform national standard for such product provided that: (e.g. publication of a framework or RFI equipment, or amend the test procedure (1) DOE receives a joint proposal from a document), if the Department concludes that referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the group of ‘‘interested persons that are fairly the comments merit further consideration. equipment at issue to be consistent with the representative of relevant points of view,’’ applicable industry test procedure, which does not include DOE as a member of 11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process respectively, unless— the group. At a minimum, to be ‘‘fairly (a)(1) In those instances where negotiated (1) DOE determines by rule, and supported representative of relevant points of view’’ the rulemaking is determined to be appropriate, by clear and convincing evidence, that a group submitting a joint statement must DOE will comply with the requirements of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8709

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (5 group members (including their affiliation), 13. Principles for the Conduct of the U.S.C. 561–570) and the requirements of the and announcement of public meetings and Engineering Analysis Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 the subject matter to be addressed. (a) The purpose of the engineering analysis U.S.C. App. 2). To facilitate potential (b) DOE’s role in the negotiated rulemaking is to develop the relationship between negotiated rulemakings, and to comply with process is to participate as a member of a efficiency and cost of the subject product/ the requirements of the NRA and the FACA, group attempting to develop a consensus equipment. The Department will use the DOE established the Appliance Standards proposal for energy conservation standards most appropriate means available to and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee for a particular product/equipment and to determine the efficiency/cost relationship, (ASRAC). Working groups can be established provide technical/analytical advice to the including an overall system approach or as subcommittees of ASRAC, from time to negotiating parties and legal input where engineering modeling to predict the time, and for specific products/equipment, needed to support the development of a reduction in energy use or improvement in with one member representative from the energy efficiency that can be expected from ASRAC committee attending and potential consensus recommendation in the form of a term sheet. individual design options as discussed in participating in the meetings of a specific paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. From working group. (Consistent with 5 U.S.C. (c) A negotiated rulemaking may be used to develop energy conservation standards, this efficiency/cost relationship, measures 565(b), committee membership is limited to such as payback, life-cycle cost, and energy test procedures, product coverage, and other 25 members, unless the agency determines savings can be developed. The Department categories of rulemaking activities. that more members are necessary for the will identify issues that will be examined in functioning of the committee or to achieve (d) A dedicated portion of each ASRAC the engineering analysis and the types of balanced membership.) Ultimately, the working group meeting will be set aside to specialized expertise that may be required. working group reports to ASRAC, and receive input and data from non-members of DOE will select appropriate contractors, ASRAC itself votes on whether to make a the ASRAC working group. This additional subcontractors, and expert consultants, as recommendation to DOE to adopt a opportunity for input does nothing to necessary, to perform the engineering consensus agreement developed through the diminish stakeholders’ ability to provide analysis and the impact analysis. Also, the negotiated rulemaking. comments and ask relevant questions during Department will consider data, information, (2) DOE will use the negotiated rulemaking the course of the working group’s ongoing and analyses received from interested parties process on a case-by-case basis and, in deliberations at the public meeting. for use in the analysis wherever feasible. appropriate circumstances, in an attempt to (e) If DOE determines to proceed with a (b) The engineering analysis begins with develop a consensus proposal before issuing rulemaking at the conclusion of negotiations, the list of design options developed in a proposed rule. When approached by one or DOE will publish a proposed rule. DOE will consultation with the interested parties as a more stakeholders or on its own initiative, consider the approved term sheet in result of the screening process. The DOE will use a convener to ascertain, in developing such proposed rule. A negotiated Department will establish the likely cost and consultation with relevant stakeholders, rulemaking in which DOE participates under performance improvement of each design whether the development of the subject option. Ranges and uncertainties of cost and the ASRAC process will not result in the matter of a potential rulemaking proceeding performance will be established, although issuance of a DFR. Further, any potential would be conducive to negotiated efforts will be made to minimize rulemaking, with the agency evaluating the term sheet upon which an ASRAC working uncertainties by using measures such as test convener’s recommendation before reaching group reaches consensus must comply with data or component or material supplier a decision on such matter. A neutral, all of the provisions of EPCA under which information where available. Estimated independent convenor will identify issues the rule is authorized. DOE cannot accept uncertainties will be carried forward in that any negotiation would need to address, recommendations or issue a NOPR based subsequent analyses. The use of quantitative assess the full breadth of interested parties upon a negotiated rulemaking that does not models will be supplemented by qualitative who should be included in any negotiated comply with all applicable EPCA assessments as appropriate. rulemaking to address those issues, and make requirements, including those product- or (c) The next step includes identifying, a