Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015

Pages 15147–15502

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:07 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\23MRWS.LOC 23MRWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015

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, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the 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 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) 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 $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, 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 $165, 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: 80 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 19:07 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\23MRWS.LOC 23MRWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 55

Monday, March 23, 2015

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15233–15234, 15240– Submissions, and Approvals, 15222–15224 15241 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Commerce Department Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture See International Trade Administration Comparative Database, 15229–15231 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Patient Safety Organizations: Consumer Product Safety Commission Expired Listing from Premerus PSO, LLC, 15220 PROPOSED RULES PSO Services Group; Delisting, 15213–15214 Corded Window Coverings; Extension of Comment Period, Requests for Nominations: 15173–15174 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 15224–15225 Defense Department Agriculture Department See Air Force Department See Food and Nutrition Service See Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Education Department Submissions, and Approvals, 15186 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Air Force Department Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES Pell Grant Reporting under the Common Origination and Meetings: Disbursement System, 15197–15198 United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors; Energy Department Cancellation, 15196 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Applications to Export Electric Energy: Board Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., 15198 Self-Certifications of Coal Capability under the Powerplant PROPOSED RULES and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 15203, 15205–15206 Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee; Meetings, 15179–15180 Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Charter Renewals: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Requirements: Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee, 15189 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 15340–15474 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Definitions of Low Pressure Gas NOTICES Well and Storage Vessels, 15180–15185 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 15194–15196 Meetings: National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the Children and Families Administration U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 15210–15211 NOTICES National Environmental Education Advisory Council, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 15211 Submissions, and Approvals, 15224, 15231–15233 Federal Aviation Administration Coast Guard RULES RULES Airworthiness Directives: Safety Zones: Airbus Airplanes, 15152–15157 Delaware River, Marcus Hook, PA, 15167–15170 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 15149–15151 Special Local Regulations: PROPOSED RULES Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Airworthiness Directives: Davis Dam (Bullhead City, AZ) and Headgate Dam Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 15171–15173 (Parker, AZ) within the San Diego Captain of the Port NOTICES Zone, 15167 Meetings: PROPOSED RULES Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics Special Safety Zones: Committee, 15268 Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA, 15174–15176 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics Special Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas; Atlantic Ocean, Committee; Aeronautical Information and Daytona Beach, FL, 15176–15179 Meteorological Data Link Services, 15267–15268

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:39 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23MRCN.SGM 23MRCN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER IV Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Contents

Federal Communications Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Submissions, and Approvals, 15211–15212 Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Commercial Distribution, 15214–15217 Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance: Availability of Inside Wiring Information, 15212–15213 Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports, 15217–15218 Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Food and Nutrition Service Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; Fire Prevention NOTICES and Safety Grants, 15234–15239 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals: Proposed Revised Guidelines for Floodplain Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Management, 15241 Settings, 15186–15189 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Health and Human Services Department NOTICES See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Applications: See Children and Families Administration Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc., 15204 See Food and Drug Administration FFP Missouri 2, LLC, 15200–15201, 15204–15207, 15209– See National Institutes of Health 15210 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Kenneth and Susan Egnaczak, 15199–15200 Administration Southern Energy, Inc., 15207–15208 Combined Filings, 15199, 15207–15209 Homeland Security Department Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: See Coast Guard UGI Sunbury, LLC; Sunbury Pipeline Project, 15201– See Federal Emergency Management Agency 15203 Housing and Urban Development Department Exemption Transfers: NOTICES New Hampshire Hydro Associates; Rivermill Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Hydroelectric, Inc., 15198–15199 Submissions, and Approvals: Staff Attendances, 15201 Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Federal Reserve System Information, 15241–15242 NOTICES Interior Department Changes in Bank Control: See Fish and Wildlife Service Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding See Land Management Bureau Company, 15213 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Internal Revenue Service Holding Companies, 15213 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Federal Trade Commission Submissions, and Approvals, 15270 RULES Rules of Practice, 15157–15163 International Trade Administration NOTICES Fish and Wildlife Service Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, PROPOSED RULES or Reviews: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, Lanling Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd., 15192–15193 Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas); Revision, 15272–15337 International Trade Commission NOTICES NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications, Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, 15242–15246 etc.: Endangered and Threatened Species Permits, 15246–15247 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Permit Ukraine, 15251–15252 Applications, 15247–15249 Environmental Assessments and Conservation Plans; Labor Department Availability, etc.: See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Bayfield NOTICES County, WI, 15249–15250 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Food and Drug Administration Demonstration and Evaluation of the Short-Time RULES Compensation Program Grants Program, 15252–15253 Medical Devices: Neurological Devices; Limited Output Transcutaneous Land Management Bureau Piezoelectric Stimulator for Skin Reactions NOTICES Associated with Insect Bites; Classification, 15163– Meetings: 15165 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, 15250–15251

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23MRCN.SGM 23MRCN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Contents V

Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation NOTICES NOTICES License Amendment Applications: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Umetco Minerals Corp., Gas Hills East Site, 15257–15259 Submissions, and Approvals: Applications for Udall Scholarship and Internship, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 15255–15256 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and NOTICES Health, 15253–15255 Meetings: Advisory Council, 15256 Personnel Management Office National Institutes of Health RULES NOTICES Prevailing Rate Systems: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas; Submissions, and Approvals: Redefinitions, 15147–15149 Prevalence, Incidence, Epidemiology and Molecular Variants of HIV in Blood Donors in Brazil, 15218– Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 15220 NOTICES Process and Outcomes Evaluation of National Cancer Activities under Executive Orders, 15259–15260 Institute Physical Sciences in Oncology Centers Initiative, 15228 Securities and Exchange Commission Exclusive Licenses: NOTICES Development of 5T4 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Meetings: Treatment of Human Cancers, 15220–15221 Investor Advisory Committee, 15260 Development of Theranostic Kits for mTOR Analog-based Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chemotherapy, 15218 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 15264–15267 Pre-Clinical Evaluation and Commercial Development of International Securities Exchange, LLC, 15262–15264 Anti-Tyrosine Kinase-Like Orphan Receptor 1 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 15260–15262 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 15226–15227 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Meetings: Administration Center for Scientific Review, 15227–15228 National Cancer Institute, 15213, 15226–15227 NOTICES National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 15229 Submissions, and Approvals, 15221 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Transportation Department Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: See Federal Aviation Administration Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct NOTICES Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia Complementary Positioning, Navigation and Timing mydas); Revision, 15272–15337 Capabilities, 15268–15269 NOTICES Exempted Fishing Permits; Applications, 15193–15194 Treasury Department Meetings: See Internal Revenue Service Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 15189–15190 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 15191 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 15190, Separate Parts In This Issue 15194 Permits: Part II Marine Mammals; File No. 17967, 15190–15191 Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Science Foundation Administration, 15272–15337 NOTICES Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 15272– Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 15337 Submissions, and Approvals, 15256–15257 Part III Navy Department Environmental Protection Agency, 15340–15474 RULES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; Part IV Certifications and Exemptions, 15165–15167 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 15476–15502 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 15196–15197 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reader Aids PROPOSED RULES Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 2015, 15476–15502 and notice of recently enacted public laws.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:39 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23MRCN.SGM 23MRCN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER VI Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Contents

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:39 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23MRCN.SGM 23MRCN asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / 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.

5 CFR 532...... 15147 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 170...... 15476 171...... 15476 14 CFR 39 (2 documents) ...... 15149, 15152 Proposed Rules: 39...... 15171 16 CFR 2...... 15157 3...... 15157 4...... 15157 Proposed Rules: Ch. II ...... 15173 21 CFR 882...... 15163 32 CFR 706...... 15165 33 CFR 100...... 15167 165...... 15167 Proposed Rules: 165 (2 documents) ...... 15174, 15176 36 CFR Proposed Rules: 1192...... 15179 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 50...... 15340 51...... 15340 60...... 15180 93...... 15340 50 CFR Proposed Rules: 17...... 15272 223...... 15272 224...... 15272

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:10 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\23MRLS.LOC 23MRLS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER 15147

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 55

Monday, March 23, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Fillmore County, MN, from the Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 contains regulatory documents having general Southwestern Wisconsin area of also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. applicability and legal effect, most of which application to the Minneapolis-St. Paul, ■ 2. Appendix C to subpart B is are keyed to and codified in the Code of MN, area of application; and Federal Regulations, which is published under • amended by revising the wage area 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Chester County, SC, from the listings for the Washington, DC; Miami, Columbia, SC, area of application to the FL; Columbus, GA; Hagerstown- The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Charlotte, NC, area of application. Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Kansas City, new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Committee, the national labor- REGISTER issue of each week. MO; Charlotte, NC; Columbia, SC, and management committee responsible for Southwestern Wisconsin wage areas to advising OPM on matters concerning read as follows: the pay of FWS employees, reviewed OFFICE OF PERSONNEL and recommended these changes by Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— MANAGEMENT consensus. The proposed rule had a 30- Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas 5 CFR Part 532 day comment period, during which OPM received no comments. * * * * * RIN 3206–AN10 In addition, this final rule (1) updates the name of the Columbus Consolidated Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Government in the Columbus, GA, FWS of Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Washington, DC wage area because Columbus is the Wage System Wage Areas Survey Area official name of the entity resulting from District of Columbia: AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel the consolidation of the City of Washington, DC Management. Columbus and Muscogee County in Maryland: ACTION: Final rule. 1971; (2) updates the name of Dade Charles County in the Miami, FL, FWS wage Frederick SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel area because the name of Dade County Montgomery Management (OPM) is issuing a final was officially changed to Miami-Dade Prince George’s rule to redefine the geographic County in 1997; and (3) deletes the Virginia (cities): boundaries of several appropriated fund name of the St. Louis, MO, wage area Alexandria Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas from the list of area of application Fairfax Falls Church for pay-setting purposes. Based on counties in the Kansas City, MO, wage Manassas recent reviews of Metropolitan area because, due to a formatting error, Manassas Park Statistical Area boundaries in a number the name of the St. Louis wage area was Virginia (counties): of wage areas, OPM is redefining the incorrectly printed as if it was an area Arlington following wage areas: Washington, DC; of application county in the Kansas City Fairfax Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, wage area. These corrections do not Loudoun MD; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; affect the pay of any FWS employees. Prince William Charlotte, NC; Columbia, SC, and Area of Application. Survey area plus: Regulatory Flexibility Act Southwestern Wisconsin. In addition, Maryland: this final rule makes three minor I certify that these regulations will not Calvert corrections to the Miami, FL; Columbus, have a significant economic impact on St. Mary’s GA, and Kansas City, MO, wage areas. a substantial number of small entities Virginia (city): Fredericksburg DATES: Effective date: This regulation is because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees. Virginia (counties): effective on March 23, 2015. Clarke Applicability date: This change List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 Culpeper applies on the first day of the first Fauquier applicable pay period beginning on or Administrative practice and King George after April 22, 2015. procedure, Freedom of information, Rappahannock FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Government employees, Reporting and Spotsylvania Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at recordkeeping requirements, Wages. Stafford Warren U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (202) 606–2838 or by email at pay-leave- West Virginia [email protected]. Katherine Archuleta, Jefferson SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Director. October 31, 2014, OPM issued a Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part ***** proposed rule (79 FR 64684) to redefine 532 as follows: FLORIDA the following counties: • Culpeper and Rappahannock PART 532—PREVAILING RATE ***** Counties, VA, from the Hagerstown- SYSTEMS Miami Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD, area of Survey Area application to the Washington, DC, area ■ 1. The authority citation for part 532 Florida: of application; continues to read as follows: Miami-Dade

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Area of Application. Survey area plus: Frederick Wisconsin: Florida: Greene Pierce Broward Madison Polk Collier Page Glades Rockingham ***** Hendry Shenandoah MISSOURI Highlands West Virginia: Kansas City Martı´n Hampshire Survey Area Monroe Hardy Okeechobee Mineral Kansas: Palm Beach Morgan Johnson St. Lucie Leavenworth ***** Wyandotte ***** MINNESOTA Missouri: Cass GEORGIA ***** Clay Jackson ***** Minneapolis-St. Paul Platte Columbus Survey Area Ray Survey Area Minnesota: Area of Application. Survey area plus: Alabama: Anoka Kansas: Autauga Carver Allen Elmore Chisago Anderson Lee Dakota Atchison Macon Hennepin Bourbon Montgomery Ramsey Doniphan Russell Scott Douglas Georgia: Washington Franklin Chattahoochee Wright Linn Columbus Wisconsin: Miami Area of Application. Survey area plus: St. Croix Missouri: Alabama: Area of Application. Survey area plus: Adair Bullock Minnesota: Andrew Butler Benton Atchison Chambers Big Stone Bates Coosa Blue Earth Buchanan Crenshaw Brown Caldwell Dallas Chippewa Carroll Lowndes Cottonwood Chariton Pike Dodge Clinton Tallapoosa Douglas Cooper Wilcox Faribault Daviess Georgia: Fillmore De Kalb Harris Freeborn Gentry Marion Goodhue Grundy Quitman Grant Harrison Schley Isanti Henry Stewart Kanabec Holt Talbot Kandiyohi Howard Taylor Lac Qui Parle Johnson Troup Le Sueur Lafayette Webster McLeod Linn Martin Livingston ***** Meeker Macon MARYLAND Mille Lacs Mercer Morrison Nodaway ***** Mower Pettis Nicollet Putnam Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg Olmsted Saline Survey Area Pope Schuyler Maryland: Redwood Sullivan Washington Renville Worth Pennsylvania: Rice Franklin Sherburne ***** West Virginia: Sibley NORTH CAROLINA Berkeley Stearns Area of Application. Survey area plus: Steele ***** Stevens Maryland: Charlotte Allegany Swift Garrett Todd Survey Area Pennsylvania: Traverse North Carolina: Fulton Wabasha Cabarrus Virginia (cities): Wadena Gaston Harrisonburg Waseca Mecklenburg Winchester Watonwan Rowan Virginia (counties): Yellow Medicine Union

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15149

Area of Application. Survey area plus: Juneau of publications listed in this AD as of North Carolina: Langlade April 14, 2014 (79 FR 17390, March 28, Alexander Lincoln 2014). Anson Marathon ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD Catawba Marinette Cleveland Menominee docket on the Internet at http:// Iredell Oneida www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= Lincoln Pepin FAA-2014-0752; or in person at the Stanly Portage Docket Management Facility, U.S. Wilkes Price Department of Transportation, Docket South Carolina: Richland Operations, M–30, West Building Chester Rusk Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 Shawano Chesterfield New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, Lancaster Taylor York Vernon DC. Vilas For service information identified in ***** Waupaca this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., SOUTH CAROLINA Wood Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario ***** ***** M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– Columbia [FR Doc. 2015–06410 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 4000; fax 416–375–4539; email Survey Area BILLING CODE 6325–39–P [email protected]; South Carolina: Internet http://www.bombardier.com. Darlington Florence You may view this referenced service Kershaw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information at the FAA, Transport Lee Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue Lexington Federal Aviation Administration SW., Renton, WA. For information on Richland the availability of this material at the Sumter 14 CFR Part 39 FAA, call 425–227–1221. Area of Application. Survey area plus: [Docket No. FAA–2014–0752; Directorate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: South Carolina: Identifier 2014–NM–079–AD; Amendment Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Abbeville 39–18110; AD 2015–04–08] Airframe and Mechanical Systems Anderson Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Calhoun RIN 2120–AA64 Cherokee Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Clarendon Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, Fairfield Inc. Airplanes NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax Greenville 516–794–5531. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Greenwood SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Laurens Administration (FAA), Department of Newberry Transportation (DOT). Discussion Oconee ACTION: Final rule. Orangeburg We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR Pickens SUMMARY: We are superseding part 39 to supersede AD 2014–06–08, Saluda Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–06– Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, Spartanburg 08 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model Union March 28, 2014). AD 2014–06–08 DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. airplanes. AD 2014–06–08 required ***** Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 repetitive functional checks of the nose WISCONSIN series airplanes. The NPRM published and main landing gear, and corrective in the Federal Register on October 17, actions if necessary; and also provided ***** 2014 (79 FR 62363). optional terminating action Southwestern Wisconsin Transport Canada Civil Aviation modification for the repetitive Survey Area (TCCA), which is the aviation authority functional checks. This new AD Wisconsin: for Canada, has issued Canadian requires a terminating action Chippewa Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–11, modification. This AD was prompted by Eau Claire dated February 13, 2014 (referred to a report that the emergency downlock La Crosse after this as the Mandatory Continuing indication system (EDIS) had given a Monroe Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the Trempealeau false landing gear down-and-locked MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition indication and a determination that a Area of Application. Survey area plus: for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model terminating action modification is Minnesota: DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, necessary to address the identified Houston –301, –311, and –315 airplanes. The Winona unsafe condition. We are issuing this MCAI states: Wisconsin: AD to detect and correct a false down- Barron and-locked landing gear indication, During an in-service event where the Buffalo which, on landing, could result in landing gear control panel indicated an Clark possible collapse of the landing gear. unsafe nose landing gear, the flight crew Crawford observed that all three green lights were Dunn DATES: This AD becomes effective April illuminated on the emergency downlock Florence 27, 2015. indication system. The nose landing gear was Forest The Director of the Federal Register not down and locked, and collapsed during Jackson approved the incorporation by reference landing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Investigation found ambient light and instructions, this AD requires repairing air commerce by prescribing regulations wiring shorts can lead to incorrect using a method approved by the for practices, methods, and procedures illumination of the green lights on the Manager, New York Aircraft the Administrator finds necessary for emergency downlock indication system. Certification Office, ANE–170, FAA; or safety in air commerce. This regulation This [Canadian] AD mandates the functional check of the nose and main TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA is within the scope of that authority landing gear alternate indication Design Approval Organization. because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on phototransistors and the modification of the Conclusion emergency downlock indication system products identified in this rulemaking [incorporation of Modsums 8Q101955, We reviewed the relevant data and action. 8Q101968, and 8Q101969 as applicable]. determined that air safety and the Regulatory Findings The unsafe condition is a false down- public interest require adopting this AD and-locked landing gear indication, with the changes described previously We determined that this AD will not which, on landing, could result in and minor editorial changes. We have have federalism implications under possible collapse of the landing gear. determined that these minor changes: Executive Order 13132. This AD will • The modification consists of installing Are consistent with the intent that not have a substantial direct effect on certain new electrical components and was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR the States, on the relationship between cable assemblies. 62363, October 17, 2014) for correcting the national government and the States, You may examine the MCAI in the the unsafe condition; and or on the distribution of power and • AD docket on the Internet at http:// Do not add any additional burden responsibilities among the various www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; upon the public than was already levels of government. proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62363, D=FAA-2014-0752-0002. For the reasons discussed above, I October 17, 2014). certify that this AD: Comments We also determined that these We gave the public the opportunity to changes will not increase the economic 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory participate in developing this AD. We burden on any operator or increase the action’’ under Executive Order 12866; considered the comment received. An scope of this AD. 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the anonymous commenter supported the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Costs of Compliance NPRM (79 FR 62363, October 17, 2014). (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); We estimate that this AD affects 85 Change Made to This AD 3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in airplanes of U.S. registry. Alaska; and We have revised paragraphs (h)(1), The actions that are required by AD 4. Will not have a significant (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD to clarify the 2014–06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 economic impact, positive or negative, affected airplanes identified in those FR 17390, March 28, 2014), and retained on a substantial number of small entities paragraphs. This change does not affect in this AD take about 3 work-hours per under the criteria of the Regulatory the intent of those paragraphs. product, at an average labor rate of $85 Flexibility Act. per work-hour. Based on these figures, Clarification of Repair Approval the estimated cost of the actions that Examining the AD Docket Required by Paragraph (g) of AD 2014– were required by AD 2014–06–08 is 06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR You may examine the AD docket on $21,675, or $255 per product, per 17390, March 28, 2014) the Internet at http:// inspection cycle. www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= In paragraph (g) of AD 2014–06–08, We also estimate that it will take up FAA-2014-0752; or in person at the Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, to 40 work-hours per product to comply Docket Management Facility between 9 March 28, 2014), the functional check with the basic requirements of this AD. a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through and corrective actions are done in The average labor rate is $85 per work- Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD accordance with Bombardier Service hour. Required parts will cost up to docket contains this AD, the regulatory Bulletin 8–32–173, Revision A, dated $19,436 per product. Based on these evaluation, any comments received, and December 17, 2012. That service figures, we estimate the cost of this AD other information. The street address for information specifies to contact the on U.S. operators to be up to $1,941,060, the Docket Operations office (telephone manufacturer for further instructions if or $22,836 per product. certain discrepancies are found. As We have received no definitive data 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES noted in paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2014– that will enable us to provide cost section. 06–08, ‘‘For any requirement in this AD estimates for the on-condition actions List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 to obtain corrective actions from a specified in this AD. manufacturer, use these actions if they Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation are FAA-approved. . .’’ and ‘‘. . . Authority for This Rulemaking safety, Incorporation by reference, corrective actions are considered FAA- Title 49 of the United States Code Safety. approved if they were approved by the specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Adoption of the Amendment State of Design Authority (or its rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, delegated agent, or the DAH with a State section 106, describes the authority of Accordingly, under the authority of Design Authority’s design the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: delegated to me by the Administrator, organization approval, as applicable).’’ Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as To clarify the repair approval for the detail the scope of the Agency’s follows: action specified in paragraph (g) of this authority. AD, we have added an exception to We are issuing this rulemaking under PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS paragraph (g) of this AD, including the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, DIRECTIVES specific delegation approval language. Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: The exception clarifies that where the General requirements.’’ Under that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 service information specifies to contact section, Congress charges the FAA with continues to read as follows: the manufacturer for further promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15151