judgment as to whether there is the equipment-specific requirements included in modifying, or developing any engineering potential for a group of individuals the provision that authorizes issuance of the models necessary to predict the efficiency negotiating in good faith to reach a consensus standard. impact of any one or combination of design agreement given the issues presented. DOE options on the product/equipment. A base will have a neutral and independent 12. Principles for Distinguishing Between case configuration or starting point will be facilitator, who is not a DOE employee or Effective and Compliance Dates established, as well as the order and consultant, present at all ASRAC working (a) Dates, generally. The effective and combination/blending of the design options group meetings. compliance dates for either DOE test to be evaluated. DOE will then perform the (3) DOE will base its decision to proceed procedures or DOE energy conservation engineering analysis and develop the cost- with a potential negotiated rulemaking on the standards are typically not identical and efficiency curve for the product/equipment. report of the convenor. The following these terms should not be used The cost efficiency curve and any necessary additional factors militate in favor of a interchangeably. models will be available to stakeholders negotiated rulemaking: (b) Effective date. The effective date is the during the pre-NOPR stage of the rulemaking. (i) Stakeholders commented in favor of date a rule is legally operative after being negotiated rulemaking in response to the 14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on published in the Federal Register. initial rulemaking notice; Manufacturers (c) Compliance date. (1) For test (ii) The rulemaking analysis or underlying (a) Purpose. The purpose of the procedures, the compliance date is the technologies in question are complex, and manufacturer analysis is to identify the likely DOE can benefit from external expertise and/ specific date when manufacturers are private impacts of efficiency standards on or real-time changes to the analysis based on required to use the new or amended test manufacturers. The Department will analyze stakeholder feedback, information, and data; procedure requirements to make the impact of standards on manufacturers (iii) The current standards have already representations concerning the energy with substantial input from manufacturers been amended one or more times; efficiency or use of a product, including and other interested parties. This section (iv) Stakeholders from differing points of certification that the covered product/ describes the principles that will be used in view are willing to participate; and equipment meets an applicable energy conducting future manufacturing impact (v) DOE determines that the parties may be conservation standard. analyses. able to reach an agreement. (2) For energy conservation standards, the (b) Issue identification. In the impact (4) DOE will provide notice in the Federal compliance date is the specific date upon analysis stage (section 5(d)), the Department Register of its intent to form an ASRAC which manufacturers are required to meet the will identify issues that will require greater working group (including a request for new or amended standards for applicable consideration in the detailed manufacturer nominations to serve on the committee), covered products/equipment that are impact analysis. Possible issues may include announcement of the selection of working distributed in interstate commerce. identification of specific types or groups of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 8710 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturers and concerns over access to candidate/trial standard levels on the net uncertainties. Alternative estimates of technology. Specialized contractor expertise, cash flow of manufacturers. Computations impacts, resulting from the different potential empirical data requirements, and analytical will be performed for the industry as a whole scenarios developed throughout the analysis, tools required to perform the manufacturer and for typical and atypical manufacturers. will be explicitly presented in the final impact analysis also would be identified at The exact nature and the process by which analysis results. this stage. the analysis will be conducted will be (1) Key modeling and analytical tools. In (c) Industry characterization. Prior to determined by DOE, with input from its assessment of the likely impacts of initiating detailed impact studies, the interested parties, as appropriate. Impacts to standards on manufacturers, the Department Department will seek input on the present be analyzed include: will use models that are clear and and past industry structure and market (1) Industry net present value, with understandable, feature accessible characteristics. Input on the following issues sensitivity analyses based on uncertainty of calculations, and have clearly explained will be sought: costs, sales prices, and sales volumes; assumptions. As a starting point, the (1) Manufacturers and their current and (2) Cash flows, by year; and Department will use the Government historical relative market shares; (3) Other measures of impact, such as Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The (2) Manufacturer characteristics, such as revenue, net income, and return on equity, as Department will also support the whether manufacturers make a full line of appropriate. DOE also notes that the development of economic models for price models or serve a niche market; characteristics of a typical manufacturers and volume forecasting. Research required to (3) Trends in the number of manufacturers; worthy of special consideration will be update key economic data will be (4) Financial situation of manufacturers; determined in consultation with considered. (5) Trends in product/equipment manufacturers and other interested parties (2) [Reserved] characteristics and retail markets including and may include: manufacturers incurring manufacturer market shares and market higher or lower than average costs; and 15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on concentration; and manufacturers experiencing greater or fewer Consumers (6) Identification of other relevant adverse impacts on sales. Alternative (a) Early consideration of impacts on regulatory actions and a description of the scenarios based on other methods of consumer utility. The Department will nature and timing of any likely impacts. estimating cost or sales impacts also will be consider at the earliest stages of the (d) Cost impacts on manufacturers. The performed, as needed. development of a standard whether costs of labor, material, engineering, tooling, (g) Cumulative Impacts of Other Federal particular design options will lessen the and capital are difficult to estimate, Regulatory Actions. (1) The Department will utility of the covered products/equipment to manufacturer-specific, and usually recognize and seek to mitigate the the consumer. See paragraph (c) of section 6. proprietary. The Department will seek input overlapping effects on manufacturers of new (b) Impacts on product/equipment from interested parties on the treatment of or revised DOE standards and other availability. The Department will determine, cost issues. Manufacturers will be regulatory actions affecting the same based on consideration of information encouraged to offer suggestions as to possible products or equipment. DOE will analyze submitted during the standard development sources of data and appropriate data and consider the impact on manufacturers of process, whether a proposed standard is collection methodologies. Costing issues to multiple product/equipment-specific likely to result in the unavailability of any be addressed include: regulatory actions. These factors will be covered product/equipment type with (1) Estimates of total private cost impacts, considered in setting rulemaking priorities, performance characteristics (including including product/equipment-specific costs conducting the early assessment as to reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and (based on cost impacts estimated for the whether DOE should proceed with a volumes that are substantially the same as engineering analysis) and front-end standards rulemaking, assessing products/equipment generally available in investment/conversion costs for the full manufacturer impacts of a particular the U.S. at the time. DOE will not promulgate range of product/equipment models. standard, and establishing compliance dates a standard if it concludes that it would result (2) Range of uncertainties in estimates of for a new or revised standard that, consistent in such unavailability. average cost, considering alternative designs with any statutory requirements, are (c) Department of Justice review. As and technologies which may vary cost appropriately coordinated with other required by law, the Department will solicit impacts and changes in costs of material, regulatory actions to mitigate any cumulative the views of the Department of Justice on any labor, and other inputs which may vary costs. burden. lessening of competition likely to result from (3) Variable cost impacts on particular (2) If the Department determines that a the imposition of a proposed standard and types of manufacturers, considering factors proposed standard would impose a will give the views provided full such as atypical sunk costs or characteristics significant impact on product or equipment consideration in assessing economic of specific models which may increase or manufacturers within approximately three justification of a proposed standard. In decrease costs. years of the compliance date of another DOE addition, DOE may consult with the (e) Impacts on product/equipment sales, standard that imposes significant impacts on Department of Justice at earlier stages in the features, prices, and cost recovery. In order the same manufacturers (or divisions thereof, standards development process to seek its to make manufacturer cash-flow calculations, as appropriate), the Department will, in preliminary views on competitive impacts. it is necessary to predict the number of addition to evaluating the impact on (d) Variation in consumer impacts. The products/equipment sold and their sale price. manufacturers of the proposed standard, Department will use regional analysis and This requires an assessment of the likely assess the joint impacts of both standards on sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to impacts of price changes on the number of manufacturers. evaluate the potential distribution of impacts products/equipment sold and on typical (3) If the Department is directed to of candidate/trial standard levels among features of models sold. Past analyses have establish or revise standards for products/ different subgroups of consumers. The relied on price and shipment data generated equipment that are components of other Department will consider impacts on by economic models. The Department will products/equipment subject to standards, the significant segments of consumers in develop additional estimates of prices and Department will consider the interaction determining standards levels. Where there shipments by drawing on multiple sources of between such standards in setting are significant negative impacts on data and experience including: actual rulemaking priorities and assessing identifiable subgroups, DOE will consider the shipment and pricing experience; data from manufacturer impacts of a particular efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means manufacturers, retailers, and other market standard. The Department will assess, as part to achieve potential energy savings. experts; financial models, and sensitivity of the engineering and impact analyses, the (e) Payback period and first cost. (1) In the analyses. The possible impacts of candidate/ cost of components subject to efficiency assessment of consumer impacts of trial standard levels on consumer choices standards. standards, the Department will consider Life- among competing fuels will be explicitly (h) Summary of quantitative and Cycle Cost, Payback Period, and Cost of considered where relevant. qualitative assessments. The summary of Conserved Energy to evaluate the savings in (f) Measures of impact. The manufacturer quantitative and qualitative assessments will operating expenses relative to increases in impact analysis will estimate the impacts of contain a description and discussion of purchase price. The Department also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 8711