§ 39.13 [Amended] until accomplishment of the applicable certificate holding district office. The AMOC ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. approval letter must specifically reference removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) (h) New Requirement of This AD: this AD. 2014–06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 Terminating Action (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement FR 17390, March 28, 2014), and adding Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months in this AD to obtain corrective actions from the following new AD: after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the applicable actions a manufacturer, the action must be 2015–04–08 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) accomplished using a method approved by 39–18110. Docket No. FAA–2014–0752; of this AD. Accomplishment of the the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Directorate Identifier 2014–NM–079–AD. applicable actions specified in paragraphs Office, ANE–170, FAA; or TCCA; or (a) Effective Date (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD terminates the Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA DAO. If approved requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. This AD becomes effective April 27, 2015. by the DAO, the approval must include the (1) For airplanes on which Bombardier DAO-authorized signature. (b) Affected ADs ModSum 8/1519 is installed: Incorporate (k) Related Information This AD replaces AD 2014–06–08, Modsum 8Q101968, in accordance with the Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, March Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Refer to Mandatory Continuing 28, 2014). Service Bulletin 8–33–56, Revision A, dated Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian February 22, 2013. Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–11, dated (c) Applicability (2) For airplanes on which Bombardier Modsums 8/0235, 8/0461, and 8/0534 are February 13, 2014, for related information. This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model You may examine the MCAI in the AD DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, installed: Incorporate Modsum 8Q101955, in docket on the Internet at http:// –311, and –315 airplanes, certificated in any accordance with the Accomplishment category, serial numbers 003 through 672 Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D= inclusive. 8–32–176, Revision A, dated February 22, FAA-2014-0752-0002. 2013. (d) Subject (3) For airplanes on which Bombardier (l) Material Incorporated by Reference Air Transport Association (ATA) of Modsum 8/0534 is not installed: Incorporate (1) The Director of the Federal Register America Code 32, Landing Gear. Modsum 8Q101969, in accordance with the approved the incorporation by reference Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier (IBR) of the service information listed in this (e) Reason Service Bulletin 8–32–177, dated October 9, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR This AD was prompted by a report that the 2013. part 51. emergency downlock indication system (i) Credit for Previous Actions (2) You must use this service information (EDIS) had given a false landing gear down- as applicable to do the actions required by and-locked indication and a determination (1) This paragraph provides credit for that a terminating action modification is actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. necessary to address the identified unsafe if those actions were performed before the (3) The following service information was condition. We are issuing this AD to detect effective date of this AD using Bombardier approved for IBR on April 14, 2014 (79 FR and correct a false down-and-locked landing Service Bulletin 8–32–173, dated October 28, 17390, March 28, 2014). gear indication, which, on landing, could 2011, which is not incorporated by reference (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–173, result in possible collapse of the landing in this AD. Revision A, dated December 17, 2012. gear. (2) This paragraph provides credit for (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–176, actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this (f) Compliance Revision A, dated February 22, 2013. AD, if those actions were performed before (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–177, the effective date of this AD using Comply with this AD within the dated October 9, 2013. compliance times specified, unless already Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–33–56, dated (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–33–56, done. February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD. Revision A, dated February 22, 2013. (g) Retained Functional Check With Repair (3) This paragraph provides credit for (4) For service information identified in Approval Clarification actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series This paragraph restates the requirements of AD, if those actions were performed before Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, paragraph (g) of AD 2014–06–08, the effective date of this AD using Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, March Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–176, dated telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; 28, 2014), with specific delegation approval February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated email [email protected]; language. Within 600 flight hours or 100 by reference in this AD. Internet http://www.bombardier.com. days, whichever occurs first, after April 14, (j) Other FAA AD Provisions (5) You may view this service information 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014–06–08): at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Perform a functional check of the alternate The following provisions also apply to this 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For indication phototransistors of the nose and AD: main landing gear; and do all applicable (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance information on the availability of this corrective actions; in accordance with the (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, FAA, (6) You may view this service information Service Bulletin 8–32–173, Revision A, dated has the authority to approve AMOCs for this that is incorporated by reference at the December 17, 2012; except where AD, if requested using the procedures found National Archives and Records Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–173, in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR Administration (NARA). For information on Revision A, dated December 17, 2012, 39.19, send your request to your principal the availability of this material at NARA, call specifies to contact the manufacturer for inspector or local Flight Standards District 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives. further instructions, before further, flight, Office, as appropriate. If sending information gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. repair using a method approved by the directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Program Manager, Continuing Operational Issued in Renton, Washington, on February Office, ANE–170, FAA; or Transport Canada Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 19, 2015. Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.’s Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; Jeffrey E. Duven, TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Do all applicable corrective actions before Before using any approved AMOC, notify Aircraft Certification Service. further flight. Repeat the functional check your appropriate principal inspector, or thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight lacking a principal inspector, the manager of [FR Doc. 2015–05033 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first, the local flight standards district office/ BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey of certain life limited parts, which could Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. result in reduced structural integrity of Federal Aviation Administration • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of the airplane. Transportation, Docket Operations, AD 2014–23–15, Amendment 39– 14 CFR Part 39 M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing [Docket No. FAA–2015–0489; Directorate Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Identifier 2015–NM–013–AD; Amendment Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 Airworthiness Information (MCAI) 39–18112; AD 2015–05–02] a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through European Aviation Safety Agency Friday, except Federal holidays. Airworthiness Directives 2012–0008, RIN 2120–AA64 For service information identified in dated January 16, 2012; and 2013–0147, dated July 16, 2013. You may examine Airworthiness Directives; Airbus this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness the MCAI on the Internet at http:// Airplanes Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; www.regulations.gov by searching for AGENCY: Federal Aviation telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– Administration (FAA), Department of 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth- 0489. Transportation (DOT). [email protected]; Internet http:// Since we issued AD 2014–23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, ACTION: Final rule; request for www.airbus.com. You may view this January 26, 2015), we have determined comments. referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, that certain limitations required by AD SUMMARY: We are superseding 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 2014–23–15 conflict with limitations Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–23– For information on the availability of required by AD 2014–26–10, 15 for all Airbus Model A318, A319, this material at the FAA, call 425–227– Amendment 39–18061 (80 FR 2813, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 1221. January 21, 2015). Paragraph (n) of AD 2014–23–15 required revising the 2014–23–15 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to Examining the AD Docket maintenance or inspection program, as incorporate new, more restrictive You may examine the AD docket on applicable, to incorporate the airworthiness limitations. This new AD the Internet at http:// airworthiness limitations specified in retains the requirement to revise the www.regulations.gov by searching for paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of maintenance or inspection program and and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– AD 2014–23–15. Paragraph (n)(3) of AD removes a conflicting requirement. This 0489; or in person at the Docket 2014–23–15 references Airbus A318/ AD was prompted by a determination Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4—Ageing that certain limitations required by AD p.m., Monday through Friday, except Systems Maintenance, dated January 8, 2014–23–15 conflict with limitations Federal holidays. The AD docket 2008. However, paragraph (g) of AD required by another AD. We are issuing contains this AD, the regulatory 2014–26–10 requires revising the this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, evaluation, any comments received, and maintenance or inspection program, as accidental damage, or corrosion in other information. The street address for applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/ principal structural elements, and the Docket Operations office (telephone A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, Aging possible failure of certain life limited 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES parts, which could result in reduced section. Comments will be available in Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, structural integrity of the airplane. the AD docket shortly after receipt. dated June 15, 2012. Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 DATES: This AD becomes effective FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS March 23, 2015. Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Part 4, Aging Systems Maintenance, The Director of the Federal Register International Branch, ANM–116, Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012, approved the incorporation by reference Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, contains the most recent airworthiness of certain publications listed in this AD 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA limitations for ALS Part 4. Therefore, as of March 2, 2015 (80 FR 3871, 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS January 26, 2015). fax 425–227–1149. Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, The Director of the Federal Register SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: dated January 8, 2008, should not be approved the incorporation by reference Discussion incorporated as required by AD 2014– of certain other publications listed in 23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR this AD as of August 22, 2011 (76 FR On December 23, 2014, we issued AD 3871, January 26, 2015). We have 42024, July 18, 2011). 2014–23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 removed paragraph (n)(3) of AD 2014– The Director of the Federal Register FR 3871, January 26, 2015), to supersede 23–15 from this AD. We have also approved the incorporation by reference AD 2011–14–06, Amendment 39–16741 revised the introductory text of of certain other publications listed in (76 FR 42024, July 18, 2011). AD 2014– paragraph (n) of this AD to refer only to this AD as of November 7, 2007 (72 FR 23–15 applied to all Airbus Model paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD. 56262, October 3, 2007). A318, A319, A320, and A321 series We must receive comments on this airplanes. AD 2014–23–15 was FAA’s Determination and Requirements AD by May 7, 2015. prompted by the determination that of This AD ADDRESSES: You may send comments by more restrictive airworthiness This product has been approved by any of the following methods: limitations were necessary. AD 2014– the aviation authority of another • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 23–15 required revising the country, and is approved for operation http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the maintenance program to incorporate in the United States. Pursuant to our instructions for submitting comments. new, more restrictive airworthiness bilateral agreement with the State of • Fax: 202–493–2251. limitations. We issued AD 2014–23–15 Design Authority, we have been notified • Mail: U.S. Department of to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental of the unsafe condition described in the Transportation, Docket Operations, damage, or corrosion in principal MCAI and service information M–30, West Building Ground Floor, structural elements, and possible failure referenced above. We are issuing this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15153

AD because we evaluated all pertinent January 26, 2015), and retained in this PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS information and determined the unsafe AD take about 2 work-hours per DIRECTIVES condition exists and is likely to exist or product, at an average labor rate of $85 develop on other products of these same per work-hour. Based on these figures, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 type designs. the estimated cost of the actions that continues to read as follows: FAA’s Determination of the Effective were required by AD 2014–23–15 is Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. $170 per product. Date § 39.13 [Amended] An unsafe condition exists that Authority for This Rulemaking ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by requires the immediate adoption of this Title 49 of the United States Code removing airworthiness directive (AD) AD. The FAA has found that the risk to specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2014–23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 the flying public justifies waiving notice rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, FR 3871, January 26, 2015), and adding and comment prior to adoption of this section 106, describes the authority of the following new AD: rule because operators must comply the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: with the most recent airworthiness Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 2015–05–02 Airbus: Amendment 39–18112. limitations, which are specified in Docket No. FAA–2015–0489; Directorate detail the scope of the Agency’s Identifier 2015–NM–013–AD. Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS authority. Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, We are issuing this rulemaking under (a) Effective Date Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012, as the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, This AD becomes effective March 23, 2015. required by AD 2014–26–10, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: (b) Affected ADs Amendment 39–18061 (80 FR 2813, General requirements.’’ Under that This AD replaces AD 2014–23–15, January 21, 2015). Since AD 2014–23– section, Congress charges the FAA with 15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 26, 2015). January 26, 2015), requires an earlier air commerce by prescribing regulations version of the airworthiness limitations, for practices, methods, and procedures (c) Applicability i.e., Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS the Administrator finds necessary for This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318– Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, safety in air commerce. This regulation 111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes; Model dated January 8, 2008, we must remove is within the scope of that authority A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes; Model A320–111, that requirement in order to avoid a because it addresses an unsafe condition conflict with certain requirements of AD –211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 that is likely to exist or develop on airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, 2014–26–10. Therefore, we determined products identified in this rulemaking –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes; that notice and opportunity for public action. certificated in any category. comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists Regulatory Findings (d) Subject for making this amendment effective in We determined that this AD will not Air Transport Association (ATA) of fewer than 30 days. have federalism implications under America Code 05, Periodic Inspections. Comments Invited Executive Order 13132. This AD will (e) Reason not have a substantial direct effect on This AD was prompted by a determination This AD is a final rule that involves the States, on the relationship between that certain limitations required by AD 2014– requirements affecting flight safety, and the national government and the States, 23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, we did not precede it by notice and or on the distribution of power and January 26, 2015), conflict with limitations opportunity for public comment. We responsibilities among the various required by AD 2014–26–10, Amendment invite you to send any written relevant levels of government. 39–18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015). We data, views, or arguments about this AD. are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue For the reasons discussed above, I Send your comments to an address cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certify that this AD: listed under the ADDRESSES section. principal structural elements, and possible 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory failure of certain life limited parts, which Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2015–0489; action’’ under Executive Order 12866; could result in reduced structural integrity of Directorate Identifier 2015–NM–013– the airplane. AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the We specifically invite comments on the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (f) Compliance overall regulatory, economic, (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); Comply with this AD within the environmental, and energy aspects of 3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in compliance times specified, unless already this AD. We will consider all comments Alaska; and done. received by the closing date and may 4. Will not have a significant (g) Retained Revision of Airworthiness amend this AD because of those economic impact, positive or negative, Limitations Section (ALS) to Incorporate comments. on a substantial number of small entities Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items We will post all comments we under the criteria of the Regulatory (ALIs), With No Changes receive, without change, to http:// Flexibility Act. This paragraph restates the requirements of www.regulations.gov, including any List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 paragraph (g) of AD 2014–23–15, personal information you provide. We Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January will also post a report summarizing each Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318– substantive verbal contact we receive safety, Incorporation by reference, 111 and –112 airplanes; Model A319–111, Safety. –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 about this AD. airplanes; Model A320–111, –211, –212, Costs of Compliance Adoption of the Amendment –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, We estimate that this AD affects 851 Accordingly, under the authority –213, –231, and –232 airplanes: Within 3 airplanes of U.S. registry. delegated to me by the Administrator, months after November 7, 2007 (the effective The actions required by AD 2014–23– the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as date of AD 2007–20–05, Amendment 39– 15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, follows: 15215 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007)), revise

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

the ALS of the Instructions for Continued (approved by the EASA on May 21, 2007). (j) Retained Revision of ALS To Incorporate Airworthiness to incorporate Sub-part 1–2, Accomplish the actions in Airbus A318/ Damage-Tolerant ALIs, With No Changes Life Limits, and Sub-part 1–3, Demonstrated A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation This paragraph restates the requirements of Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/A319/A320/ Items, Document AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, paragraph (j) of AD 2014–23–15, Amendment A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Issue 7, dated December 2005; Issue 08, dated 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), Limitation Items, Revision 00, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November with no changes. Within 9 months after February 28, 2006. Accomplish the actions in 2006; at the times specified in Airbus A318/ August 22, 2011 (the effective date of AD Sub-part 1–2, Life Limits, and Sub-part 1–3, A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation 2011–14–06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR Demonstrated Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/ 42024, July 18, 2011)): Revise the A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Items, Document AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, maintenance program by incorporating all Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 00, Issue 7, dated December 2005; Issue 08, dated dated February 28, 2006, at the times March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November maintenance requirements and associated specified in Sub-part 1–2, Life Limits, and 2006; as applicable; except as provided by airworthiness limitations specified in the Sub-part 1–3, Demonstrated Fatigue Lives, of paragraph (i) of this AD. Accomplishing the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1— actions required by paragraph (j) or (n) of this Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, AD, as applicable, terminates the AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated dated February 28, 2006, except as provided requirements of this paragraph. October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September by paragraph (i) of this AD. Accomplishing 2010. Comply with all applicable the actions required by paragraph (j) of this (i) Retained Grace Period for New or More maintenance requirements and associated AD terminates the requirements of this Restrictive Actions, With No Changes airworthiness limitations included in Airbus paragraph. This paragraph restates certain provisions A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ of paragraph (i) of AD 2014–23–15, (h) Retained Revision of ALS for Certain 95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January Airplanes To Incorporate Damage Tolerant or Issue 11, dated September 2010; except as ALIs, With No Changes 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318– provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. 111 and –112 airplanes; Model A319–111, This paragraph restates certain provisions Accomplishing the actions required by this –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 of paragraph (h) of AD 2014–23–15, paragraph terminates the requirements of Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January airplanes; Model A320–111, –211, –212, paragraph (h) of this AD. Accomplishing the 26, 2015), with no changes. For Model A318– –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD 111 and –112 airplanes; Model A319–111, Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, terminates the requirements of this –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 –213, –231, and –232 airplanes: For any new paragraph. or more restrictive life–limit introduced with airplanes; Model A320–111, –211, –212, (k) Retained Special Compliance Times for –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and Sub-part 1–2, Life Limits, and Sub-part 1–3, Certain Tasks, With No Changes Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, Demonstrated Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/ –213, –231, and –232 airplanes; except A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life This paragraph restates the requirements of Model A319 airplanes on which Airbus Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 00, paragraph (k) of AD 2014–23–15, Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have dated February 28, 2006, replace the part at Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January been incorporated in production: Within 14 the time specified in Sub-part 1–2, Life 26, 2015), with no changes. For new and more restrictive tasks introduced with Airbus days after November 7, 2007 (the effective Limits, and Sub-part 1–3, Demonstrated A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness date of AD 2007–20–05, Amendment 39– Fatigue Lives, of Airbus A318/A319/A320/ Limitation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 15215 (72 FR 56262, October 3, 2007)), revise A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness the ALS of the Instructions for Continued 95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated October 2009; Limitation Items, Revision 00, dated Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/ or Issue 11, dated September 2010; as A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation February 28, 2006, or within 6 months after specified in table 1 to paragraph (k) of this Items, Document AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, November 7, 2007 (the effective date of AD AD: The initial compliance time for doing the Issue 7, dated December 2005 (approved by 2007–20–05, Amendment 39–15215 (72 FR tasks is specified in table 1 to paragraph (k) the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 56262, October 3, 2007)), whichever is later. of this AD. Accomplishing the actions on February 7, 2006); Issue 08, dated March Accomplishing the actions required by required by paragraph (n) of this AD 2006 (approved by the EASA on January 4, paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the terminates the requirements of this 2007); or Issue 09, dated November 2006 requirements of this paragraph. paragraph.

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (K) OF THIS AD—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR TASKS

Task Applicability (as specified in the Compliance time, whichever occurs later applicability column of the task)

545102–01–6 ...... Group 19–1A CFM, Group 19–1B The threshold as defined in Airbus Within 2,000 flight cycles or 5,500 CFM, and Model A320–200 air- A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness flight hours, after August 22, 2011 planes with CFM Industrial (CFM)/ Limitation Items, Document AI/SE– (the effective date of AD 2011–14– International Aero Engine (IAE) en- M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR gines. October 2009; or Issue 11, dated 42024, July 18, 2011)), whichever September 2010. occurs first. 545102–01–7 ...... Model A320–100 series airplanes ...... The threshold as defined in Airbus Within 2,000 flight cycles or 2,000 A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness flight hours, after August 22, 2011 Limitation Items, Document AI/SE– (the effective date of AD 2011–14– M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR October 2009; or Issue 11, dated 42024, July 18, 2011)), whichever September 2010. occurs first.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15155

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (K) OF THIS AD—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR TASKS—Continued 572050–01–1 or al- Group 19–1A and Group 19–1B air- At the time of the next due accom- Within 6 months after August 22, 2011 ternative task planes. plishment of any one of the tasks (the effective date of AD 2011–14– 572050–02–1. 572004, 572020, or 572053 as cur- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR rently described in the Airbus A318/ 42024, July 18, 2011)). A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limi- tation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 572050–01–4 or al- Model A320–200 series airplanes ...... At the time of the next due accom- Within 6 months after August 22, 2011 ternative task plishment of any one of the tasks (the effective date of AD 2011–14– 572050–02–4. 572004, 572020, or 572053 as cur- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR rently described in the Airbus A318/ 42024, July 18, 2011)). A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limi- tation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 572050–01–5 or al- Group 21–1A airplanes ...... At the time of the next due accom- Within 6 months after August 22, 2011 ternative task plishment of any one of the tasks (the effective date of AD 2011–14– 572050–02–5. 572004, 572020, or 572053 as cur- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR rently described in the Airbus A318/ 42024, July 18, 2011)). A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limi- tation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 572050–01–7 or al- Model A320–100 series airplanes ...... At the time of the next due accom- Within 6 months after August 22, 2011 ternative task plishment of any one of the tasks (the effective date of AD 2011–14– 572050–02–7. 572004, 572020, or 572053 as cur- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR rently described in the Airbus A318/ 42024, July 18, 2011)). A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limi- tation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 534132–01–1 ...... Model A320 PRE 30748 airplanes ...... The threshold/interval as defined in Within 100 days after August 22, 2011 Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Air- (the effective date of AD 2011–14– worthiness Limitation Items, Docu- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR ment AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 42024, July 18, 2011)), without ex- 10, dated October 2009; or Issue ceeding the previous threshold/inter- 11, dated September 2010. val as defined in Airbus A318/A319/ A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 531118–01–1 ...... Model A318 (except (A318–121 and The threshold/interval as defined in Within 100 days after August 22, 2011 –122), Group 19–1A, Group 19–1B, Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Air- (the effective date of AD 2011–14– and Model A320 and A321 series worthiness Limitation Items, Docu- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR airplanes. ment AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 42024, July 18, 2011)), without ex- 10, dated October 2009; or Issue ceeding the previous threshold/inter- 11, dated September 2010. val as defined in Airbus A318/A319/ A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE–M4/ 95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated Decem- ber 2005; Issue 08, dated March 2006; or Issue 09, dated November 2006. 531118–01–1 ...... Model A318–121 and –122 airplanes .. The threshold/interval as defined in Within 100 days after August 22, 2011 Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Air- (the effective date of AD 2011–14– worthiness Limitation Items, Docu- 06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR ment AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 42024, July 18, 2011)). 10, dated October 2009; or Issue 11, dated September 2010.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Note 1 to table 1 to paragraph (k) of this (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), with no (2) You must use this service information AD: ALI Task 572050 refers to the outer wing changes. After accomplishing the revision as applicable to do the actions required by dry bay and is comprised of extracts from required by paragraph (n) of this AD, no this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. three ALI Tasks 572004, 572020, and 572053. alternative actions (e.g., inspections), (3) The following service information was The threshold of ALI Task 572050 for the intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless approved for IBR on March 2, 2015 (80 FR whole dry bay area is that of the lowest the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are 3871, January 26, 2015). threshold of the source ALI tasks, i.e., that of approved as an alternative method of (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part ALI Task 572053. compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. The (l) Retained Limitation: No Alternative Life this AD. revision level of this document is identified Limits, Inspections, or Inspection Intervals on only the title page and in the Record of After Accomplishment of the Actions (p) Other FAA AD Provisions Revisions. The revision date is not identified Specified in Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This The following provisions also apply to this on the title page of this document. AD, With No Changes AD: (ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS This paragraph restates the requirements of (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated paragraph (l) of AD 2014–23–15, Amendment (AMOCs): The Manager, International May 28, 2013. The revision date of this 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane document is not identified on the title page with no changes. After the actions specified Directorate, FAA, has the authority to of this document. in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD have approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested (4) The following service information was been accomplished, no alternative life limits, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your approved for IBR on August 22, 2011 (76 FR inspections, or inspection intervals may be 42024, July 18, 2011). request to your principal inspector or local used, except as provided by paragraphs (i) (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Flight Standards District Office, as and (m) of this AD, and except as required Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document appropriate. If sending information directly by paragraphs (j) and (n) of this AD. AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 10, dated to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: (m) Retained Limitation: No Alternative Life October 2009. The revision level of this Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, document is identified on only the title page Limits, Inspections, or Inspection Intervals International Branch, ANM–116, Transport After Accomplishment of the Actions and in the Record of Revisions. Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind (ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Specified in Paragraph (j) of This AD, With Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; No Changes Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149. AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 11, dated This paragraph restates the requirements of Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- September 2010. The revision level of this paragraph (m) of AD 2014–23–15, [email protected]. document is identified on only the title page Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January (i) Before using any approved AMOC, and in the Record of Revisions. 26, 2015), with no changes. After the actions notify your appropriate principal inspector, (5) The following service information was specified in paragraph (j) of this AD have or lacking a principal inspector, the manager approved for IBR on November 7, 2007 (72 been accomplished, no alternative life limits, of the local flight standards district office/ FR 56262, October 3, 2007). inspections, or inspection intervals may be certificate holding district office. The AMOC (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part used, except as required by paragraph (n) of approval letter must specifically reference 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, this AD. this AD. Revision 00, dated February 28, 2006. (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD (ii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 (n) Retained Maintenance or Inspection 2011–14–06, Amendment 39–16741 (76 FR Program Revision, With Changes Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document 42024, July 18, 2011), are approved as AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated This paragraph restates the requirements of AMOCs for the corresponding actions of this December 2005. paragraph (n) of AD 2014–23–15, AD. Note 2 to paragraph (r)(5)(ii) of this AD: Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, January (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of This document contains the following errors: 26, 2015), except that paragraph (n)(3) of AD March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014– The Summary of Changes is comprised of 11 2014–23–15 is not retained. Within 30 days 23–15, Amendment 39–18031 (80 FR 3871, pages, which are all identified as Page 2— after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD January 26, 2015)), for any requirement in LEP of Section LEP instead of Page 1—SOC 2014–23–15), revise the maintenance or this AD to obtain corrective actions from a [through] Page 11—SOC of Section SOC; the inspection program, as applicable, to manufacturer, the action must be List of Effective Pages only refers to Page 1— incorporate the ALIs specified in paragraphs accomplished using a method approved by SOC for the Summary of Changes. The List (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD. The initial the Manager, International Branch, ANM– of Effective Pages is comprised of two pages, compliance time for the accomplishing the 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or and both of those pages are identified as Page actions is at the applicable time specified in the European Aviation Safety Agency 2—LEP. The first page of Section 2 is the ALIs specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design identified as Page 6 of Section 1 and is not (n)(2) of this AD; or within 4 months after Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by referred to in the List of Effective Pages. March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014– the DOA, the approval must include the (iii) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 23–15); whichever occurs later. DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishing these actions terminates the Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (q) Related Information AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 08, dated and (k) of this AD. Refer to Mandatory Continuing March 2006. (1) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Note 3 to paragraph (r)(5)(iii) of this AD: Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Airworthiness Directives 2012–0008, dated This document contains the following errors: Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. January 16, 2012; and 2013–0147, dated July Pages 3—ROR and 2—SOC are not referred (2) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS 16, 2013; for related information. This MCAI to in the List of Effective Pages. The List of Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness may be found in the AD docket on the Effective Pages is identified as Pages 1—SOC Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by and 2—SOC, instead of 1—LEP and 2—LEP. May 28, 2013. searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– The first page of Section 2 is identified as 2015–0489. Page 6 of Section 1 and is not referred to in (o) Retained Limitation: No Alternative the List of Effective Pages. Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design (r) Material Incorporated by Reference (iv) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), (1) The Director of the Federal Register Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document With No Changes approved the incorporation by reference AI/SE–M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 09, dated This paragraph restates the requirements of (IBR) of the service information listed in this November 2006. paragraph (o) of AD 2014–23–15, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR (6) For service information identified in Amendment 39–18031 part 51. this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15157

Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The I. Revisions to Rules of Practice for Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; Federal Trade Commission is revising Nonadjudicative Investigations (Part 2) telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 certain rules in parts 2 and 3 of its rules In 2012, the Commission undertook 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@ of practice that govern investigations airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. an extensive revision of its rules (7) You may view this service information and adjudicative proceedings, and is governing the conduct of its at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, revising other rules in part 4 of its rules investigations.3 The Commission is now 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For of practice. revising certain of those rules to information on the availability of this The Commission is amending Rules promote fairness, flexibility, and material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 2.7 and 2.10 to provide the Office of efficiency in FTC investigations, which (8) You may view this service information Policy Planning (‘‘OPP’’) Director and includes studies conducted under that is incorporated by reference at the Deputy Directors with the authority to section 6(b) of the FTC Act. National Archives and Records modify the terms of compliance with Administration (NARA). For information on Rules 2.7(l) and 2.10(a)(5): Officials the availability of this material at NARA, call compulsory process, alter the meet-and- confer prerequisite, and extend the With Authority To Modify Compulsory 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// Process and Extend the Deadline for deadline for filing a petition to limit or www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- Petitions To Quash locations.html. quash compulsory process. This change The Commission is revising Rules Issued in Renton, Washington, on February reflects OPP’s role in frequently 25, 2015. conducting and leading studies under 2.7(l) and 2.10(a)(5) to reflect the fact that the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning Jeffrey E. Duven, section 6(b) of the FTC Act. The Commission is also revising Rule 2.10(c) frequently conducts and leads section Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 6(b) studies. The Commission is Aircraft Certification Service. to impose a 40-day deadline for disposing of petitions to limit or quash amending Rule 2.7(l) to include the [FR Doc. 2015–05731 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] compulsory process. Office of Policy Planning Director and BILLING CODE 4910–13–P In part 3 of its Rules, the Commission Deputy Directors among the identified is amending Rule 3.26 to make clear that Commission officials authorized to administrative litigation will be modify the terms of compliance with FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION suspended if respondents file a orders to file special reports under section 6(b) of the FTC Act and other 16 CFR Parts 2, 3, and 4 qualifying motion for withdrawal or dismissal after a district court denies forms of compulsory process. Commission rules provide that the Revisions to Rules of Practice preliminary injunctive relief in an ancillary proceeding brought under officials designated in Rule 2.7(l) also AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. section 13(b) of the FTC Act. As have the power to modify the manner and form of production of electronically ACTION: Final rules. discussed below, the Commission will stored information (in Rule 2.7(j)), and continue to follow the 1995 Policy SUMMARY: The Commission is revising alter the meet-and-confer prerequisite Statement Regarding Administrative certain of its rules of practice to promote for filing a petition to limit or quash Merger Litigation Following the Denial fairness, flexibility and efficiency in its compulsory process (in Rule 2.7(k)). of a Preliminary Injunction 1 and investigations, studies, and adjudicative Consistent with these amendments, the consider the specific circumstances of proceedings. These rule revisions Commission is also revising Rule each case when deciding whether to include a revision to the rule governing 2.10(a)(5) to state that the Office of pursue administrative litigation. In the status of cases in administrative Policy Planning Director and Deputy addition, the Commission is revising the adjudication following a district court’s Directors are authorized to extend the Part 3 rules to correct typographical denial of preliminary injunctive relief in deadline for filing a petition to limit or errors, ensure consistency between an ancillary proceeding. Other changes quash. The revised rules will better sections, clarify paragraph headings, include revisions to the list of reflect Commission practice and provide and make other technical changes. Commission officials who have further flexibility and efficiency for 6(b) authority to modify the terms and In part 4 of its Rules, the Commission studies and other investigations. timeframe for compliance with is revising the procedures and contact information for accessing public records Rule 2.10(c): Disposition of Petitions To compulsory process, and a change to the Limit or Quash Compulsory Process deadline for the Commission to dispose in Rule 4.9, making a technical of petitions to limit or quash correction to Rule 4.11, and updating The Commission revised Rule 2.10 in compulsory process. In addition, the the names of exempt Privacy Act 2012 to eliminate the two-step Commission is updating its procedures systems in Rule 4.13. procedure for rulings on petitions to for accessing public records and list of Because these rule revisions relate limit or quash compulsory process by exempt Privacy Act systems. solely to agency procedure and practice, requiring the full Commission to rule on the petition in the first instance. The DATES: publication for notice and comment is These rule revisions are effective rule also imposed a 30-day deadline for on March 23, 2015. not required under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).2 These disposition of the petition. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rule revisions are effective on March 23, Commission received no comments Josephine Liu, Attorney, (202) 326– 2015. regarding this provision, and adopted it 2170, Office of the General Counsel, as proposed, noting that if the Federal Trade Commission, 600 1 Administrative Litigation Following the Denial Commission did not meet the deadline, Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, of a Preliminary Injunction: Policy Statement, 60 FR the petition would not be automatically DC 20580. For information about the 39741 (Aug. 3, 1995). granted or denied.4 To enable sufficient revisions to 16 CFR part 4, contact G. 2 For this reason, the requirements of the time for full Commission review of the Richard Gold, Attorney, (202) 326–3355, Regulatory Flexibility Act are also inapplicable. 5 merits of the petition, the Commission U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). Likewise, the amendments do Office of the General Counsel, Federal not modify any FTC collections of information Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction 3 See Rules of Practice, 77 FR 59294 (2012). Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 4 77 FR 59300.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

is revising Rule 2.10(c) to impose a 40- dismissal would result in an automatic Less than a month later, after carefully day deadline. The extra 10 days for stay. The procedure for a withdrawal considering the factors outlined in the Commission review do not pose a enabled ex parte communications Policy Statement, the Commission voted substantial hardship to recipients of (otherwise prohibited by Rule 4.7) while unanimously to end the administrative compulsory process because Rule the matter was withdrawn from Part 3 litigation.10 The Policy Statement will 2.10(b) continues to provide that the administrative adjudication. During this continue to guide the Commission in timely filing of a petition to limit or period, complaint counsel and the future. quash stays the remaining amount of respondents (and third parties) could The Commission has now decided to time permitted for compliance. communicate informally with return to the automatic mechanisms in Commissioners to discuss the matter the 1995 rule. The new rule now II. Revisions to Rules of Practice for without the constraints of the provides for an automatic withdrawal or Adjudicative Proceedings (Part 3) adjudicative rules. In addition, because automatic stay, depending on the type Rule 3.26 such communications would not be on of motion filed. Because the the record of the administrative Commission is retaining the deadlines Rule 3.26 sets out two procedures that in the 2009 rule for the filing of motions facilitate Commission consideration of proceeding, counsel could discuss the case without concern that their and specifying deadlines for whether to pursue administrative Commission determinations of the merger litigation following judicial statements might compromise their litigation position if the case were motions, an automatic withdrawal or denial of preliminary injunctive relief in stay is not likely to disrupt the an ancillary proceeding brought under returned to adjudication. The alternative procedure in the 1995 resolution of the matter. section 13(b) of the Federal Trade First, respondents may move to have Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b).5 As Rule provided for an automatic stay of the adjudication if a respondent filed a the administrative case withdrawn from explained further below, the rule allows adjudication. The Commission is respondents to file a motion to motion to dismiss the administrative complaint and to brief the matter on the retaining the provision in the 2009 rule withdraw the administrative case from that motions for withdrawal can be filed adjudication or a motion to dismiss the public record. The ex parte restrictions remained in place. jointly or separately, so long as all of the administrative complaint. Such motions respondents agree to seek withdrawal. can only be filed within a certain time Because of the long delays that often resulted from the filing of motions The administrative case will after the district court has denied the automatically be withdrawn two days preliminary injunction or after the court under the 1995 Rule, the Commission 8 after the motion is filed, unless of appeals has denied the Commission’s revised the rule in 2009. The 2009 rule continued to allow respondents to file complaint counsel files an objection motion for relief pending appeal. asserting that the procedural either type of motion but no longer In revising Rule 3.26, the Commission requirements have not been satisfied,11 provided that such a motion would is also making clear it will continue to in which case the Commission will consider the specific circumstances of result in an automatic withdrawal or an automatic stay. Although it was revising each case when deciding whether to Am., Docket No. 9345, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/ proceed with administrative litigation, the 1995 rule, the Commission default/files/documents/cases/2011/03/110324lab as outlined in a 1995 Policy Statement 6 indicated, however, that it would corpcommorder.pdf (Mar. 23, 2011). In Phoebe continue to adhere to the case-by-case Putney, the other merger matter since the 2009 rule issued in conjunction with the original change in which the Commission lost a motion for 7 approach articulated in the 1995 Policy version of the rule. As discussed preliminary injunction, the respondents did not below, the revisions ensure that, if Statement in determining whether to invoke Rule 3.26. Rather, the Commission granted respondents file either type of motion in continue with administrative litigation an unopposed motion to stay the Part 3 proceedings challenging a merger after a district after the Eleventh Circuit granted an injunction accordance with the rule, the pending appeal; and the Commission subsequently administrative litigation will be court had denied preliminary injunctive lifted its stay after prevailing in the Supreme Court. suspended unless and until the relief. In addition, the Commission See Order Granting Respondents’ Unopposed Commission rules that maintenance of authorized motions under Rule 3.26 to Motion to Stay Proceeding, In re Phoebe Putney be filed at an earlier time following the Health Sys., Inc., Docket No. 9348, the litigation would serve the public https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ interest. These revisions follow the district court’s denial of preliminary 130222ccnoa_0.pdf (July 15, 2011); Order Granting approach of the original version of the injunctive relief and required the Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Lift Stay, In re rule. Commission to dispose of such motions Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., Docket No. 9348, within 30 days. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ Rule 3.26, as first issued in 1995, cases/2013/03/130314phoebeordermotion.pdf (Mar. provided that a motion for withdrawal Since 2009, the Commission has 14, 2013). would generally result in an automatic continued to be guided by the 1995 10 See Statement of Commissioners Leibowitz, withdrawal and that a motion for Policy Statement when determining Kovacic, and Ramirez, In re Lab. Corp. of Am., whether to proceed with administrative Docket No. 9345, http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ documents/public_statements/568671/110422 5 Although Rule 3.26 applies to any type of litigation. For example, in Laboratory labcorpcommstmt.pdf (Apr. 21, 2011); Concurring administrative litigation where the Commission has Corporation of America, the district Statement of Commissioner Brill, In re Lab. Corp. sought a preliminary injunction, the Commission court denied the Commission’s request of Am., Docket No. 9345, http://www.ftc.gov/ typically seeks such relief during a challenge to an for preliminary injunctive relief, the system/files/documents/public_statements/568681/ unconsummated merger, acquisition, joint venture 110422labcorpstmtbrill.pdf (Apr. 21, 2011). or similar transaction. respondents then moved to withdraw 11 As the Commission noted in 1995, the 6 Statement of Federal Trade Commission Policy the matter from administrative procedural requirements might not be satisfied if Regarding Administrative Merger Litigation adjudication, and the Commission the Rule 3.26 motion is filed untimely, or if there Following the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction, granted the respondents’ motion for is a question as to whether a particular court order supra note 1, at 39743. The Commission indicated 9 constitutes a denial of preliminary injunctive relief. in 1995 that the principles of the Policy Statement withdrawal six days after it was filed. 60 FR 39640 n.3. Rule 3.26 is intended for would apply also in the context of consumer situations where the court refuses to grant the protection litigation and non-merger competition 8 Rules of Practice, 74 FR 1804, 1811–12 (Jan. 13, Commission any form of preliminary relief. If, for litigation. 2009). example, the court denies the Commission’s request 7 Administrative Litigation Following the Denial 9 See Order Withdrawing Matter from for a preliminary injunction halting a proposed of a Preliminary Injunction, 60 FR 39640 (Aug. 3, Adjudication Pursuant to Rule 3.26(c) of the merger but nonetheless imposes a ‘‘hold separate’’ 1995). Commission Rules of Practice, In re Lab. Corp. of order, Rule 3.26 would not be available.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15159