performs sensitivity and scenario analyses standards on typical users will generally based on DOE’s latest Annual Energy when appropriate. The results of these adopt the mid-range energy price and Outlook. For site combustion of natural gas analyses will be carried throughout the demand scenario of the EIA’s most current or petroleum fuels, the combustion emissions analysis and the ensuing uncertainty AEO. The sensitivity of such estimated of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides are described. impacts to possible variations in future estimated using emission intensity factors (2) If, in the analysis of consumer impacts, energy prices are likely to be examined using from the Environmental Protection Agency. the Department determines that a candidate/ the EIA’s high and low energy price (3) The second component of DOE’s trial standard level would result in a scenarios. emissions analysis estimates the effect of substantial increase in product/equipment (d) Product/equipment-specific energy- potential candidate/trial standard levels on first costs to consumers or would not pay efficiency trends, without updated standards. emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, back such additional first costs through Product/equipment-specific energy-efficiency sulfur dioxide, mercury, methane, and energy cost savings in less than three years, trends will be based on a combination of the nitrous oxide due to ‘‘upstream activities’’ in Department will assess the likely impacts of efficiency trends forecast by the EIA’s the fuel production chain. These upstream such a standard on low-income households, residential and commercial demand model of activities include the emissions related to product/equipment sales and fuel switching, the National Energy Modeling System extracting, processing, and transporting fuels as appropriate. (NEMS) and product-specific assessments by to the site of combustion as detailed in DOE’s 16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory DOE and its contractors with input from Fuel-Fuel-Cycle Statement of Policy (76 FR Approaches interested parties. 51281 (August 18, 2011)). DOE will consider (e) Price forecasting. DOE will endeavor to the effects of the candidate/trial standard The Department recognizes that non- use robust price forecasting techniques in regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, levels on these emissions after assessing the projecting future prices of products. seven factors required to demonstrate and other interested parties can result in (f) Private Discount rates. For residential economic justification under EPCA. substantial efficiency improvements. The and commercial consumers, ranges of three Consistent with Executive Order 13783, Department intends to consider the likely different real discount rates will be used. For dated March 28, 2017, when monetizing the effects of non-regulatory initiatives on residential consumers, the mid-range value of changes in reductions in CO product/equipment energy use, consumer discount rate will represent DOE’s 2 and utility and life-cycle costs, manufacturers, approximation of the average financing cost nitrous oxides emissions resulting from its competition, utilities, and the environment, (or opportunity costs of reduced savings) energy conservation standards regulations, as well as the distribution of these impacts experienced by typical consumers. including with respect to the consideration of among different regions, consumers, Sensitivity analyses will be performed using domestic versus international impacts and manufacturers, and utilities. DOE will discount rates reflecting the costs more likely the consideration of appropriate discount attempt to base its assessment on the actual to be experienced by residential consumers rates, DOE ensures, to the extent permitted impacts of such initiatives to date, but also with little or no savings and credit card by law, that any such estimates are consistent will consider information presented financing and consumers with substantial with the guidance contained in OMB Circular regarding the impacts