decide whether to withdraw the case Rule 3.22(a) is being amended to revised to restore a clause that was from adjudication. clarify that Rule 3.22(a) does not govern inadvertently deleted after the 2011 Second, any respondent may file a the presentation and timing amendments. motion for dismissal that will be briefed requirements for motions under Rule In Rule 3.46(c)(4), an erroneous on the public record. The administrative 3.26. Similarly, Rule 3.22(b) is being reference to the public or nonpublic case will automatically be stayed until revised to reflect the fact that, under the status of each ‘‘exhibit’’ in the witness 7 days after the Commission rules on Commission’s rules, the filing of certain index is being replaced with ‘‘witness the motion for dismissal, and all motions automatically stays the testimony.’’ deadlines established by the rules will proceedings. In particular, motions III. Revisions to Miscellaneous Rules be tolled for the amount of time the under Rule 3.26(d) as revised by this (Part 4) proceeding is stayed. notice and some motions under existing As noted above, the Commission is Rule 3.25(c) will result in automatic Rule 4.9: The Public Record retaining the 2009 rule’s timing stays. For the same reasons, the The Commission’s public record requirements for such motions but Commission is amending Rule 3.41(f) by regulation, 16 CFR 4.9, sets out simplifying the wording in Rule 3.26(b). adding a cross-reference to Rule 3.26, to procedures and contact information for If the Commission does not file a motion make clear that Rule 3.41(f) does not accessing public record materials. The with the court of appeals for relief govern in situations where Rule 3.26 Commission is amending Rule 4.9(a)(1), pending appeal within 7 days following applies. (2), (3), (4), and 10(viii), 16 CFR the district court’s denial of a Rule 3.23(b) is being amended to 4.9(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (10)(viii), to preliminary injunction, the Rule 3.26 clarify that a party opposing reflect updates to these procedures and motion must be filed within 14 days interlocutory review may file an answer contact information. The revised rule after the denial of the preliminary to both (1) the initial request for states that these materials are available injunction. If the Commission files a determination that is filed with the ALJ, either electronically at the FTC’s Web motion with the court of appeals for and (2) the subsequent application for site, www.ftc.gov, or for older materials relief pending appeal, the Rule 3.26 review that is filed with the not on the Web site, through telephonic motion must be filed within 14 days Commission. Existing Rule 3.23(b) requests with the FTC’s Reading Room after, but no earlier than, denial by the could create confusion about whether at (202) 326–2222, extension 2. court of appeals of the Commission’s the first type of answer is permitted, Under the prior policy, the FTC’s motion for relief pending appeal. because the rule does not expressly Consumer Response Center (CRC) In addition, in order to expedite these authorize answers to initial requests but maintained an in-person physical proceedings, the Commission is nonetheless mentions the deadline for reading room at the Headquarters specifying deadlines for deciding filing such answers. building, where members of the public motions under Rule 3.26. If respondents The general discovery provisions could inspect records and file public file a motion for withdrawal under Rule were previously amended in 2009 to record requests. Once requests were 3.26(c) and complaint counsel files an prohibit filing discovery materials with received, the CRC worked with the objection, the Commission must rule on the Secretary, except in certain Commission’s Records and Filings the motion within 10 days of the circumstances. See 16 CFR 3.31(h). To Office, which researched public record objection. If respondents file a motion ensure consistency with the 2009 requests, retrieved documents from for dismissal under Rule 3.26(d), the amendment, the Commission is now (1) storage, and provided them to CRC staff Commission is retaining the eliminating the requirement in Rule and authorized contractors to distribute requirement of the current rule that the 3.32(a) and (b) that requests for to the requestors to review and make Commission decide such motions admissions and responses thereto be copies in the physical reading room. within 30 days. filed with the Secretary, and (2) revising The CRC no longer maintains a The Commission is retaining current the paragraph heading for Rule physical reading room. To obtain a copy Rule 3.26(e), which sets out the 3.33(c)(2) and clarifying the text of that of any public records not available on requirements for memoranda filed in paragraph. The Commission is also the agency’s Web site, members of the support of or in opposition to these eliminating redundant text for two public can call the Reading Room, motions, and retaining with minor numbers mentioned in Rule 3.32(a) and which is now staffed by the FTC’s changes Rule 3.26(f), which sets out the (b), as well as correcting a typographical Library. requirements for filings that contain in error in the last sentence of Rule 3.32(b). camera materials. To maintain consistency in how the Rule 4.11: Disclosure Requests terms ‘‘prehearing’’ and ‘‘subpoenas’’ Finally, the Commission is making The Commission is amending Rule one other, minor modification to the are used throughout the part 3 rules, the Commission is revising Rules 3.35(b)(2) 4.11(a)(1)(i)(F) to conform with recent rule: the timeframe for complaint changes made to Rule 4.8(d)(3), which counsel to respond to motions for and 3.42(c)(2). The Commission is revising Rule granted Freedom of Information Act dismissal has been shortened from 14 requesters twenty calendar days to days to 7 days. 3.45(e) to reflect the fact that the parties who submit documents containing in respond to Commission notification Technical Changes to Other Part 3 Rules camera or confidential information when there was no fee agreement for The Commission is making a number must comply with all of the processing a request and the estimated 12 of non-substantive changes to the part 3 Commission’s rules governing the filing costs exceed $25. rules to correct typographical errors, and service of documents—including Rule 4.13: Privacy Act Rules ensure consistency in the terminology those located in 16 CFR part 4—not just The Commission is making technical and the requirements in different with the Commission’s part 3 rules. In corrections and updates to its Privacy sections of the rules, clarify paragraph addition, Rule 3.45(f) is being revised to Act rules at 16 CFR 4.13(m). Paragraph headings, and delete or restore material delete two sentences that were that was inadvertently retained or inadvertently not deleted when the 12 See 79 FR 15680, 15685 (Mar. 21, 2014). The deleted when the Commission last Commission amended the rule in 2011. Commission is also amending Rule 4.11(a)(1)(i)(A) amended the rules in 2011. Similarly, Rule 3.52(a)(2) is being to make a minor grammatical change.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(m) sets out systems of records that are List of Subjects Deputy Directors, the Assistant exempt from certain Privacy Act Directors of the Bureaus of Competition 16 CFR Parts 2 and 3 provisions. The exempt systems and Economics, the Associate Directors contain: Administrative practice and of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, procedure. (1) Investigatory materials maintained the Regional Directors, and the Assistant by an agency component in connection 16 CFR Part 4 Regional Directors are delegated, without power of redelegation, the with any activity relating to criminal Administrative practice and authority to rule upon requests for law enforcement, exempt under procedure, Freedom of information, extensions of time within which to file subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act (see Public record. petitions to limit or quash Commission paragraph (m)(1) of the rules); For the reasons set forth in the compulsory process. (2) investigatory materials compiled preamble, the Federal Trade * * * * * for law enforcement purposes, exempt Commission amends title 16, chapter I, (c) Disposition and review. The under subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy subchapter A of the Code of Federal Commission will issue an order ruling Act (see paragraph (m)(2) of the rules); Regulations as follows: on a petition to limit or quash within 40 or PART 2—NONADJUDICATIVE days after the petition is filed with the (3) investigatory materials compiled PROCEDURES Secretary. The order may be served on to determine suitability, eligibility, or the petitioner via email, facsimile, or qualifications for Federal civilian ■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 any other method reasonably calculated employment, military service, Federal continues to read as follows: to provide notice to the petitioner of the contracts, or access to classified Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise order. information, but only where disclosure noted. * * * * * would reveal the identity of a ■ confidential source of information, 2. Amend § 2.7 by revising paragraph PART 3—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR exempt under subsection (k)(5) of the (l) to read as follows: ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS Privacy Act (see paragraph (m)(3) of the § 2.7 Compulsory process in rules). investigations. ■ 4. The authority citation for part 3 These Privacy Act systems are * * * * * continues to read as follows: exempted from certain Privacy Act (l) Delegations. The Directors of the Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise restrictions and procedural Bureaus of Competition, Consumer noted. requirements (e.g., access by the subject Protection, and Economics and the ■ 5. Amend § 3.22 by revising the first individual) due to the investigatory Office of Policy Planning, their Deputy three sentences of paragraph (a) and nature of the records contained in those Directors, the Assistant Directors of the paragraph (b) to read as follows: systems. As permitted by the Privacy Bureaus of Competition and Economics, Act, these exemptions help ensure that the Associate Directors of the Bureau of § 3.22 Motions. the Commission may efficiently and Consumer Protection, the Regional (a) Presentation and disposition. effectively perform investigations and Directors, and the Assistant Regional Directors are all authorized to modify Motions filed under § 4.17 of this other authorized duties and activities. In chapter shall be directly referred to and this case, the Commission is updating and, in writing, approve the terms of compliance with all compulsory ruled on by the Commission. Motions to the names and numbering of the exempt dismiss filed before the evidentiary Privacy Act systems to conform them to process, including subpoenas, CIDs, reporting programs, orders requiring hearing (other than motions to dismiss the current system names in the system under § 3.26(d)), motions to strike, and of records notices (SORNs) previously reports, answers to questions, and orders requiring access. If a recipient of motions for summary decision shall be published for these exempt systems by directly referred to the Commission and the FTC.13 The revised rule also lists compulsory process has demonstrated satisfactory progress toward shall be ruled on by the Commission certain FTC personnel-related Privacy compliance, a Commission official unless the Commission in its discretion Act systems that are exempt under identified in this paragraph may, at his refers the motion to the Administrative Government-wide SORNs published by or her discretion, extend the time for Law Judge. Except as otherwise the Office of Personnel Management and compliance with Commission provided by an applicable rule, motions Department of Labor but were compulsory process. The subpoena not referred to the Administrative Law inadvertently omitted from the list of power conferred by section 329 of the Judge shall be ruled on by the exempt systems in the FTC’s Privacy Commission within 45 days of the filing 14 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 Act rule. These amendments to the U.S.C. 6299) and section 5 of the Webb- of the last-filed answer or reply to the agency’s Privacy Act rules are purely Pomerene (Export Trade) Act (15 U.S.C. motion, if any, unless the Commission technical and are not intended to 65) are specifically included within this determines there is good cause to extend expand or modify the substantive delegation of authority. the deadline. * * * coverage or applicability of the Privacy ■ 3. Amend § 2.10 by revising (b) Proceedings not stayed. A motion Act exemptions to the FTC’s Privacy Act paragraphs (a)(5) and (c) to read as under consideration by the Commission systems or the records they contain. follows: shall not stay proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge unless the 13 The current SORNs for all 40 FTC Privacy Act § 2.10 Petitions to limit or quash Commission so orders or unless Commission compulsory process. systems of records are posted on the FTC public otherwise provided by an applicable Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/foia/foia- (a) * * * rule. reading-rooms/privacy-act-systems. (5) Extensions of time. The Directors 14 These systems are II–3—Worker’s * * * * * Compensation—FTC, II–4—Employment of the Bureaus of Competition, ■ Application-Related Records—FTC, and II–6— Consumer Protection, and Economics 6. Amend § 3.23 by revising paragraph Discrimination Complaint System—FTC. and the Office of Policy Planning, their (b) to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15161

§ 3.23 Interlocutory appeals. respondents must consent to the filing procedures set forth in § 3.45(e). The * * * * * of such a motion, a motion under this time within which complaint counsel (b) Other interlocutory appeals. A paragraph (c) may be filed jointly or may file an objection or response under party may request the Administrative separately by each of the respondents in this section will begin to run upon Law Judge to determine that a ruling the adjudicative proceeding. At the time service of the in camera version of the involves a controlling question of law or respondents file a motion under this motion (including any supporting briefs policy as to which there is substantial paragraph (c), respondents must also and memoranda). ground for difference of opinion and electronically transmit a copy to ■ 8. Amend § 3.32 by revising that an immediate appeal from the complaint counsel. The Secretary shall paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: ruling may materially advance the issue an order withdrawing the matter ultimate termination of the litigation or from adjudication 2 days after such a § 3.32 Admissions. subsequent review will be an motion is filed, except that, if complaint (a) At any time after 30 days after inadequate remedy. An answer may be counsel file an objection asserting that issuance of a complaint, or after filed within 3 days after the request for the conditions of paragraph (b) of this publication of notice of an adjudicative determination is filed. The section have not been met, the hearing in a rulemaking proceeding Administrative Law Judge shall issue a Commission shall decide the motion under § 3.13, any party may serve on ruling on the request for determination within 10 days after the objection is any other party a written request for within 3 days of the deadline for filing filed. admission of the truth of any matters an answer. The party may file an (d) Consideration on the record of a relevant to the pending proceeding set application for review with the motion to dismiss. (1) In lieu of a forth in the request that relate to Commission within 1 day after notice motion to withdraw the adjudicative statements or opinions of fact or of the that the Administrative Law Judge has proceeding from adjudication under application of law to fact, including the issued the requested determination or 1 paragraph (c) of this section, any genuineness of any documents day after the deadline has passed for the respondent may file a motion under this described in the request. Copies of Administrative Law Judge to issue a paragraph to dismiss the administrative documents shall be served with the ruling on the request for determination complaint on the basis that the public request unless they have been or are and the Administrative Law Judge has interest does not warrant further otherwise furnished or are known to be, not issued his or her ruling. An answer litigation after a court has denied and in the request are stated as being, preliminary injunctive relief to the may be filed within 3 days after the in the possession of the other party. Commission. application for review is filed. Each matter of which an admission is (2) Stay. The filing of a motion under requested shall be separately set forth. * * * * * this paragraph (d) shall stay the (b) The matter is admitted unless, ■ 7. Revise § 3.26 to read as follows: proceeding until 7 days following the within 10 days after service of the disposition of the motion by the request, or within such shorter or longer § 3.26 Motions following denial of Commission, and all deadlines preliminary injunctive relief. time as the Administrative Law Judge established by these rules shall be tolled may allow, the party to whom the (a) This section sets forth two for the amount of time the proceeding request is directed serves upon the party procedures by which respondents may is so stayed. obtain consideration of whether (3) Answer. Complaint counsel may requesting the admission a sworn continuation of an adjudicative file a response within 7 days after such written answer or objection addressed to proceeding is in the public interest after motion is filed. the matter. If objection is made, the a court has denied preliminary (4) Ruling by Commission. Within 30 reasons therefor shall be stated. The injunctive relief in a separate days after the deadline for filing a answer shall specifically deny the proceeding brought under section 13(b) response, the Commission shall rule on matter or set forth in detail the reasons of the Federal Trade Commission Act, any motion under this paragraph (d). why the answering party cannot 15 U.S.C. 53(b), in aid of the (e) Form. Memoranda in support of or truthfully admit or deny the matter. A adjudicative proceeding. in opposition to motions authorized by denial shall fairly meet the substance of (b) A motion under this section shall this section shall not exceed 10,000 the requested admission, and when be addressed to the Commission and words. This word count limitation good faith requires that a party qualify must be filed within 14 days after, but includes headings, footnotes, and its answer or deny only a part of the no earlier than: quotations, but does not include the matter of which an admission is (1) A district court has denied the cover, table of contents, table of requested, the party shall specify so Commission’s request for a preliminary citations or authorities, glossaries, much of it as is true and qualify or deny injunction, if the Commission has not statements with respect to oral the remainder. An answering party may filed a motion for relief pending appeal argument, any addendums containing not give lack of information or with the court of appeals within 7 days statutes, rules or regulations, any knowledge as a reason for failure to following the district court’s denial of a certificates of counsel, proposed form of admit or deny unless the party states preliminary injunction; or order, and any attachment required by that it has made reasonable inquiry and (2) A court of appeals has denied a § 3.45(e). that the information known to or readily Commission motion for relief pending (f) In camera materials. If any filing obtainable by the party is insufficient to appeal. includes materials that are subject to enable it to admit or deny. A party who (c) Withdrawal from adjudication. confidentiality protections pursuant to considers that a matter of which an Following denial of court relief as an order entered in either the admission has been requested presents specified in paragraph (b) of this proceeding under section 13(b) or the a genuine issue for trial may not, on that section, respondents may move that the adjudicative proceeding, such materials ground alone, object to the request; the adjudicative proceeding be withdrawn shall be treated as in camera materials party may deny the matter or set forth from adjudication in order to consider for purposes of this paragraph and the reasons why the party cannot admit or whether the public interest warrants party shall file 2 versions of the deny it. further litigation. Although all document in accordance with the * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

■ 9. Amend § 3.33 by revising paragraph to a protective order in any document PART 4—MISCELLANEOUS RULES (c)(2) to read as follows: filed in a proceeding under this part, the party shall file 2 versions of the ■ 16. The authority citation for part 4 § 3.33 Depositions. document. A complete version shall be continues to read as follows: * * * * * marked ‘‘In Camera’’ or ‘‘Subject to Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise (c) * * * Protective Order,’’ as appropriate, on noted. (2) Restriction on filings. Except as every page and shall be filed with the ■ provided in § 3.31(h), notices of Secretary and served by the party on the 17. Amend § 4.9 by revising depositions shall not be filed with the other parties in accordance with the paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), (4) Office of the Secretary or with the Commission’s rules. * * * introductory text, (4)(i) and (a)(10)(viii) Administrative Law Judge, or otherwise (f) When in camera or confidential to read as follows: provided to the Commission. information is included in rulings or § 4.9 The public record. * * * * * recommendations of the Administrative (a) General. (1) Materials on the ■ 10. Amend § 3.35 by revising Law Judge. If the Administrative Law public record of the Commission are paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Judge includes in any ruling or available for public inspection and recommendation information that has § 3.35 Interrogatories to parties. copying either from the Commission’s been granted in camera status pursuant Web site or upon request. * * * * * to paragraph (b) of this section or is (2) Materials that are exempt from (b) * * * subject to confidentiality protections mandatory public disclosure, or are (2) An interrogatory otherwise proper pursuant to a protective order, the otherwise not available from the is not necessarily objectionable merely Administrative Law Judge shall file 2 Commission’s public record, may be because an answer to the interrogatory versions of the ruling or made available only upon request under involves an opinion or contention that recommendation. A complete version the procedures set forth in § 4.11, or as relates to fact or the application of law shall be marked ‘‘In Camera’’ or provided in §§ 4.10(d) through (g), 4.13, to fact, but such an interrogatory need ‘‘Subject to Protective Order,’’ as and 4.15(b)(3), or by the Commission. not be answered until after designated appropriate, on every page and shall be (3) Electronic access to public records. discovery has been completed, but in no served upon the parties. The complete The majority of recent Commission case later than 3 days before the final version will be placed in the in camera public records are available for review prehearing conference. record of the proceeding. An expurgated electronically on the Commission’s Web * * * * * version, to be filed within 5 days after site on the Internet, www.ftc.gov. Copies ■ 11. Amend § 3.41 by revising the filing of the complete version, shall of records that the Commission is paragraph (f) to read as follows: omit the in camera and confidential required to make available to the public information that appears in the electronically, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3.41 General hearing rules. complete version, shall be marked 552(a)(2), may be obtained in that * * * * * ‘‘Public Record’’ on every page, shall be format from http://www.ftc.gov/foia/ (f) Collateral federal court actions. (1) served upon the parties, and shall be readingroom.shtm. The pendency of a collateral federal included in the public record of the (4) Requesting public records—(i) court action that relates to the proceeding. Procedures. Certain older public records administrative adjudication shall not * * * * * may not be available at the FTC Web stay the proceeding: ■ 14. Amend § 3.46 by revising site. Any person may request copies of (i) Unless a court of competent paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows: such records by contacting the FTC jurisdiction, or the Commission for good Reading Room by telephone at (202) cause, so directs; or § 3.46 Proposed findings, conclusions, 326–2222, extension 2. These requests (ii) Except as provided in § 3.26. and order. shall specify as clearly and accurately as (2) A stay shall toll any deadlines set * * * * * reasonably possible the records desired. by the rules. (c) * * * For records that cannot be specified ■ 12. Amend § 3.42 by revising (4) A statement whether the witness with complete clarity and particularity, paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: testimony has been accorded in camera requesters shall provide descriptions treatment, and a citation to the in sufficient to enable qualified § 3.42 Presiding officials. camera ruling. Commission personnel to locate the * * * * * * * * * * records sought. The Commission, the (c) * * * ■ 15. Amend § 3.52 by revising Supervisor of the Consumer Response (2) To issue subpoenas and orders paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: Center, the General Counsel, or the requiring answers to questions; deciding official (as designated by the * * * * * § 3.52 Appeal from initial decision. General Counsel) may decide to provide ■ 13. Amend § 3.45 by revising the first (a) * * * only one copy of any public record and two sentences of paragraph (e) and (2) If no objections to the initial may refuse to provide copies to the paragraph (f) to read as follows: decision are filed, the Commission may requester if the records have been in its discretion hold oral argument published or are publicly available at § 3.45 In camera orders. within 10 days after the deadline for the places other than the Commission’s * * * * * filing of objection, and will issue its offices. (e) When in camera or confidential final decision pursuant to § 3.54 within * * * * * information is included in briefs and 45 days after oral argument. If no oral (10) *** other submissions. If a party includes argument is scheduled, the Commission (viii) The Commission’s annual report specific information that has been will issue its final decision pursuant to submitted after the end of each fiscal granted in camera status pursuant to § 3.54 within 45 days after the deadline year, summarizing its work during the paragraph (b) of this section or is subject for the filing of objections. year (with copies obtainable from the to confidentiality protections pursuant * * * * * Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15163

Government Publishing Office, from the provisions of this section, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Washington, DC 20402) and any other except as otherwise provided in 5 U.S.C. HUMAN SERVICES annual reports made to Congress on 552a(k)(2): Food and Drug Administration activities of the Commission as required (i) I–1—Nonpublic Investigational and by law; Other Nonpublic Legal Program 21 CFR Part 882 * * * * * Records—FTC. ■ 18. Amend § 4.11 by revising [Docket No. FDA–2015–M–0619] (ii) I–2—Disciplinary Action paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (F) to read as Investigatory Files—FTC. follows: Medical Devices; Neurological (iii) I–4—Clearance Application and Devices; Classification of the Limited § 4.11 Disclosure requests. Response Files—FTC. Output Transcutaneous Piezoelectric (a) Freedom of Information Act—(1) (iv) I–5—Matter Management Stimulator for Skin Reactions Initial requests—(i) Form and contents; System—FTC. Associated With Insect Bites time of receipt. (A) A request under the provisions of the Freedom of (v) I–7—Office of Inspector General AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as Investigative Files—FTC. HHS. amended, for access to Commission (vi) I–8—Stenographic Reporting ACTION: Final order. records shall be in writing and Services Request System—FTC. transmitted by one of the following SUMMARY: The Food and Drug (vii) II–3—Worker’s Compensation— means: by mail to the following address: Administration (FDA) is classifying the FTC. Freedom of Information Act Request, limited output transcutaneous Office of the General Counsel, Federal (viii) II–6—Discrimination Complaint piezoelectric stimulator for skin Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania System—FTC. reactions associated with insect bites Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580; by into class II (special controls). The (ix) IV–1—Consumer Information special controls that will apply to the facsimile transmission to (202) 326– System—FTC. 2477; by email message to the FOIA device are identified in this order and email account at [email protected]; or by the (x) V–1—Freedom of Information Act will be part of the codified language for form located on the FTC’s FOIA Web Requests and Appeals—FTC. the limited output transcutaneous site, https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/foia.htm. (xi) V–2—Privacy Act Requests and piezoelectric stimulator for skin Appeals—FTC. reactions associated with insect bites’ * * * * * classification. The Agency is classifying (F) Failure to agree to pay fees. If a (xii) VII–6—Document Management the device into class II (special controls) request does not include an agreement and Retrieval System—FTC. in order to provide a reasonable to pay fees, and if the requester is (3) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), assurance of safety and effectiveness of notified of the estimated costs pursuant the device. to § 4.8(d)(3), the request will be investigatory materials compiled to deemed not to have been received until determine suitability, eligibility, or DATES: This order is effective March 23, the requester agrees to pay such fees. If qualifications for Federal civilian 2015. The classification was applicable a requester declines to pay fees within employment, military service, Federal on November 7, 2014. 20 calendar days and is not granted a fee contracts, or access to classified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: waiver, the request will be denied. information, but only where disclosure Michael Hoffman, Center for Devices * * * * * would reveal the identity of a and Radiological Health, Food and Drug confidential source of information, in Administration, 10903 New Hampshire ■ 19. Amend § 4.13 by revising the following systems of records are Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1434, Silver Spring, paragraph (m) to read as follows: exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6476, § 4.13 Privacy Act rules. (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of 5 [email protected]. * * * * * U.S.C. 552a, and from the provisions of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this section, except as otherwise (m) Specific exemptions. (1) Pursuant I. Background to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), investigatory provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5): In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of materials maintained by an agency (i) II–4—Employment Application- the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic component in connection with any Related Records—FTC. activity relating to criminal law Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. enforcement in the following systems of (ii) II–11—Personnel Security, 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in records are exempt from all subsections Identity Management and Access commercial distribution before May 28, of 5 U.S.C. 552a, except (b), (c)(1) and Control Records System—FTC. 1976 (the date of enactment of the (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), By direction of the Commission. Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments (10), and (11), and (i), and from the Janice Podoll Frankle, provisions of this section, except as devices, are classified automatically by Acting Secretary. otherwise provided in 5 U.S.C. statute into class III without any FDA 552a(j)(2): [FR Doc. 2015–06406 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] rulemaking process. These devices (i) I–7—Office of Inspector General BILLING CODE 6750–01–P remain in class III and require Investigative Files—FTC. premarket approval, unless and until (ii) [Reserved] the device is classified or reclassified (2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), into class I or II, or FDA issues an order investigatory materials compiled for law finding the device to be substantially enforcement purposes in the following equivalent, in accordance with section systems of records are exempt from 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), device that does not require premarket (H), and (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, and approval. The Agency determines

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:54 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

whether new devices are substantially that could provide a reasonable basis for safety and effectiveness of the device for equivalent to predicate devices by review of substantial equivalence with its intended use. After review of the means of premarket notification the device or if FDA determines that the information submitted in the requests, procedures in section 510(k) of the device submitted is not of ‘‘low- FDA determined that the devices can be FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part moderate risk’’ or that general controls classified into class II with the 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations. would be inadequate to control the risks establishment of special controls. FDA Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as and special controls to mitigate the risks believes these special controls, in amended by section 607 of the Food and cannot be developed. addition to general controls, will Drug Administration Safety and In response to a request to classify a provide reasonable assurance of the Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144), device under either procedure provided safety and effectiveness of the devices. provides two procedures by which a by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, Therefore, on November 7, 2014, FDA person may request FDA to classify a FDA will classify the device by written issued orders to both requestors device under the criteria set forth in order within 120 days. This classifying the devices into class II. FDA section 513(a)(1). Under the first classification will be the initial is codifying the classification of the procedure, the person submits a classification of the device. devices by adding 21 CFR 882.5894. premarket notification under section On September 8, 2010, Ecobrands, 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that Ltd., submitted a request for Following the effective date of this has not previously been classified and, classification of the Zap-It! under final classification order, any firm within 30 days of receiving an order section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. submitting a premarket notification classifying the device into class III Subsequently, on February 14, 2013, (510(k)) for a limited output under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, Tecnimed S.r.l., submitted a similar transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator the person requests a classification request for classification of the Zanza- for skin reactions associated with insect under section 513(f)(2). Under the Click, Mini-Click, and Disc-o-Click bites will need to comply with the second procedure, rather than first under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. special controls named in this final submitting a premarket notification Both manufacturers recommended that order. The device is assigned the generic under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act the devices be classified into class II name limited output transcutaneous and then a request for classification (Refs. 1 and 2). piezoelectric stimulator for skin under the first procedure, the person In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of reactions associated with insect bites, determines that there is no legally the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the and it is identified as a device intended marketed device upon which to base a requests in order to classify the devices to alleviate skin reactions associated determination of substantial under the criteria for classification set with insect bites via cutaneous, equivalence and requests a classification forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies piezoelectric stimulation at the local site under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. devices into class II if general controls of the bite. If the person submits a request to by themselves are insufficient to FDA has identified the following risks classify the device under this second provide reasonable assurance of safety to health associated specifically with procedure, FDA may decline to and effectiveness, but there is sufficient this type of device, as well as the undertake the classification request if information to establish special controls mitigation measures required to mitigate FDA identifies a legally marketed device to provide reasonable assurance of the these risks in table 1.

TABLE 1—LIMITED OUTPUT TRANSCUTANEOUS PIEZOELECTRIC STIMULATOR FOR SKIN REACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH INSECT BITES RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Identified risk Mitigation measure

Cutaneous burns ...... Characterization of Electrical Output Labeling. Adverse skin reactions ...... Biocompatibility Assessment. Damage to sensitive tissue (e.g., eyes, lips, inside mouth, open wounds) ...... Labeling. Infection ...... Labeling. Burns and other injuries due to ignition of flammable substances which may be used in the Labeling. same intended use environment (e.g., insect repellent). Interference with implanted devices and other patient care devices ...... Labeling. Failure to identify correct population and condition ...... Labeling. Device failure ...... Non-clinical (Bench) Testing Labeling.

FDA believes that the following • Mechanical bench testing must D whether use of the device in special controls, in combination with demonstrate that the device will conjunction with flammable materials the general controls, address these risks withstand the labeled number duration (e.g., insect repellent) is appropriate; to health and provide reasonable of uses. D use of the device on or near assurance of the safety and • All elements of the device that may implanted devices; and effectiveness: contact the patient must be assessed to D how to identify the correct type of • Appropriate testing to characterize be biocompatible. skin condition. Æ the electrical output specifications of • Labeling must include: Technical parameters of the device the device (i.e., total charge delivered, (maximum output voltage Æ Validated instructions which maximum instantaneous output current, (instantaneous), maximum output addresses the following: maximum instantaneous output voltage, current (instantaneous), and pulse pulse duration, charge density) must be D Identification of areas of the body duration). Æ conducted. which are appropriate and not Language to direct end users to appropriate for contact with the device; contact the device manufacturer and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15165

MedWatch if they experience any 1. DEN100024: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) (iii) Language to direct end users to adverse events with this device. from Ecobrands, Ltd., dated September 8, contact the device manufacturer and Æ 2010. MedWatch if they experience any The anticipated number of device 2. DEN130019: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) uses prior to failure. adverse events with this device. from Tecnimed S.r.l., dated February 14, (iv) The anticipated number of device 2013. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act uses prior to failure. provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882 Dated: March 17, 2015. requirements under section 510(k) of the Medical devices. Leslie Kux, FD&C Act, if FDA determines that Therefore, under the Federal Food, Associate Commissioner for Policy. premarket notification is not necessary Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under [FR Doc. 2015–06499 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] to provide reasonable assurance of the authority delegated to the Commissioner BILLING CODE 4164–01–P safety and effectiveness of the device. of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is For this type of device, FDA has amended as follows: determined that premarket notification DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE is not necessary to provide reasonable PART 882—NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES assurance of the safety and effectiveness Department of the Navy of the device. Therefore, this device ■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR type is exempt from premarket part 882 continues to read as follows: 32 CFR Part 706 notification requirements. Persons who Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, intend to market this type of device 360j, 371. Certifications and Exemptions Under need not submit to FDA a premarket the International Regulations for ■ 2. Add § 882.5894 to subpart F to read notification, prior to marketing the Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 as follows: device, which contains information AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. about the limited output transcutaneous § 882.5894 Limited output transcutaneous ACTION: Final rule. piezoelectric stimulator for skin piezoelectric stimulator for skin reactions reactions associated with insect bites associated with insect bites. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy they intend to market. (a) Identification. A limited output (DoN) is amending its certifications and II. Environmental Impact transcutaneous piezoelectric stimulator exemptions under the International for skin reactions associated with insect Regulations for Preventing Collisions at The Agency has determined under 21 bites is a device intended to alleviate Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type skin reactions associated with insect to reflect that the Deputy Assistant that does not individually or bites via cutaneous, piezoelectric Judge Advocate General cumulatively have a significant effect on stimulation at the local site of the bite. (DAJAG)(Admiralty and Maritime Law) the human environment. Therefore, (b) Classification. Class II (special has determined that USS JOHN neither an environmental assessment controls). The special controls for this WARNER (SSN 785) is a vessel of the nor an environmental impact statement device are: Navy which, due to its special is required. (1) Appropriate testing to characterize construction and purpose, cannot fully the electrical output specifications of comply with certain provisions of the 72 III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the device (i.e., total charge delivered, COLREGS without interfering with its This final order establishes special maximum instantaneous output current, special function as a naval ship. The controls that refer to previously maximum instantaneous output voltage, intended effect of this rule is to warn approved collections of information pulse duration, charge density) must be mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS found in other FDA regulations. These conducted. apply. (2) Mechanical bench testing must collections of information are subject to DATES: This rule is effective March 23, demonstrate that the device will review by the Office of Management and 2015 and is applicable beginning withstand the labeled number duration Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork January 28, 2015. of uses. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– (3) All elements of the device that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3520). The collections of information in may contact the patient must be Commander Theron R. Korsak, part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket assessed to be biocompatible. (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of notification submissions have been (4) Labeling must include: the Judge Advocate General, Department approved under OMB control number (i) Validated instructions which of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., 0910–0120, and the collections of addresses the following: Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC information in 21 CFR part 801, (A) Identification of areas of the body 20374–5066, telephone 202–685–5040. regarding labeling have been approved which are appropriate and not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant under OMB control number 0910–0485. appropriate for contact with the device. to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. IV. References (B) Whether use of the device in 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706. conjunction with flammable materials This amendment provides notice that The following references have been (e.g., insect repellent) is appropriate. the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime placed on display in the Division of (C) Use of the device on or near Law), under authority delegated by the Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food implanted devices. Secretary of the Navy, has certified that and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers (D) How to identify the correct type of USS JOHN WARNER (SSN 785) is a Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, skin condition. vessel of the Navy which, due to its and may be seen by interested persons (ii) Technical parameters of the device special construction and purpose, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday (maximum output voltage cannot fully comply with the following through Friday, and are available (instantaneous), maximum output specific provisions of 72 COLREGS electronically at http:// current (instantaneous), and pulse without interfering with its special www.regulations.gov. duration). function as a naval ship: Annex I,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the for public comment prior to adoption is Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. vertical placement of the masthead impracticable, unnecessary, and ■ 2. Section 706.2 is amended by: light; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), contrary to public interest since it is ■ a. In Table One, adding, in alpha pertaining to Virginia class submarine based on technical findings that the numerical order, by vessel number, an masthead light location below the placement of lights on this vessel in a entry for USS JOHN WARNER (SSN submarine identification lights; Annex I, manner differently from that prescribed 785); paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical herein will adversely affect the vessel’s ■ b. In Table Three, adding, in alpha separation of the anchor lights and ability to perform its military functions. numerical order, by vessel number, an vertical placement of the forward List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 entry for USS JOHN WARNER (SSN anchor light above the hull; Rule 30(a) 785); and Rule 21(e), pertaining to arc of Marine safety, Navigation (water), ■ visibility of the forward and after anchor Vessels. c. In Table Four, under paragraph 25, lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(b), For the reasons set forth in the adding, in alpha numerical order, by pertaining to the location of the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of vessel number, an entry for USS JOHN sidelights; and Rule 21(c), pertaining to title 32 of the Code of Federal WARNER (SSN 785); and the location and arc of visibility of the Regulations as follows: ■ d. In Table Four, paragraph 26, sternlight. The DAJAG (Admiralty and adding, in alpha numerical order, by Maritime Law) has also certified that the PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND vessel number, an entry for USS JOHN lights involved are located in closest EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE WARNER (SSN 785). possible compliance with the applicable INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR The additions read as follows: 72 COLREGS requirements. PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of Moreover, it has been determined, in the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 706 33 U.S.C. 1605. 701, that publication of this amendment continues to read as follows: * * * * *

TABLE ONE

Distance in meters of forward masthead light Vessel Number below minimum required height. § 2(a)(i), Annex I

******* USS JOHN WARNER ...... SSN 785 ...... 2.76

*******

* * * * *

TABLE THREE

Anchor Side lights Forward lights rela- Masthead Side lights Stern light distance Stern light, anchor light, tion-ship of lights arc of arc of visi- arc of visi- inboard of distance for- height above aft light to Vessel Number visibility; rule bility; rule bility; rule ship’s sides ward of stern hull in forward light 21(a) 21(b) 21(c) in meters in meters; meters; 2(K) in meters 3(b) annex 1 rule 21(c) annex 1 2(K) annex 1

******* USS JOHN WAR- SSN 785 ...... 206.4° 4.37 11.05 2.8 0.30 below. NER.

*******

* * * * * 25. ** *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15167

TABLE FOUR

Distance in meters of masthead light below Vessel Number the submarine identification lights

******* USS JOHN WARNER ...... SSN 785 ...... 0.81

26. * * *

Obstruction angle relative to ship’s heading Forward Anchor Vessel Number Light Aft Anchor Light

******* USS JOHN WARNER ...... SSN 785 ...... 172° to 188° 359° to 1°

* * * * * are prohibited from entering into, block, loiter, or impede the transit of Approved: January 28, 2015. transiting through, or anchoring within participants or official patrol vessels. A.B. Fischer, this regulated area unless authorized by The Coast Guard may be assisted by the Captain of the Port, or his other Federal, State, or Local law Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and designated representative. enforcement agencies in enforcing this Maritime Law). DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR regulation. This document is issued under Dated: March 11, 2015. 100.1102, Table 1, Item 4 will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on authority of 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5 N.A. Hagerty-Ford, April 25, 2015. If the event is delayed U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate by inclement weather, these regulations document in the Federal Register, the General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. will also be enforced from 8 a.m. Coast Guard will provide the maritime through 3 p.m. on April 26, 2015. community with extensive advance [FR Doc. 2015–06298 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If notification of this enforcement period BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P you have questions on this document, via the Local Notice to Mariners, call or email Petty Officer Nick Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local Bateman, Waterways Management, U.S. advertising by the event sponsor. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; If the Captain of the Port Sector San SECURITY telephone 619–278–7656, D11-PF- Diego or his designated representative Coast Guard [email protected]. determines that the regulated area need SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast not be enforced for the full duration 33 CFR Part 100 Guard will enforce the Special Local stated on this document, he or she may Regulations in Lake Havasu for the 2015 use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to [Docket No. USCG–2015–0062] Desert Storm Shootout in 33 CFR grant general permission to enter the regulated area. Special Local Regulation; Annual 100.1102, Table 1, Item 4 from 8 a.m. Marine Events on the Colorado River, through 3 p.m. on April 25, 2015. If the Dated: March 6, 2015. Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, event is delayed by inclement weather, J.A. Janszen, these regulations will also be enforced Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 26, Captain of the Port San Diego. 2015. of the Port Zone Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, [FR Doc. 2015–06603 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. persons and vessels are prohibited from ACTION: Notice of enforcement of entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the regulated area, regulation. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND unless authorized by the Coast Guard SECURITY SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce Captain of the Port or his designated the 2015 Lake Havasu Desert Storm representative. Persons or vessels Coast Guard marine event special local regulations desiring to enter into or pass through from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on April 25, the special local regulations may request 33 CFR Part 165 2015. This annual marine event occurs permission from the Captain of the Port on the navigable waters of the Colorado or a designated representative. If [Docket Number USCG–2015–0129] River in Lake Havasu, Arizona. This permission is granted, all persons and action is necessary to provide for the vessels shall comply with the RIN 1625–AA00 safety of the participants, crew, instructions of the Captain of the Port or Safety Zone, Delaware River; Marcus spectators, safety vessels, and general his designated representative. Spectator Hook, PA users of the waterway. During the vessels may safely transit outside the enforcement period, persons and vessels regulated area but may not anchor, AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15168 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Temporary final rule. to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. test area. The telemetry receivers will be 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that deployed on bottom-set moorings with SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is good cause exists for not publishing a no surface marker floats or buoys. To establishing a temporary safety zone on notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) reduce the possibility of vessel the waters of Delaware River in the with respect to this rule as publishing interference with the tests, and to vicinity of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. an NPRM is impracticable because prevent damage to, or displacement of, The safety zone will temporarily restrict immediate action is necessary to protect the telemetry receivers a safety zone is vessel traffic from transiting or the maritime public. The Coast Guard necessary. anchoring in a portion of Marcus Hook was notified on February 24, 2015, of anchorage in order to protect the safety the Philadelphia Regional Port C. Discussion of the Final Rule of life and property on the waters while Authority’s final intentions to conduct To mitigate the risks associated with underwater impulsive sound testing is these tests in the upper portion of the underwater impulsive sound testing conducted. Marcus Hook anchorage. Because of the in Marcus Hook anchorage, the Captain DATES: This rule is effective without inherent threat to navigation, providing of the Port, Delaware Bay will enforce actual notice from March 23, 2015 until a notice and comment period would be a temporary safety zone in the upper 6 p.m. on May 12, 2015. For the impractical. Furthermore, allowing this portion of Anchorage 7 off Marcus purposes of enforcement, actual notice situation to exist without a safety zone Hook, as described in § 110.157(a)(8) of will be used from 5 a.m. on March 10, in place would expose mariners and the this chapter. The safety zone will be 2015, until March 23, 2015. public to unnecessary dangers contrary effective and enforced from 5 a.m. on to the public interest. Vessels transiting March 10, 2015, to 6 p.m. on May 12, ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in or attempting to transit through the area this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 2015. If this safety zone should be may be at risk, and therefore a safety 2015–0129]. To view documents cancelled earlier the Captain of the Port, zone is needed to protect the public mentioned in this preamble as being Delaware Bay will notify mariners via from the hazards associated with available in the docket, go to http:// broadcast on VHF Ch.16. underwater impulsive sound testing. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring www.regulations.gov, type the docket Therefore, delay in taking action is both within the safety zone is prohibited number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click impracticable and contrary to public unless authorized by the Captain of the ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket interest. For the reasons stated above, Port, Delaware Bay, or her on-scene Folder on the line associated with this under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast representative. The Captain of the Port, rulemaking. You may also visit the Guard finds that good cause exists for Delaware Bay, or her on-scene Docket Management Facility in Room making this rule effective less than 30 representative may be contacted via W12–140 on the ground floor of the days after publication in the Federal VHF channel 16 or at 215–271–4807. Department of Transportation West Register. Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., D. Regulatory Analyses Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. B. Basis and Purpose We developed this rule after and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, The legal basis for the rule is the considering numerous statutes and except Federal holidays. Coast Guard’s authority to establish executive orders related to rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If regulated navigation areas and other Below we summarize our analyses you have questions on this rule, call or limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; based on these statutes or executive email. If you have questions on this 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1 6.04–1, orders. temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security Delegation No. 1. Regulatory Planning and Review Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways 0170.1. This rule is not a significant Management Division, Coast Guard; The Philadelphia Regional Port regulatory action under section 3(f) of telephone (215) 271–4851, email Authority (PRPA), in cooperation with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory [email protected]. If you the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning and Review, as supplemented have questions on viewing or submitting (USACE), Philadelphia District, will by Executive Order 13563, Improving material to the docket, call Cheryl conduct tests to determine the Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Collins, Program Manager, Docket feasibility of using loud impulsive does not require an assessment of Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. sound to behaviorally exclude two potential costs and benefits under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species of endangered sturgeon from the section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 areas where blasting will be performed or under section 1 of Executive Order Table of Acronyms for the Delaware River Main Channel 13563. The Office of Management and DHS Department of Homeland Security Deepening Project starting in December Budget has not reviewed it under those FR Federal Register 2015. These tests will be conducted in Orders. Although this regulation will NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the upper portion of the Marcus Hook restrict access to the regulated area, the Anchorage, where sturgeon are known A. Regulatory History and Information effect of this rule will not be significant to commonly occur, and as far north because: (i) The Coast Guard will make The Coast Guard is issuing this final within the anchorage as possible to extensive notification of the Safety Zone rule without prior notice and minimize potential impacts to to the maritime public via maritime opportunity to comment pursuant to commercial vessel traffic. The tests will advisories so mariners can alter their authority under section 4(a) of the require anchoring a barge with the plans accordingly; (ii) this rule will be Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 sound-producing equipment (using enforced for a limited duration. U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision spuds) on the edge of, but not within, authorizes an agency to issue a rule the anchorage. The barge, 40′ wide by 2. Impact on Small Entities without prior notice and opportunity to 100′ long, will be equipped with anchor The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 comment when the agency for good lighting meeting U.S. Coast Guard (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, cause finds that those procedures are requirements. Nine acoustic telemetry requires federal agencies to consider the ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary receivers will be deployed within the potential impact of regulations on small