that any existing savings. For commercial users, a mid-range A–4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory initiative might have in the future. Such discount rate reflecting DOE’s approximation Analysis). information is likely to include a of the average real rate of return on demonstration of the strong commitment of commercial investment will be used, with PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY manufacturers, distribution channels, sensitivity analyses being performed using PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN utilities, or others to such non-regulatory values indicative of the range of real rates of COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL efficiency improvements. This information return likely to be experienced by typical will be used in assessing the likely EQUIPMENT incremental impacts of establishing or commercial businesses. For national net revising standards, in assessing—where present value calculations, DOE would use ■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 the Administration’s approximation of the possible—appropriate compliance dates for continues to read as follows: new or revised standards, and in considering average real rate of return on private DOE support of non-regulatory initiatives. investment in the U.S. economy. For Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. manufacturer impacts, DOE typically uses a 2461 note. 17. Cross-Cutting Analytical Assumptions range of real discount rates which are ■ In selecting values for certain cross-cutting representative of the real rates of return 4. Section 431.4 is added to subpart A analytical assumptions, DOE expects to experienced by typical U.S. manufacturers to read as follows: continue relying upon the following sources affected by the program. § 431.4 Procedures, interpretations, and and general principles: (g) Social Discount Rates. Social discount policies for consideration of new or revised (a) Underlying economic assumptions. The rates as specified in OMB Circular A–4 will energy conservation standards and test appliance standards analyses will generally be used in assessing social effects such as use the same economic growth and costs and benefits. procedures for commercial/industrial development assumptions that underlie the (h) Environmental impacts. (1) DOE equipment. most current Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) calculates emission reductions of carbon The procedures, interpretations, and dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, published by the Energy Information policies for consideration of new or Administration (EIA). methane, nitrous oxides, and mercury likely (b) Analytic time length. The appliance to be avoided by candidate/trial standard revised energy conservation standards standards analyses will use two time levels based on an emissions analysis that and test procedures set forth in lengths—30 years and another time length includes the two components described in appendix A to subpart C of part 430 of that is specific to the standard being paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section. this chapter shall apply to the considered such as the useful lifetime of the (2) The first component estimates the effect consideration of new or revised energy product under consideration. As a sensitivity of potential candidate/trial standard levels on conservation standards and test case, the analyses will also use a 9-year power sector and site combustion emissions procedures considered for adoption regulatory time line in analyzing the effects of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur under this part. of the standard. dioxide, mercury, methane, and nitrous (c) Energy price and demand trends. oxide. DOE develops the power sector [FR Doc. 2020–00023 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] Analyses of the likely impact of appliance emissions analysis using a methodology BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14FER2.SGM 14FER2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Vol. 85 Friday, No. 31 February 14, 2020