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15169

entities during rulemaking. The term 4. Collection of Information 11. Indian Tribal Governments ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small This rule will not call for a new This rule does not have tribal businesses, not-for-profit organizations collection of information under the implications under Executive Order that are independently owned and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 13175, Consultation and Coordination operated and are not dominant in their U.S.C. 3501–3520). with Indian Tribal Governments, fields, and governmental jurisdictions because it does not have a substantial 5. Federalism with populations of less than 50,000. direct effect on one or more Indian The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. A rule has implications for federalism tribes, on the relationship between the 605(b) that this rule will not have a under Executive Order 13132, Federal Government and Indian tribes, significant economic impact on a Federalism, if it has a substantial direct or on the distribution of power and substantial number of small entities. effect on the States, on the relationship responsibilities between the Federal This rule will affect the following between the national government and Government and Indian tribes. entities, some of which may be small the States, or on the distribution of 12. Energy Effects entities: The owners or operators of power and responsibilities among the vessels intending to anchor or transit various levels of government. We have This action is not a ‘‘significant along a portion or Marcus Hook analyzed this rule under that Order and energy action’’ under Executive Order anchorage on the Delaware River in the determined that this rule does not have 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations vicinity of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, implications for federalism. That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. from 5 a.m. on March 10, 2015 to 6 p.m. 6. Protest Activities on May 12, 2015, unless cancelled The Coast Guard respects the First 13. Technical Standards earlier by the Captain of the Port once Amendment rights of protesters. This rule does not use technical all operations are completed. Protesters are asked to contact the standards. Therefore, we did not This safety zone will not have a person listed in the FOR FURTHER consider the use of voluntary consensus significant economic impact on a INFORMATION CONTACT section to standards. substantial number of small entities for coordinate protest activities so that your 14. Environment the following reason: Vessel traffic will message can be received without be allowed to pass through the zone jeopardizing the safety or security of We have analyzed this rule under with permission of the Coast Guard people, places or vessels. Department of Homeland Security Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her Management Directive 023–01 and 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act designated representative and the zone Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, is limited in duration. Sector Delaware The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which guide the Coast Guard in Bay will issue maritime advisories of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires complying with the National widely available to users of the Salem Federal agencies to assess the effects of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 River. their discretionary regulatory actions. In (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and particular, the Act addresses actions have determined that this action is one 3. Assistance for Small Entities that may result in the expenditure by a of a category of actions that do not State, local, or tribal government, in the individually or cumulatively have a Under section 213(a) of the Small aggregate, or by the private sector of significant effect on the human Business Regulatory Enforcement $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or environment. This rule involves Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), more in any one year. Though this rule implementation of regulations within 33 we want to assist small entities in will not result in such expenditure, we CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones understanding this rule. If the rule do discuss the effects of this rule on the navigable waterways. This rule is would affect your small business, elsewhere in this preamble. categorically excluded from further organization, or governmental review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 8. Taking of Private Property jurisdiction and you have questions 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An concerning its provisions or options for This rule will not cause a taking of environmental analysis checklist compliance, please contact the person private property or otherwise have supporting this determination and a listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION taking implications under Executive Categorical Exclusion Determination are CONTACT, above. Order 12630, Governmental Actions and available in the docket where indicated Small businesses may send comments Interference with Constitutionally under ADDRESSES. We seek any on the actions of Federal employees Protected Property Rights. comments or information that may lead who enforce, or otherwise determine 9. Civil Justice Reform to the discovery of a significant compliance with, Federal regulations to environmental impact from this rule. This rule meets applicable standards the Small Business and Agriculture in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation and the Regional Small Business minimize litigation, eliminate Regulatory Fairness Boards. The (water), Reporting and recordkeeping ambiguity, and reduce burden. requirements, Security measures, Ombudsman evaluates these actions Waterways. annually and rates each agency’s 10. Protection of Children For the reasons discussed in the responsiveness to small business. If you We have analyzed this rule under preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 wish to comment on actions by Executive Order 13045, Protection of CFR part 165 as follows: employees of the Coast Guard, call Children from Environmental Health 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION The Coast Guard will not retaliate an economically significant rule and AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS against small entities that question or does not create an environmental risk to complain about this rule or any policy health or risk to safety that may ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 or action of the Coast Guard. disproportionately affect children. continues to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; (c) Regulations. All persons are (6) Each person and vessel in a safety 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; required to comply with the general zone shall obey any direction or order Department of Homeland Security Delegation regulations governing safety zones in 33 of the Captain of the Port; No. 0170.1. CFR 165.23 of this part. (7) No person may board, or take, or ■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–0129, to (1) All persons or vessels wishing to place any article or thing on board, any read as follows: transit through the Safety Zone vessel in a safety zone without the described in paragraph (a) of this § 165.T05–0129 Safety Zone, Delaware permission of the Captain of the Port; section must request authorization to do River; Marcus Hook, PA. and so from the Captain of the Port or her (a) Regulated area. The following area (8) No person may take or place any is a safety zone: All waters of the designated representative 30 minutes article or thing upon any waterfront Delaware River in Anchorage 7 off prior to the intended time of transit. facility in a safety zone without the Marcus Hook described in (2) Vessels granted permission to § 110.157(a)(8) of this chapter inside a transit must do so in accordance with permission of the Captain of the Port. boundary described as originating from the directions provided by the Captain (d) Definitions. The Captain of the 39°48′38″ N., 075°23′17″ W.; then of the Port or her designated Port means the Commander of Sector Northwest to 39°48′55″ N., 075°23′35″ representative. Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard W.; then Northeast to 39°49′12″ N., (3) To seek permission to transit the commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 075°23′01″ W.; then Southeast to Safety Zone, the Captain of the Port’s who has been authorized by the Captain representative can be contacted via 39°49′07″ N., 075°22′57″ W.; and then of the Port to act on her behalf. Southwest to 39°48′38″ N., 075°23′17″ marine radio VHF Channel 16 or at 215– (e) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast W. Mariners will be advised of this 271–4807. safety zone by broadcast on VHF (4) This section applies to all vessels Guard may be assisted in the patrol and channel 16. wishing to transit through the Safety enforcement of the Safety Zone by (b) Enforcement period. From 5 a.m. Zone except vessels that are engaged in Federal, State, and local agencies. on March 10, 2015, to 6 p.m. on May 12, the following operations: Dated: March 5, 2015. 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the (i) Enforcing laws; Stephen P. Metruck, Captain of the Port once all operations (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, are completed. If this safety zone should (iii) Emergency response vessels. Fifth Coast Guard District. be cancelled earlier the Captain of the (5) No person or vessel may enter or Port, Delaware Bay will notify mariners remain in a safety zone without the [FR Doc. 2015–06578 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] via broadcast on VHF Ch. 16. permission of the Captain of the Port; BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM 23MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15171

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 55

Monday, March 23, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail www.regulations.gov, including any contains notices to the public of the proposed address above between 9 a.m. and 5 personal information you provide. We issuance of rules and regulations. The p.m., Monday through Friday, except will also post a report summarizing each purpose of these notices is to give interested Federal holidays. substantive verbal contact we receive persons an opportunity to participate in the For service information identified in about this proposed AD. rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. this proposed AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Service, 2926 Discussion Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; We received a report of an accident DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION telephone: (877) 879–0275; fax: none; where the shape of the wing fuel tanks email: [email protected]; on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–23– Federal Aviation Administration Internet: www.piper.com. You may 250, PA–24–250, PA–24–260, PA–24– review the referenced service 400, PA–30, PA–31, PA–31–300, PA– 14 CFR Part 39 information at the FAA, Small Airplane 31P, PA–39, and PA–E23–250 airplanes, Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, combined with fuel below a certain [Docket No. FAA–2015–0627; Directorate Missouri 64106. For information on the Identifier 2015–CE–002–AD] level in the selected tank, may have availability of this material at the FAA, allowed the fuel to move away from the RIN 2120–AA64 call (816) 329–4148. tank outlet during certain maneuvers Examining the AD Docket causing fuel starvation. These airplanes Airworthiness Directives; Piper do not have baffles in the fuel tanks. Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// Baffles in the fuel tanks slow the AGENCY: Federal Aviation www.regulations.gov by searching for movement of fuel in the tank during Administration (FAA), DOT. and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– certain maneuvers and prevent the unsafe condition. Certain maneuvers, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 0627; or in person at the Docket such as prolonged turns during taxi (NPRM). Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, prior to takeoff and inflight maneuvers SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new except Federal holidays. The AD docket like prolonged slips and skids at any airworthiness directive (AD) for certain contains this proposed AD, the pitch attitude, can cause the fuel in the Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–23–250, regulatory evaluation, any comments tanks to temporarily move away from PA–24–250, PA–24–260, PA–24–400, received, and other information. The the tank outlet. This could result in an PA–30, PA–31, PA–31–300, PA–31P, street address for the Docket Office interruption in the flow of the fuel to PA–39, and PA–E23–250 airplanes. This (phone: 800–647–5527) is in the the engine. It was also noted, the manufacturer insufficiently defined proposed AD was prompted by an ADDRESSES section. Comments will be accident caused by fuel starvation available in the AD docket shortly after procedures for low fuel operation. This where the shape of the wing fuel tanks receipt. condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power or engine and fuel below a certain level in that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: tank may have allowed the fuel to move shutdown, which may result in loss of Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, control. away from the tank outlet during certain Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, maneuvers. This proposed AD would FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Relevant Service Information Under 1 require installing a fuel system Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) CFR Part 51 management placard on the aircraft 474–5576; fax: (404) 474–5606; email: instrument panel and adding text to the [email protected]. We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Limitations section of the pilot’s Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: operating handbook (POH)/airplane December 16, 2014. Piper Aircraft, Inc. flight manual (AFM). We are proposing Comments Invited Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated this AD to correct the unsafe condition We invite you to send any written December 16, 2014, calls for/describes on these products. relevant data, views, or arguments about actions for, when necessary, installing DATES: We must receive comments on this proposal. Send your comments to the correct fuel warning placard on the this proposed AD by May 7, 2015. an address listed under the ADDRESSES instrument panel and adding correct ADDRESSES: You may send comments, section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– text of that fuel warning placard in the using the procedures found in 14 CFR 2015–0627; Directorate Identifier 2015– Limitations section of the POH/AFM. 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following CE–002–AD’’ at the beginning of your This service information is reasonably methods: comments. We specifically invite available; see ADDRESSES for ways to • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to comments on the overall regulatory, access this service information. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the economic, environmental, and energy FAA’s Determination instructions for submitting comments. aspects of this proposed AD. We will • Fax: 202–493–2251. consider all comments received by the We are proposing this AD because we • Mail: U.S. Department of closing date and may amend this evaluated all the relevant information Transportation, Docket Operations, proposed AD because of those and determined the unsafe condition M–30, West Building Ground Floor, comments. described previously is likely to exist or Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey We will post all comments we develop in other products of the same Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. receive, without change, to http:// type design.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Proposed AD Requirements Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would require We estimate that this proposed AD accomplishing the actions specified in affects 3,000 airplanes of U.S. registry. the service information described We estimate the following costs to previously. comply with this proposed AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Inspection to determine if placard, if installed, and Limita- .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = Not Applicable $42.50 $127,500 tions section of the POH/AFM are compliant with Piper $42.50. Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014.

We estimate the following costs to do based on the results of the proposed might need any necessary placard/POH/ any necessary placard/POH/AFM order inspection. We have no way of AFM order and installation: and installation that would be required determining the number of aircraft that

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Order and install replacement placard ...... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... $40 $125 Order updated POH/AFM and install updated pages .. .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 ...... 300 342.50

Authority for This Rulemaking (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (a) Comments Due Date action’’ under Executive Order 12866, Title 49 of the United States Code We must receive comments by May 7, (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2015. the DOT Regulatory Policies and rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, (b) Affected ADs Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, section 106, describes the authority of 1979), None. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation Aviation Programs, describes in more (c) Applicability in Alaska, and detail the scope of the Agency’s This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. authority. (4) Will not have a significant Models PA–23–250, PA–24–250, PA–24–260, economic impact, positive or negative, PA–24–400, PA–30, PA–31, PA–31–300, PA– We are issuing this rulemaking under on a substantial number of small entities the authority described in Subtitle VII, 31P, PA–39, and PA–E23–250 airplanes, under the criteria of the Regulatory certificated in any category, as identified in Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: Flexibility Act. ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service section, Congress charges the FAA with List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (d) Subject air commerce by prescribing regulations safety, Incorporation by reference, Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ for practices, methods, and procedures Safety. Air Transport Association (ATA) of America the Administrator finds necessary for Code 1130, PLACARDS AND MARKINGS; safety in air commerce. This regulation The Proposed Amendment Interior Placards. is within the scope of that authority Accordingly, under the authority (e) Unsafe Condition because it addresses an unsafe condition delegated to me by the Administrator, that is likely to exist or develop on the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part This AD was prompted by an accident products identified in this rulemaking 39 as follows: caused by fuel starvation where the shape of action. the wing fuel tanks and fuel below a certain level in that tank may have allowed the fuel Regulatory Findings PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES to move away from the tank outlet during We determined that this proposed AD certain maneuvers. We are issuing this AD to would not have federalism implications ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 prevent loss of engine power due to fuel under Executive Order 13132. This continues to read as follows: starvation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power or engine proposed AD would not have a Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. substantial direct effect on the States, on shutdown, which may result in loss of the relationship between the national § 39.13 [Amended] control. Government and the States, or on the ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding (f) Compliance distribution of power and the following new airworthiness Unless already done, within the next 50 responsibilities among the various directive (AD): hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective levels of government. Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes: Docket No. date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs For the reasons discussed above, I FAA–2015–0627; Directorate Identifier (g) and (h), as applicable, including all certify this proposed regulation: 2015–CE–002–AD. subparagraphs:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15173

(g) Fuel Warning Placard Inspection 0275; fax: none; email: customer.service@ Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, (1) Inspect the fuel warning placard, if piper.com; Internet: www.piper.com. You Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) existing, following the Instructions section, may view this referenced service information 504–7923. of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For Instructions: All submissions received Bulletin No. 1266, dated December 16, 2014. must include the agency name and If the placard is present and compliant with information on the availability of this the Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March December 16, 2014, then no further action 12, 2015. without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other regarding the placard is required. Robert Busto, (2) If the fuel warning placard is not personal information provided, to: present or not compliant with the Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, http://www.regulations.gov. Do not Aircraft Certification Service. Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. submit confidential business Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated [FR Doc. 2015–06414 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] information, trade secret information, or December 16, 2014, then order or, as BILLING CODE 4910–13–P other sensitive or protected information applicable, fabricate, and install the applicable fuel warning placard following the that you do not want to be available to Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. the public. If furnished at all, such Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY information should be submitted in December 16, 2014. You may order the COMMISSION writing. applicable placard from Piper Aircraft, Inc. at Docket: For access to the docket to 16 CFR Part Chapter II the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of read background documents or this AD. [CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2013–0028] comments received, go to: http:// (h) Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH)/ www.regulations.gov, and insert the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Inspection Corded Window Coverings: Notice of docket number CPSC–2013–0028, into (1) Inspect the Limitations section of the Extension of Comment Period the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the applicable POH/AFM following the prompts. AGENCY: Instructions section of Piper Aircraft, Inc. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: December 16, 2014. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed Rana Balci-Sinha, Office of Hazard (2) If the Limitations section of the rulemaking; extension of comment Identification and Reduction, 5 applicable POH/AFM contains the exact text period. Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850, found in table 2 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. telephone 301–987–2584, email Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1266, dated SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety [email protected]. December 16, 2014, there is no need for a Commission (Commission or CPSC) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On POH/AFM revision. published an advance notice of October 8, 2014, the Commission (3) If the Limitations section of the proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the applicable POH/AFM does not contain the granted a petition to initiate a Federal Register on January 16, 2015, exact text found in table 2, a POH/AFM rulemaking to develop a mandatory concerning corded window coverings. revision is required. Contact Piper Aircraft, safety standard for window coverings. The ANPR invited the public to submit Inc. at the address identified in paragraph The petition sought to prohibit window written comments; the comment period (j)(2) of this AD and request the applicable covering cords when a feasible cordless POH/AFM revision. as set in the ANPR ended on Tuesday, alternative exists. The petition March 17, 2015. In response to a request (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance requested that all window covering for extension, the Commission is (AMOCs) cords be made inaccessible by using extending the comment period to (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft passive guarding devices when a Monday, June 1, 2015. Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the feasible cordless alternative does not authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if DATES: The comment period for the exist. On January 16, 2015, the requested using the procedures found in 14 ANPR published on January 16, 2015 Commission published an advance CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, (80 FR 2327), is extended. Comments notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) send your request to your principal inspector must be received by Monday, June 1, initiating rulemaking and seeking or local Flight Standards District Office, as 2015. appropriate. If sending information directly information and comment on regulatory to the manager of the ACO, send it to the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, options for a mandatory rule to address attention of the person identified in identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013– the risk of strangulation to young paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 0028, by any of the following methods: children on window covering cords. 80 (2) Before using any approved AMOC, Electronic Submissions: Submit FR 2327. The comment period on the notify your appropriate principal inspector, electronic comments to the Federal ANPR was scheduled to end on March or lacking a principal inspector, the manager eRulemaking Portal at: http:// 17, 2015. of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office. www.regulations.gov. Follow the In a letter dated February 2, 2015, the instructions for submitting comments. Window Covering Manufacturers (j) Related Information The Commission does not accept Association (WCMA) requested a 75-day (1) For more information about this AD, comments submitted by electronic mail extension of the comment period to contact Ansel James, Aerospace Engineer, (email), except through complete multiple studies that WCMA Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, www.regulations.gov. The Commission commissioned. WCMA states that the 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, encourages you to submit electronic request is ‘‘based on the need for Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474–5576; comments by using the Federal sufficient opportunity to develop and fax: (404) 474–5606; email: ansel.james@ faa.gov. eRulemaking Portal, as described above. present a more factual record for CPSC’s (2) For service information identified in Written Submissions: Submit written consideration to permit a well-informed this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., submissions by mail/hand delivery/ analysis before considering whether the Customer Service, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero courier to: Office of the Secretary, agency can move to the next stage of Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879– Consumer Product Safety Commission, promulgating such a significant rule.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

The Commission has considered FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If please enclose a stamped, self-addressed WCMA’s request. The Commission will you have questions on this rule, call or postcard or envelope. We will consider grant WCMA’s request to extend the email LCDR Gregory Knoll, Waterways all comments and material received comment period for the ANPR until Management Division Chief, Sector during the comment period and may June 1, 2015. The extension will allow Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone change the rule based on your WCMA and any other party additional (757) 668–5580, email comments. time to complete studies related to [email protected]. If questions asked in the ANPR. you have questions on viewing or 2. Viewing Comments and Documents submitting material to the docket, call To view comments, as well as Alberta E. Mills, Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, documents mentioned in this preamble Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Docket Operations, telephone (202) as being available in the docket, go to Commission. 366–9826. http://www.regulations.gov, type the [FR Doc. 2015–06354 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: docket number [USCG–2015–0048] in BILLING CODE 6355–01–P the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click Table of Acronyms ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket DHS Department of Homeland Security Folder on the line associated with this DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND rulemaking. You may also visit the SECURITY FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Coast Guard A. Public Participation and Request for Department of Transportation West Comments Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 33 CFR Part 165 We encourage you to participate in Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. [Docket Number USCG–2015–0048] this rulemaking by submitting and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, RIN 1625–AA00 comments and related materials. All except Federal holidays. comments received will be posted 3. Privacy Act Safety Zone, Chesapeake Bay; Cape without change to http:// Charles, VA www.regulations.gov and will include Anyone can search the electronic any personal information you have form of comments received into any of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. provided. our dockets by the name of the ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. individual submitting the comment (or 1. Submitting Comments signing the comment, if submitted on SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to If you submit a comment, please behalf of an association, business, labor establish a safety zone on the navigable include the docket number for this union, etc.). You may review a Privacy waters of the Chesapeake Bay in Cape rulemaking, indicate the specific section Act notice regarding our public dockets Charles, VA. This proposed safety zone of this document to which each in the January 17, 2008, issue of the would restrict vessel movement in the comment applies, and provide a reason Federal Register (73 FR 3316). specified area during the Cape Charles for each suggestion or recommendation. Clam Slam fireworks display between You may submit your comments and 4. Public Meeting 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 1, material online at http:// We do not plan to hold a public 2015. This action is necessary to www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or meeting, but you may submit a request provide for the safety of life and hand delivery, but please use only one for one, using one of the methods property on the surrounding navigable of these means. If you submit a specified under ADDRESSES 15 days waters during the fireworks displays. comment online, it will be considered prior to the close of the comment DATES: Comments and related material received by the Coast Guard when you period. Please explain why you believe must be received by the Coast Guard on successfully transmit the comment. If a public meeting would be beneficial. If or before April 22, 2015. you fax, hand deliver, or mail your we determine that one would aid this ADDRESSES: You may submit comments comment, it will be considered as rulemaking, we will hold one at a time identified by docket number using any having been received by the Coast and place announced by a later notice one of the following methods: Guard when it is received at the Docket in the Federal Register. (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: Management Facility. We recommend http://www.regulations.gov. that you include your name and a B. Regulatory History and Information (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. mailing address, an email address, or a The town of Cape Charles has not (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket telephone number in the body of your held a Clam Slam fireworks display in Management Facility (M–30), U.S. document so that we can contact you if the past. However, this same location is Department of Transportation, West we have questions regarding your used for other fireworks displays Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, submission. To submit your comment throughout the year as published in 33 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., online, go to www.regulations.gov, type CFR 165.506. Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries the docket number [USCG–2015–0048] accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click C. Basis and Purpose Monday through Friday, except federal ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a The legal basis for the rule is the holidays. The telephone number is 202– Comment’’ on the line associated with Coast Guard’s authority to establish 366–9329. this rulemaking. safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. See the ‘‘Public Participation and If you submit your comments by mail Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, Request for Comments’’ portion of the or hand delivery, submit them in an 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; below for further instructions on 11 inches, suitable for copying and Department of Homeland Security submitting comments. To avoid electronic filing. If you submit Delegation No. 0170.1. duplication, please use only one of comments by mail and would like to The purpose of this safety zone is to these three methods. know that they reached the Facility, protect mariners and spectators from the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15175