Part III

The President

Notice of February 13, 2020—Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14FEO0.SGM 14FEO0 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14FEO0.SGM 14FEO0 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC 8715

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 85, No. 31

Friday, February 14, 2020

Title 3— Notice of February 13, 2020

The President Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States

On February 15, 2019, by Proclamation 9844, I declared a national emergency concerning the southern border of the United States to deal with the border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security inter- ests. The ongoing border security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border of the United States continues to threaten our national security, including the security of the American people. The executive branch has taken steps to address the crisis, but further action is needed to address the humanitarian crisis and to control unlawful migration and the flow of narcotics and criminals across the southern border of the United States. For these reasons, the national emergency declared on February 15, 2019, and the measures adopted on that date to respond to that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 15, 2020. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9844 concerning the southern border of the United States. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 13, 2020. [FR Doc. 2020–03212 Filed 2–13–20; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F0–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\14FEO0.SGM 14FEO0 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC Trump.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 31 Friday, February 14, 2020

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING FEBRUARY

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 121...... 7622 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 302...... 8373 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proclamations: 315...... 8373 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 9983...... 6698 Proposed Rules: 9984...... 6709 Other Services 119...... 7254 9985...... 6715 125...... 6106 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 9986...... 6717 134...... 7893 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6050 9987...... 6719 Executive Orders: 14 CFR ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 13903...... 6721 25 ...... 6025, 6026, 6028 13904...... 6725 39 ...... 6738, 6741, 6744, 6747, World Wide Web Administrative Orders: 6749, 6752, 6755, 6757, Notices: 7191, 7653, 7655, 7857, Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications Notice of February 13, 7860, 7863, 7865, 7868, is located at: www.govinfo.gov. 2020 ...... 8715 8145, 8148, 8150, 8153, Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Orders: 8383, 8386 Inspection List and electronic text are located at: Order of February 10, 71 ...... 6030, 6422, 7192, 7445, www.federalregister.gov. 2020 ...... 8129 7447, 7871, 8388 Presidential 97...... 7194, 7195 E-mail Determinations: Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic No. 2020–05 of 21...... 5905 Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers January 6, 2020 ...... 6731 39 ...... 5906, 6107, 6110, 7256, with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The 7894, 7897, 7899, 8207, digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes 5 CFR 8209 HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. Proposed Rules: 71 ...... 6115, 6118, 7472, 7474, 532...... 8205 7681, 8212 To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ 1650...... 8482 382...... 6448 USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then 2641...... 7252 follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your 15 CFR subscription. 7 CFR 2013...... 7448 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Ch. I ...... 7443 Proposed Rules: service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 210...... 7853 287...... 7258 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 220...... 7853 922...... 8213 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 226...... 7853 16 CFR the instructions. 1464...... 8131 1471...... 6419 Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 453...... 8490 respond to specific inquiries. Proposed Rules: 930...... 6102 17 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 984...... 7669 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 201...... 6270 240...... 6270, 6359 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 10 CFR regulations. 430...... 8626 18 CFR 431...... 8626 11...... 6760 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, FEBRUARY Proposed Rules: 40 ...... 7197, 8155, 8161 Ch. I ...... 6103 Proposed Rules: 5903–6022...... 3 429...... 6102 40...... 6831 6023–6418...... 4 430...... 6102, 8483 6419–6730...... 5 590...... 7672 19 CFR 6731–7190...... 6 12 CFR Ch. I...... 6044, 7214 7191–7442...... 7 12 ...... 7204, 7209, 7214, 8389 7443–7652...... 10 204...... 7855 351...... 6031 7653–7852...... 11 600...... 6421 604...... 6421 20 CFR 7853–8128...... 12 622...... 6023 8129–8372...... 13 404...... 7661 Ch. X...... 6733 408...... 7661 8373–8716...... 14 Proposed Rules: 416...... 7661 303...... 7453 337...... 7453 21 CFR 101...... 6045 13 CFR 866...... 7215 103...... 7622 Proposed Rules: 120...... 7622 573...... 7682

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:26 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\14FECU.LOC 14FECU khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-3CU ii Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Reader Aids

24 CFR 165 .....6428, 6804, 8169, 8175, 70...... 8240 54...... 8533 Proposed Rules: 8177 81...... 6491 64...... 8531 5...... 8215 Proposed Rules: 174...... 6129 90...... 6841 92...... 8215 100...... 8499, 8504 180 ...... 6129, 7499, 7698, 7708 95...... 6841 578...... 8215 165 .....5909, 5911, 8225, 8507, 8509 41 CFR 48 CFR 25 CFR 102-82...... 5903 Proposed Rules: 36 CFR 575...... 8395 19...... 7910 254...... 8180 42 CFR 28...... 7910 26 CFR Proposed Rules: 71...... 7874 32...... 7910 410...... 8475 52...... 7910 1...... 6424 1192...... 8516 414...... 7666 53...... 7910 25...... 6803 37 CFR Proposed Rules: 804...... 8242 Proposed Rules: 37...... 8521 805...... 8242 31...... 8344 Proposed Rules: 1...... 6476 600...... 7500 849...... 8242 Ch. III ...... 6121 852...... 8242 29 CFR 43 CFR 4001...... 6046 38 CFR 10...... 8189 49 CFR 4006...... 6046 Proposed Rules: 191...... 8104 4010...... 6046 36...... 7230 2...... 7515 192...... 8104 4022...... 8396 42...... 7230 195...... 8104 4041...... 6046 Proposed Rules: 44 CFR 367...... 8192 4043...... 6046 9...... 7683 Proposed Rules: 380...... 6088 4233...... 6046 39 CFR 59...... 7902 383...... 6088 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 64...... 7902 384...... 6088 103...... 6120 Ch. XII ...... 6044, 7214 501...... 6838 45 CFR 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 40 CFR 1611...... 8190 192...... 7162 550...... 7218 Proposed Rules: 195...... 7162 553...... 7218 52 ...... 6430, 6808, 7232, 7449, 8181, 8185, 8405, 8406, 146...... 7088 1241...... 7221 50 CFR 8408, 8411 149...... 7088 Proposed Rules: 63...... 6064 155...... 7088 300...... 6101, 8198 938...... 8494, 8495 70...... 6431 156...... 7088 622 ...... 6816, 6819, 6825 948...... 7475, 8497 79...... 7016 158...... 7088 635...... 6828 1610...... 7518 648 ...... 6446, 7414, 8199 31 CFR 80...... 7016 81...... 8411 1630...... 7518 660...... 7246, 8200 555...... 7223 180 .....8428, 8433, 8441, 8447, 665...... 7892 46 CFR 8454, 8457, 8461, 8468 679...... 8477 32 CFR 272...... 6810 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 1288...... 6803 281...... 8472 530...... 8527 10...... 5913, 5915 282...... 8472 17...... 6856 33 CFR 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 300...... 6883 1...... 8169 52 ...... 6121, 6123, 6125, 6482, 73...... 7880 648 ...... 6494, 7520, 8534 3...... 6804 6491, 7262, 7480, 7491, Proposed Rules: 655...... 6131 100 ...... 6428, 6804, 8169, 8397 7494, 7496, 7686, 7692, 0...... 8531 660...... 6135 110...... 8169 7695, 8227, 8229, 8230, 2...... 6841 665...... 7521 117...... 6806, 8173 8233, 8240, 8520 15...... 6841 679...... 6890

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:26 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\14FECU.LOC 14FECU khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-3CU Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Reader Aids iii

Register but may be ordered S. 153/P.L. 116–115 enacted public laws. To in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Supporting Veterans in STEM subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the Careers Act (Feb. 11, 2020; listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ This is a continuing list of Superintendent of Documents, 134 Stat. 106) publaws-l.html public bills from the current U.S. Government Publishing Last List February 10, 2020 session of Congress which Office, Washington, DC 20402 Note: This service is strictly have become Federal laws. (phone, 202–512–1808). The Public Laws Electronic for E-mail notification of new This list is also available text will also be made laws. The text of laws is not online at http:// Notification Service available on the Internet from available through this service. www.archives.gov/federal- GPO’s Federal Digital System (PENS) register/laws. PENS cannot respond to (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ specific inquiries sent to this The text of laws is not fdsys. Some laws may not yet PENS is a free electronic mail address. published in the Federal be available. notification service of newly

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:12 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\14FECU.LOC 14FECU khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with FR-3CU