hazards associated with the fireworks Bay during this event, this safety zone Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 display, such as accidental discharge of is limited in duration, affects only a U.S.C. 3501–3520). fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and limited area, and will be well publicized 5. Federalism falling hot embers or other debris. in advance to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the A rule has implications for federalism D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule affected area. under Executive Order 13132, The Captain of the Port of Hampton Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Roads proposes to establish a safety 2. Impact on Small Entities effect on the States, on the relationship zone on specified waters of the The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 between the national government and Chesapeake Bay within a 700 foot radius (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, the States, or on the distribution of of the approximate position: 37°15′47″ requires federal agencies to consider the power and responsibilities among the N/076°01′29″ W (NAD 1983), at the end potential impact of regulations on small various levels of government. We have of Bayshore Road located in the vicinity entities during rulemaking. The term analyzed this proposed rule under that of Cape Charles Harbor, Cape Charles, ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Order and determined that this rule Virginia. This safety zone will be businesses, not-for-profit organizations does not have implications for enforced on August 1, 2015 between the that are independently owned and federalism. hours of 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Access operated and are not dominant in their to the safety zone will be restricted fields, and governmental jurisdictions 6. Protest Activities during the specified date and time. with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard respects the First Spectator vessels may gather nearby The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Amendment rights of protesters. to view the fireworks display. Due to the 605(b) that this proposed rule will not Protesters are asked to contact the need for vessel control during the have a significant economic impact on person listed in the FOR FURTHER fireworks display, vessel traffic will be a substantial number of small entities. INFORMATION CONTACT section to temporarily restricted to provide for the This proposed rule will affect the coordinate protest activities so that your safety of participants, spectators and following entities, some of which might message can be received without transiting vessels. Except for vessels be small entities: The owners or jeopardizing the safety or security of authorized by the Captain of the Port or operators of vessels intending to transit people, places or vessels. his designated representative, no person or anchor in a portion of the waters of 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or vessel may enter or remain in the the Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles safety zone. The Captain of the Port will Harbor during the outlined timeframe. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act provide advance notice of the safety This safety zone will not have a of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires zone by all appropriate means to significant economic impact on a Federal agencies to assess the effects of provide the widest dissemination of substantial number of small entities for their discretionary regulatory actions. In notice among the affected segments of the following reasons: (i) The safety particular, the Act addresses actions the public. This will include zone is limited in size and duration, and that may result in the expenditure by a publication in the Local Notice to (ii) before the enforcement period, State, local, or tribal government, in the Mariners and Marine Information maritime advisories will be issued aggregate, or by the private sector of Broadcasts. allowing mariners to adjust their plans $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this E. Regulatory Analyses accordingly. If you think that your business, proposed rule will not result in such an We developed this proposed rule after organization, or governmental expenditure, we do discuss the effects of considering numerous statutes and jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity this rule elsewhere in this preamble. executive orders related to rulemaking. that this rule would have a significant 8. Taking of Private Property Below we summarize our analyses economic impact on it, please submit a based on these statutes and executive comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining This proposed rule will not cause a orders. why you think it qualifies and how and taking of private property or otherwise 1. Regulatory Planning and Review to what degree this rule would have taking implications under economically affect it. Executive Order 12630, Governmental This proposed rule is not a significant Actions and Interference with regulatory action under section 3(f) of 3. Assistance for Small Entities Constitutionally Protected Property Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Under section 213(a) of the Small Rights. Planning and Review, as supplemented Business Regulatory Enforcement by Executive Order 13563, Improving Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 9. Civil Justice Reform Regulation and Regulatory Review, and we want to assist small entities in This proposed rule meets applicable does not require an assessment of understanding this proposed rule. If the standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of potential costs and benefits under rule would affect your small business, Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 organization, or governmental Reform, to minimize litigation, or under section 1 of Executive Order jurisdiction and you have questions eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 13563. The Office of Management and concerning its provisions or options for burden. Budget has not reviewed it under those compliance, please contact the person 10. Protection of Children From Orders. The primary impact of these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION listed in the Environmental Health Risks regulations will be on vessels wishing to CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will transit the affected waterways during not retaliate against small entities that We have analyzed this proposed rule the safety zone on the Chesapeake Bay question or complain about this rule or under Executive Order 13045, in the vicinity of Cape Charles, VA from any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Protection of Children from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 1, Environmental Health Risks and Safety 2015. Although this safety zone 4. Collection of Information Risks. This rule is not an economically temporarily restricts traffic from This proposed rule will not call for a significant rule and does not create an transiting a portion of the Chesapeake new collection of information under the environmental risk to health or risk to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

safety that may disproportionately affect PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND children. AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS SECURITY

11. Indian Tribal Governments ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 Coast Guard This proposed rule does not have continues to read as follows: 33 CFR Part 165 tribal implications under Executive Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Order 13175, Consultation and Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; [Docket Number USCG–2014–1079] 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. Coordination with Indian Tribal RIN 1625–AA00 Governments, because it does not have 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. a substantial direct effect on one or ■ Safety Zone, Daytona Beach Grand more Indian tribes, on the relationship 2. Add § 165.T05–0048 to read as follows: Prix of the Seas; Atlantic Ocean; between the Federal Government and Daytona Beach, FL Indian tribes, or on the distribution of § 165.T05–0048 Safety Zone, Chesapeake power and responsibilities between the Bay; Cape Charles, VA. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Federal Government and Indian tribes. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of Notice of proposed rulemaking. 12. Energy Effects this section, Captain of the Port means SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. establish a safety zone on the waters of This proposed rule is not a Representative means any Coast Guard the Atlantic Ocean east of Daytona ‘‘significant energy action’’ under commissioned, warrant or petty officer Beach, Florida during the Daytona Executive Order 13211, Actions who has been authorized to act on the Beach Grand Prix of the Seas, a series Concerning Regulations That behalf of the Captain of the Port. of high-speed personal watercraft boat Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (b) Location. The following area is a races. This proposed safety zone would Distribution, or Use. proposed safety zone: Specified waters be enforced from 7 a.m. on Friday until of the Captain of the Port Sector 13. Technical Standards 7 p.m. on Sunday during the last Hampton Roads zone, as defined in 33 weekend in April. Approximately 50 This proposed rule does not use CFR 3.25–10, in the vicinity of the high-speed personal watercrafts are technical standards. Therefore, we did Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles, VA anticipated to participate in the races, all waters within a 700 foot radius of and approximately 20 spectator vessels not consider the use of voluntary ° ′ ″ approximate location 37 15 47 N/ are expected to attend the event. This consensus standards. ° ′ ″ 076 01 29 W (NAD 1983) which is safety zone is necessary to ensure the 14. Environment located at the end of Bayshore Road in safety of life on navigable waters of the Cape Charles Harbor. United States during the races. The We have analyzed this proposed rule (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with regulated area would consist of the under Department of Homeland the general regulations in 165.23 of this following location: All waters of the Security Management Directive 023–01 part, entry into this zone is prohibited Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the and Commandant Instruction unless authorized by the Captain of the following points: starting at Point 1 in M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Port, Hampton Roads or his designated position 29°14.601′ N, 81°00.767′ W; Guard in complying with the National representatives. thence south to Point 2 in position Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (2) The operator of any vessel in the 29°13.677′ N, 81°00.283′ W; thence east (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and immediate vicinity of this safety zone to Point 3 in position 29°13.860′ N, have determined that this action is one shall: 080°59.763′ W; thence north to Point 4 of a category of actions that do not (i) Contact on scene contracting in position 29°14.781′ N, 80°59.802′ W; individually or cumulatively have a vessels via VHF channel 13 and 16 for thence west back to origin. All persons significant effect on the human passage instructions. and vessels, except those persons and environment. This proposed rule (ii) If on scene proceed as directed by vessels participating in the high-speed involves the establishment of a safety any commissioned, warrant or petty personal watercraft event, are prohibited zone. This proposed rule is categorically officer on shore or on board a vessel that from entering, transiting, anchoring, or excluded from further review under is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. remaining in the regulated area unless paragraph 34–g of Figure 2–1 of the (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton authorized by the Captain of the Port Commandant Instruction. An Roads can be reached through the Sector Jacksonville or a designated environmental analysis checklist Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads representative. supporting this determination and a in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone Categorical Exclusion Determination are number (757) 668–5555. DATES: Comments and related material available in the docket where indicated (4) The Coast Guard Representatives must be received by the Coast Guard by under ADDRESSES. We seek any enforcing the safety zone may be April 22, 2015. Requests for public comments or information that may lead contacted on VHF–FM marine band meetings must be received by the Coast to the discovery of a significant radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and Guard on or before March 24, 2015. environmental impact from this rule. channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10 2014–1079 using any one of the Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation p.m. on August 1, 2015. following methods: (water), Reporting and recordkeeping (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: Dated: March 9, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov. requirements, Security measures, Christopher S. Keane, Waterways. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Mail or delivery: Docket Management For the reasons discussed in the Port Hampton Roads. Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to [FR Doc. 2015–06582 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Transportation, West Building Ground amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15177

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on the ‘‘Submit a The purpose of the proposed rule is 0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 Comment’’ on the line associated with to ensure safety of life and property on a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through this rulemaking. navigable waters of the United States Friday, except federal holidays. The If you submit your comments by mail during the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of telephone number is 202–366–9329. See or hand delivery, submit them in an the Seas. 1 the ‘‘Public Participation and Request unbound format, no larger than 8 ⁄2 by C. Discussion of Proposed Rule for Comments’’ portion of the 11 inches, suitable for copying and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section electronic filing. If you submit Powerboat P1–USA hosts the Daytona below for further instructions on comments by mail and would like to Beach Grand Prix of the Sea, a series of submitting comments. To avoid know that they reached the Facility, high-speed personal watercraft boat duplication, please use only one of please enclose a stamped, self-addressed races, every year on the last weekend of these three methods. postcard or envelope. We will consider April. The proposed rule would establish a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: all comments and material received safety zone that encompasses certain Lieutenant Allan Storm, Coast Guard during the comment period and may waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Sector Jacksonville, Chief of Waterways change the rule based on your Daytona Beach, Florida. Approximately Management, telephone (904) 564–7563, comments. 50 high-speed personal watercrafts are email [email protected]. If you 2. Viewing Comments and Documents anticipated to participate in the races, have questions on viewing or submitting and approximately 20 spectator vessels material to the docket, call Cheryl To view comments, as well as are expected to attend the event. documents mentioned in this preamble Collins, Program Manager, Docket This proposed safety zone would be as being available in the docket, go to Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. enforced from 7 a.m. on Friday until 7 http://www.regulations.gov, type the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: p.m. on Sunday during the last weekend docket number (USCG–2014–1079) in in April. The regulated area would Table of Acronyms the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click consist of the following location: (1) All ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket DHS Department of Homeland Security waters of the Atlantic Ocean FR Federal Register Folder the line associated with this encompassed within the following NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rulemaking. You may also visit the points: starting at Point 1 in position Docket Management Facility in Room 29°14.601′ N, 81°00.767′ W; thence A. Public Participation and Request for W12–140 on the ground floor of the south to Point 2 in position 29°13.677′ Comments Department of Transportation West N, 81°00.283′ W; thence east to Point 3 Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., We encourage you to participate in in position 29°13.860′ N, 080°59.763′ W; Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. this rulemaking by submitting thence north to Point 4 in position and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, comments and related materials. All 29°14.781′ N, 80°59.802′ W; thence west except Federal holidays. comments received will be posted back to origin. Persons and vessels without change to http:// 3. Privacy Act desiring to enter, transit through, anchor www.regulations.gov and will include in, or remain within the regulated area any personal information you have Anyone can search the electronic may contact the Captain of the Port provided. form of comments received into any of Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564– our dockets by the name of the 1. Submitting Comments 7513, or a designated representative via individual submitting the comment (or VHF radio on channel 16, to request If you submit a comment, please signing the comment, if submitted on authorization. If authorization to enter, include the docket number for this behalf of an association, business, labor transit through, anchor in, or remain in rulemaking, indicate the specific section union, etc.). You may review a Privacy the regulated area is granted by the of this document to which each Act notice regarding our public dockets Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a comment applies, and provide a reason in the January 17, 2008, issue of the designated representative, all persons for each suggestion or recommendation. Federal Register (73 FR 3316). and vessels receiving such authorization You may submit your comments and 4. Public Meeting must comply with the instructions of material online at http:// the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or We do not now plan to hold a public a designated representative. The Coast hand delivery, but please use only one meeting, but you may submit a request Guard will provide notice to the of these means. If you submit a for one on or before March 24, 2015 maritime community when this safety comment online it will be considered using one of the methods specified zone will be in effect via Broadcast received by the Coast Guard when you under ADDRESSES. Please explain why Notice to Mariners or by on-scene successfully transmit the comment, it you believe a public meeting would be designated representatives. will be considered as having been beneficial. If we determine that one received by the Coast Guard when it is would aid this rulemaking, we will hold D. Regulatory Analyses received at the Docket Management one at a time and place announced by We developed this proposed rule after Facility. We recommend that you a later notice in the Federal Register. considering numerous statutes and include your name and a mailing B. Basis and Purpose executive orders related to rulemaking. address, an email address, or a Below we summarize our analyses telephone number in the body of your The legal basis for the proposed rule based on a number of these statutes or document so that we can contact you if is the Coast Guard’s authority to executive orders. we have questions regarding your establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; submission. 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 1. Regulatory Planning and Review To submit your comment online, go to U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, This proposed rule is not a significant http://www.regulations.gov, type the 6.04–6 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. regulatory action under section 3(f) of docket number [USCG–2014–1079] in 2064; Department of Homeland Security Executive Order 12866, Regulatory the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click Delegation No. 0170. Planning and Review, as supplemented

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

by Executive Order 13563, Improving this proposed rule would economically 8. Taking of Private Property Regulation and Regulatory Review, and affect it. This proposed rule would not cause a does not require an assessment of 3. Assistance for Small Entities taking of private property or otherwise potential costs and benefits under have taking implications under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 Under section 213(a) of the Small Executive Order 12630, Governmental or under section 1 of Executive Order Business Regulatory Enforcement Actions and Interference with 13563. The Office of Management and Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Constitutionally Protected Property Budget has not reviewed it under those we want to assist small entities in Rights. Orders. understanding this proposed rule. If the The economic impact of this proposed rule would affect your small business, 9. Civil Justice Reform rule is not significant for the following organization, or governmental This proposed rule meets applicable reasons: (1) The safety zone would be jurisdiction and you have questions standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of enforced for a total of only 36 hours concerning its provisions or options for Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice over the course of three days; (2) compliance, please contact the person Reform, to minimize litigation, although persons and vessels would not listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION eliminate ambiguity, and reduce be able to enter, transit through, anchor CONTACT section above. The Coast Guard burden. in, or remain within the safety zone will not retaliate against small entities 10. Protection of Children From without authorization from the Captain that question or complain about this Environmental Health Risks of the Port Jacksonville or a designated proposed rule or any policy or action of representative, they would be able to the Coast Guard. We have analyzed this proposed rule operate in the surrounding area during under Executive Order 13045, the enforcement period; (3) persons and 4. Collection of Information Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety vessels would still be able to enter, This proposed rule will not call for a Risks. This rule is not an economically transit through, anchor in, or remain new collection of information under the significant rule and would not create an within the safety zone if authorized by Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 environmental risk to health or risk to the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or U.S.C. 3501–3520). a designated representative; and (4) the safety that might disproportionately Coast Guard would provide advance 5. Federalism affect children. notification of the safety zone to the 11. Indian Tribal Governments local maritime community via Broadcast A rule has implications for federalism Notice to Mariners or by on-scene under Executive Order 13132, This proposed rule does not have designated representative. Federalism, if it has a substantial direct tribal implications under Executive effect on the States, on the relationship Order 13175, Consultation and 2. Impact on Small Entities between the national government and Coordination with Indian Tribal Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act the States, or on the distribution of Governments, because it would not have (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered power and responsibilities among the a substantial direct effect on one or the impact of this proposed rule on various levels of government. We have more Indian tribes, on the relationship small entities. The Coast Guard certifies analyzed this proposed rule under that between the Federal Government and under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed Order and determined that this rule Indian tribes, or on the distribution of rule will not have a significant does not have implications for power and responsibilities between the economic impact on a substantial federalism. Federal Government and Indian tribes. number of small entities. The Coast 6. Protest Activities 12. Energy Effects Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) This proposed rule is not a that this proposed rule would not have The Coast Guard respects the First ‘‘significant energy action’’ under a significant economic impact on a Amendment rights of protesters. Executive Order 13211, Actions substantial number of small entities. Protesters are asked to contact the Concerning Regulations That This proposed rule may affect the person listed in the FOR FURTHER Significantly Affect Energy Supply, following entities, some of which may INFORMATION CONTACT section to Distribution, or Use. be small entities: the owners or coordinate protest activities so that your operators of vessels intending to enter, message can be received without 13. Technical Standards transit through, anchor in, or remain jeopardizing the safety or security of This proposed rule does not use within the portion of the Atlantic Ocean people, places or vessels. technical standards. Therefore, we did encompassed within the safety zone 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act not consider the use of voluntary from 7 a.m. on Friday until 7:00 p.m. on consensus standards. Sunday during the last weekend in The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act April. For the reasons discussed in the of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 14. Environment Regulatory Planning and Review section Federal agencies to assess the effects of We have analyzed this proposed rule above, this proposed rule would not their discretionary regulatory actions. In under Department of Homeland have a significant economic impact on particular, the Act addresses actions Security Management Directive 023–01 a substantial number of small entities. that may result in the expenditure by a and Commandant Instruction If you think that your business, State, local, or tribal government, in the M16475.lD, which guide the Coast organization, or governmental aggregate, or by the private sector of Guard in complying with the National jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and that this proposed rule would have more in any one year. Though this (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and a significant economic impact on it, proposed rule would not result in such have made a preliminary determination please submit a comment (see an expenditure, we do discuss the that this action is one of a category of ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it effects of this rule elsewhere in this actions that do not individually or qualifies and how and to what degree preamble. cumulatively have a significant effect on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15179

the human environment. This proposed 7513, or a designated representative via Washington, DC 20004–1111. Call-in rule involves a safety zone issued in VHF radio on channel 16, to request information and a communication conjunction with a regatta or marine authorization. If authorization to enter, access real-time translation (CART) web parade. This rule is categorically transit through, anchor in, or remain in streaming link will be posted on the excluded from further review under the regulated area is granted by the Access Board’s Rail Vehicles Access paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a Advisory Committee Web site page at Commandant Instruction. We seek any designated representative, all persons www.access-board.gov/rvaac. comments or information that may lead and vessels receiving such authorization FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul to the discovery of a significant must comply with the instructions of Beatty, Office of Technical and environmental impact from this the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or Information Services, Access Board, proposed rule. a designated representative. 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, (3) The Coast Guard will provide List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Washington, DC 20004–1111. notice to the maritime community when Telephone number (202) 272–0012 Marine safety, Navigation (water), this safety zone will be in effect via (Voice); (202) 272–0072 (TTY). Reporting and recordkeeping Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on- Electronic mail address: rvaac@access- requirements, Waterways. scene designated representatives. board.gov. (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will For the reasons discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to be enforced daily from 7 a.m. on Friday 23, 2013, we published a notice amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: until 7 p.m. on Sunday during the last announcing that we were establishing a weekend in April. PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Dated: March 4, 2015. AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Committee (Committee) to make T.G. Allan, Jr., recommendations to us on matters ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the associated with revising and updating continues to read as follows: Port Jacksonville. our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; [FR Doc. 2015–06149 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Disabilities Act for transportation Department of Homeland Security Delegation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway No. 0170. systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, ■ 2. Add § 165.725 to read as follows: ARCHITECTURAL AND commuter rail, intercity rail, and high TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS speed rail). See 78 FR 30828 (May 23, § 165.725 Safety Zone; Daytona Beach COMPLIANCE BOARD 2013). Grand Prix of the Seas; Atlantic Ocean; The Committee will hold its sixth Daytona Beach, FL. 36 CFR Part 1192 meeting on April 23, 2015, from 10:00 (a) Regulated Area. The following a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on April 24, 2015, regulated area is established as a safety [Docket No. ATBCB–2013–0001] from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The zone. All coordinates are North RIN 3014–AA42 preliminary agenda for the April American Datum 1983. meeting includes deliberation of (1) Safety Zone. All waters of the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory committee member concerns pertaining Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the Committee to the accessibility of rail vehicles and following points: Starting at Point 1 in consideration of process-related matters. AGENCY: Architectural and position 29°14.601′ N, 81°00.767′ W; The preliminary meeting agenda, along Transportation Barriers Compliance thence south to Point 2 in position with information about the Committee, Board. 29°13.677′ N, 81°00.283′ W; thence east is available on our Web site at to Point 3 in position 29°13.860′ N, ACTION: Notice of advisory committee www.access-board.gov/rvaac. 080°59.763′ W; thence north to Point 4 meeting. The Committee meeting will be open in position 29°14.781′ N, 80°59.802′ W; to the public and interested persons can SUMMARY: On May 23, 2013, we, the thence west back to origin. attend the meetings and communicate Architectural and Transportation (b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated their views. Members of the public will Barriers Compliance Board (Access representative’’ means Coast Guard have opportunities to address the Board), established the Rail Vehicles Patrol Commanders, including Coast Committee on issues of interest to them Access Advisory Committee Guard coxswains, petty officers, and during a public comment period (Committee) to advise us on revising other officers operating Coast Guard scheduled each day. The meetings will and updating our accessibility vessels, and Federal, state, and local be accessible to persons with guidelines issued pursuant to the officers designated by or assisting the disabilities. An assistive listening Americans with Disabilities Act for Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the system, communication access real-time transportation vehicles that operate on enforcement of the regulated areas. translation (CART), and sign language fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, (c) Regulations. interpreters will be provided. Persons light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, (1) All persons and vessels are attending the meetings are requested to and high speed rail). The Committee prohibited from: refrain from using perfume, cologne, will hold its sixth meeting on the (A) Entering, transiting through, and other fragrances for the comfort of following dates and times. anchoring in, or remaining within the other participants (see www.access- regulated area unless participating in DATES: The Committee will meet on board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance- the event. April 23, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 free-environment for more information). (2) Persons and vessels desiring to p.m. and on April 24, 2015, from 9:30 Persons wishing to provide handouts enter, transit through, anchor in, or a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or other written information to the remain within the regulated area may ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Committee are requested to provide contact the Captain of the Port the Access Board Conference Room, electronic formats to Paul Beatty via Jacksonville via telephone at (904) 564– 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, email at least five business days prior to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the meetings so that alternate formats of rebuttal and supplementary pass to the security desk. No large signs can be distributed to Committee information. If requested by March 30, will be allowed in the building, cameras members. 2015, we will hold a public hearing on may only be used outside of the April 7, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern building and demonstrations will not be David M. Capozzi, Standard Time) to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern allowed on federal property for security Executive Director. Standard Time) at the U.S. reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying [FR Doc. 2015–06505 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency questions during the oral presentations, BILLING CODE 8150–01–P building located at 109 T.W. Alexander but will not respond to the Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC presentations at that time. Written 27711. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt statements and supporting information ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of the Sector Policies and Programs submitted during the comment period AGENCY Division (E143–01), Office of Air will be considered with the same weight Quality Planning and Standards, as oral comments and supporting 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental Protection Agency, information presented at the public [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9924–29– Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the OAR] telephone number: (919) 541–0832; to hearing and written statements will be request a hearing, register to speak at the included in the docket for the RIN 2060–AS49 hearing or to inquire as to whether or rulemaking. The EPA will make every Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions not a hearing will be held. The last day effort to follow the schedule as closely of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage to pre-register in advance to speak at the as possible on the day of the hearing; Vessel hearing will be April 6, 2015. however, please plan for the hearing to Additionally, requests to speak will be run either ahead of schedule or behind AGENCY: Environmental Protection taken the day of the hearing at the schedule. Again, a hearing will not be Agency (EPA). hearing registration desk, although held on this rulemaking unless ACTION: Proposed rule. preferences on speaking times may not requested. A hearing needs to be be able to be fulfilled. If you require the requested by March 30, 2015. Please SUMMARY: On July 17, 2014, the service of a translator or special contact Ms. Virginia Hunt of the Sector Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accommodations such as audio Policies and Programs Division (E143– published proposed amendments to the description, we ask that you pre-register 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and new source performance standards for the hearing, as we may not be able Standards, Environmental Protection (NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas to arrange such accommodations Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC Sector. One of the issues addressed in without advance notice. The hearing 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– the proposed amendments was the will provide interested parties the 0832. EPA’s proposed definition of ‘‘low opportunity to present data, views or pressure gas well.’’ A petitioner’s timely arguments concerning the proposed ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, submitted comment on the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– amendments concerning the definition to accommodate all speakers who arrive OAR–2010–0505, by one of the was, inadvertently, not made part of the and register. Because this hearing is following methods: record in the rulemaking docket and being held at a U.S. government facility, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// was, therefore, not available to be individuals planning to attend the www.regulations.gov. Follow the online considered by the EPA when the agency hearing should be prepared to show instructions for submitting comments. finalized the definition of ‘‘low pressure valid picture identification to the • Email: [email protected]. gas well’’ in its December 19, 2014, final security staff in order to gain access to Include Docket ID No. EPA HQ–OAR– amendments to the NSPS. To correct the the meeting room. Please note that the 2010–0505 in the subject line of the above mentioned procedural defect, the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in message. EPA is re-proposing its definition of 2005, established new requirements for • ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ for notice and entering federal facilities. If your Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention comment. The EPA is also soliciting driver’s license is issued by Alaska, Docket ID No. EPA HQ–OAR 2010– comment on certain issues raised in the American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 0505. missed comment. Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, • Mail: Environmental Protection We are also proposing to amend the Minnesota, Montana, New York, Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), NSPS to remove provisions concerning Oklahoma or the state of Washington, Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID storage vessels connected or installed in you must present an additional form of No. OAR–2010–0505, 1200 parallel and to revise the definition of identification to enter the federal Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, ‘‘storage vessel’’. The EPA is granting building. Acceptable alternative forms DC 20460. reconsideration of the issue. of identification include: Federal • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket DATES: Comments. Comments must be employee badges, passports, enhanced Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West received on or before April 22, 2015. driver’s licenses and military Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue Public Hearing. If the EPA holds a identification cards. In addition, you NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such public hearing, the EPA will keep the will need to obtain a property pass for deliveries are only accepted during the record of the hearing open for 30 days any personal belongings you bring with Docket’s normal hours of operation, and after completion of the hearing to you. Upon leaving the building, you special arrangements should be made provide an opportunity for submission will be required to return this property for deliveries of boxed information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15181

Instructions. Direct your comments to your comment. If you send an email available only in hard copy. Publicly Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– comment directly to the EPA without available docket materials are available 2010–0505. The EPA’s policy is that all going through www.regulations.gov, either electronically in comments received will be included in your email address will be www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the public docket without change and automatically captured and included as the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West may be made available online at part of the comment that is placed in the Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution www.regulations.gov, including any public docket and made available on the Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public personal information provided, unless Internet. Electronic files should avoid Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to the comment includes information the use of special characters or any form 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, claimed to be Confidential Business of encryption and be free of any defects excluding legal holidays. The telephone Information (CBI) or other information or viruses. For additional information number for the Public Reading Room is whose disclosure is restricted by statute. about the EPA’s public docket, visit the (202) 566–1744, and the telephone Do not submit information that you EPA Docket Center homepage at: consider to be CBI or otherwise www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. number for the EPA Docket Center is protected through www.regulations.gov The petitioners need not resubmit their (202) 566–1742. or email. (See section I.C. below for previous comment, which will be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. instructions on submitting information considered before the EPA takes final Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and claimed as CBI.) The action on today’s re-proposal. However, Programs Division (E143–05), Office of www.regulations.gov Web site is an the EPA welcomes additional comments Air Quality Planning and Standards, ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which and/or information the petitioners may Environmental Protection Agency, means the EPA will not know your wish to provide. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Docket. The EPA has established a identity or contact information unless 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– docket for this rulemaking under Docket you provide it in the body of your 5460; facsimile number: (919) 685–3200; comment. If you submit an electronic ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. All email address: [email protected]. comment through www.regulations.gov, documents in the docket are listed in the EPA recommends that you include the www.regulations.gov index. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: your name and other contact Although listed in the index, some information in the body of your information is not publicly available, I. General Information comment and with any disk or CD–ROM e.g., CBI or other information whose A. Does this reconsideration action you submit. If the EPA cannot read your disclosure is restricted by statute. apply to me? comment due to technical difficulties Certain other material, such as and cannot contact you for clarification, copyrighted material, is not placed on Categories and entities potentially the EPA may not be able to consider the Internet and will be publicly affected by today’s action include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities

Industry 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. 211112 Natural Gas Extraction. 221210 Natural Gas Distribution. 486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil. 486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.

Federal government Not affected.

State/local/tribal government Not affected. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be following address: http://www.epa.gov/ includes information claimed as CBI, exhaustive, but rather provides a guide airquality/oilandgas/actions.html. you must submit a copy of the for readers regarding entities likely to be C. What should I consider as I prepare comments that does not contain the affected by this action. If you have any my comments for the EPA? information claimed as CBI for questions regarding the applicability of inclusion in the public docket. If you this action to a particular entity, consult We seek comment only on the aspects submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not of the final NSPS for the Oil and Natural either the air permitting authority for contain CBI, clearly mark the outside of Gas Sector specifically identified in this the entity or your EPA regional the disk or CD–ROM as not containing proposed rule. We are not opening for representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 reconsideration any other provisions of CBI. Information not marked as CBI will (General Provisions). the NSPS at this time. be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without B. How do I obtain a copy of this Do not submit CBI to the EPA through prior notice. Information marked as CBI document and other related www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly will not be disclosed except in information? mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI accordance with the procedures set In addition to being available in the contained on a disk or CD–ROM that forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver docket, an electronic copy of this action you mail to the EPA, mark the outside information identified as CBI only to the is available on the World Wide Web of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then following address: OAQPS Document (WWW). Following signature by the identify electronically within the disk or Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. EPA Administrator, a copy of this CD–ROM the specific information that Environmental Protection Agency, proposed action will be posted at the is claimed as CBI. In addition to one Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, complete version of the comments that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– times the reservoir pressure (in psia) On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed HQ–OAR–2010–0505. minus 0.038 times the vertical well clarifying amendments to the gas well depth (in feet) minus 67.578 psia is less completion provisions of the NSPS. In II. Background than the flow line pressure at the sales the July proposal, we expressed concern A. Low Pressure Gas Wells meter.’’ that the IPAA alternative definition is On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), Following publication of the 2012 too simplistic and may not adequately the EPA proposed the Oil and Natural final NSPS, a group of petitioners, led account for the parameters that must be Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, by the Independent Petroleum considered when determining whether subpart OOOO). Among the elements of Association of America (IPAA), an REC would be feasible for a given the proposed rule were provisions for representing independent oil and hydraulically fractured gas well. We reduced emission completion (REC), natural gas owners and operators, expressed disagreement with the also known as ‘‘green completion’’ of submitted a joint petition for petitioners’ assertion that the EPA hydraulically fractured gas wells. In the administrative reconsideration of the definition is too complicated and that it proposal, the EPA solicited comment on 2012 NSPS. The petitioners questioned would pose difficulty or hardship for situations where conducting an REC the technical merits of the low pressure smaller operators. However, we agreed would be infeasible. Several well definition and asserted that the with the petitioners that the public commenters highlighted technical public had not had an opportunity to should have been provided an issues that prevent the implementation comment on the definition because it opportunity to comment on the 2012 of an REC on what they referred to as was added in the final rule. The definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well,’’ ‘‘low pressure’’ gas wells because of the petitioners expressed concern that the and we re-proposed the 2012 definition lack of the necessary reservoir pressure formula adopted in the 2012 NSPS was for notice and comment in the July 17, to flow at rates appropriate for the based on ‘‘questionable assumptions’’ 2014, proposal. In addition, we solicited transportation of solids and liquids from and ‘‘sparse data’’ and will ‘‘exclude comment on the alternative definition a hydraulically fractured gas well from its scope many gas wells drilled in suggested by the petitioners. On August 18, 2014, prior to the close completion against additional back- formations that historically have been of the public comment period for the pressure which would be caused by the recognized as ‘low pressure.’’’ In the July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on REC equipment. Based on our analysis view of the petitioners, ‘‘the 2012 behalf of the independent oil and of the public comments received, we definition has the potential to directly natural gas owner and operator determined that there are certain wells affect many smaller producers, who are less likely to be able to bear the costs of petitioners, submitted a comment to the where an REC is infeasible because of EPA via the email address to the Air and the characteristics of the reservoir and implementing costly RECs.’’ 1 However, the administrative petition did not Radiation Docket provided in the the well depth that will not allow the proposed rule. This timely submitted flowback to overcome the gathering identify which assumptions were questionable and why, or what comment addressed the following: (1) system pressure due to the additional Clarification that the petitioners’ back pressure imposed by the REC additional data the petitioners consider necessary to support the EPA’s ‘‘low primary concern is that the EPA’s surface equipment. On August 16, 2012, definition would require REC to be the EPA published the final NSPS (see pressure gas well’’ definition. On March 24, 2014, the petitioners performed on marginally cost-effective 77 FR 49490). Based on comments wells, and not that the calculation submitted to the EPA a suggested received in response to our solicitation required by the EPA’s definition would alternative definition 2 for at proposal, we provided at § 60.5375(f) impose a hardship; (2) whether it was consideration. The petitioners’ of the 2012 final NSPS that ‘‘low the petitioners’ burden to justify the definition is based on the fresh water pressure gas wells’’ (i.e., those wells for assumptions on which the EPA’s hydrostatic gradient of 0.433 pounds per which an REC would not be feasible definition was based; (3) accuracy of the square inch per foot (psi/ft). The because of a combination of well depth, Turner equation used in the petitioners assert that this approach is reservoir pressure and flow line development of the EPA’s definition; (4) straightforward and has been recognized pressure) would not be required to meet technical derivation of the petitioners’ for many years in the oil and natural gas the requirements for recovery of gases definition; and (5) relationship between industry and by governmental agencies and liquids required under § 60.5375(a), low pressure gas wells and EPA’s stages and professional organizations. As except as provided in § 60.5375(f)(2) of flowback as proposed in the July 17, expressed in the paper submitted by the which subjects wildcat, delineation and 2014, proposal. low pressure gas wells to requirements petitioners, the alternative definition for The EPA published final amendments for combustion of flowback emissions consideration by the EPA, as stated by in the Federal Register at 79 FR 79018 and to the general duty to safely the petitioners, would be ‘‘a well where on December 31, 2014, which finalized maximize resource recovery and the field pressure is less than 0.433 the definition of ‘‘low pressure gas minimize releases to the atmosphere times the vertical depth of the deepest well’’ unchanged from the 2012 required under § 60.5375(a)(4). Under target reservoir and the flow-back period definition. Subsequent to the December the NSPS, low pressure wells are treated will be less than three days in 31, 2014, publication of the final the same as exploratory and delineation duration.’’ amendments, the EPA became aware wells (i.e., they are not required to that the comment submitted by the perform an REC). We also added a 1 Letter from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas IPAA was not made part of the record definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in & Battle PLLC, to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, October 15, 2012; Petition for in the docket and, thus, was not the final rule that is based on a Administrative Reconsideration of Final Rule ‘‘Oil available to be considered by the EPA in mathematical formula that takes into and Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards its decision-making process prior to account a well’s depth, reservoir and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air finalizing the amendments. pressure and flow line pressure. Section Pollutants Reviews,’’ 77 FR 49490 (August 16, 2012). B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel 60.5430 defines low pressure gas well as 2 Email from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas ‘‘a well with reservoir pressure and & Battle PLLC, to Bruce Moore, EPA, March 24, In the December 31, 2014, final rule, vertical well depth such that 0.445 2014. the EPA had finalized amendments to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15183

the NSPS to address, among other members evaluate affected facility approaches to help avoid or discourage issues, the affected facility status of status.’’ installations or operations of storage storage vessel affected facilities that are For the reasons discussed above, we vessels that would unnecessarily reduce removed from service and storage are proposing to remove the regulatory the PTE of a single storage vessel. vessels being returned to service. The provisions relative to storage vessels IV. Statutory and Executive Order final action included amendments ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or ‘‘connected in Reviews related to storage vessels ‘‘connected in parallel.’’ Instead, we solicit comment parallel’’ or ‘‘installed in parallel.’’ As on other approaches to help avoid or Additional information about these we explained in the final rule preamble discourage installation or operation of statutes and Executive Orders can be (see 79 FR 79027, December 31, 2014), storage vessels that would unnecessarily found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- ‘‘Although we believe it is an unlikely reduce the potential to emit (PTE) of a regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. single storage vessel. occurrence, we note that, when two or A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory more storage vessels receive liquids in III. Today’s Action Planning and Review and Executive parallel, the total throughput is shared In this action, the EPA is re-proposing Order 13563: Improving Regulation and between or among the parallel vessels Regulatory Review and, in turn, this causes the PTE of each for notice and comment the same vessel to be a fraction of the total PTE.’’ definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ This action is not a significant To address such isolated occurrences that was finalized in 2012 and re- regulatory action and was, therefore, not where storage vessels are installed or proposed in the July 17, 2014, proposal. submitted to the Office of Management connected to reduce PTE and, therefore, In addition, as in the 2014 proposal, we and Budget (OMB) for review. avoid being subject to subpart OOOO, are soliciting comment on the petitioners’ alternative definition as B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) we amended the NSPS to address presented above. We note that the EPA situations in which two or more storage This action does not impose an has now made the comment submitted vessels could be installed or connected information collection burden under the by the IPAA on August 18, 2014, part in parallel which could, in some cases, PRA. OMB has previously approved the of the record in the docket; therefore, it lower the PTE of the individual storage information collection activities is not necessary for the IPAA to vessels to levels below the 6 tons per contained in the existing regulations resubmit this comment in response to year (tpy) applicability threshold and has assigned OMB control number this proposed rule. However, the EPA provided in § 60.5365(e). Specifically, 2060–0673. This action does not change welcomes the submittal of any we amended § 60.5365(e)(4) to provide the information collection requirements additional comments by the petitioners previously finalized and, as a result, that a storage vessel that is being placed and other interested parties. We are in into service, and is connected in parallel does not impose any additional burden the process of evaluating the IPAA on industry. with a storage vessel affected facility, is comments. In this proposal, we solicit immediately subject to the same further comments on both the EPA C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requirements as the affected facility proposed definition and on the IPAA I certify that this action will not have with which it is being connected in alternative definition. We seek comment a significant economic impact on a parallel. We also amended the on (1) gas wells that are not considered substantial number of small entities definitions for ‘‘returned to service’’ and ‘‘low pressure gas wells’’ based on the under the RFA. This action will not ‘‘storage vessel’’ in § 60.5430 to provide re-proposed EPA definition, but for impose any requirements on small that two or more storage vessels which RECs are technically infeasible, entities. This action is a reconsideration connected in parallel are considered and the specific well characteristics or of an existing rule and imposes no new equivalent to a single storage vessel other technical factors that make RECs impacts or costs. with throughput equal to the total technically infeasible; (2) gas wells that throughput of the storage vessels are considered ‘‘low pressure gas wells’’ D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act connected in parallel. based on the IPAA alternative (UMRA) Following publication of the definition, but for which RECs could be This action does not contain any December 2014 final rule, we became performed; and (3) specific well unfunded mandate as described in aware that the terms ‘‘connected in parameters or drilling techniques that UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does parallel’’ and ‘‘installed in parallel’’ should be considered in determining not significantly or uniquely affect small inadvertently include in storage vessels whether an REC would be technically governments. The action imposes no beyond those we attempted to address feasible and how these factors could be enforceable duty on any state, local or as described above. On February 19, used to define ‘‘low pressure gas well.’’ tribal governments or the private sector. 2015, the Gas Processors Association With regard to storage vessels, in (GPA) submitted a petition for response to the GPA petition and in E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism administrative reconsideration of the light of the considerations discussed This action does not have federalism December 31, 2014, amendments. The above, we are proposing to amend the implications. It will not have substantial GPA asserted that ‘‘it is quite common NSPS provisions relative to storage direct effects on the states, on the for multiple storage vessels to be vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or relationship between the national situated next to each other and ‘‘connected in parallel.’’ Specifically, government and the states, or on the connected in parallel. Sometimes the we are proposing to amend § 60.5365(e) distribution of power and storage vessels are operated in parallel, to remove language related to storage responsibilities among the various sometimes they are operated in series, vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or levels of government. and sometimes they are operated one-at- ‘‘connected in parallel.’’ We are also a-time with the connecting valves proposing to amend the definitions of F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation closed.’’ The GPA further asserted that ‘‘returned to service’’ and ‘‘storage and Coordination With Indian Tribal this configuration has existed for vessel’’ in § 60.5430 to remove language Governments decades and that ‘‘this language pertaining to storage vessels connected This action does not have tribal potentially has large impacts to how our in parallel. We solicit comment on other implications as specified in Executive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Order 13175. This action is a PART 60—STANDARDS OF potential to emit for purposes of reconsideration of an existing rule and PERFORMANCE FOR NEW determining affected facility status, imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, STATIONARY SOURCES provided you comply with the Executive Order 13175 does not apply requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) to this action. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 through (iv) of this section. continues to read as follows: (i) You meet the cover requirements G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. specified in § 60.5411(b). Children From Environmental Health (ii) You meet the closed vent system Risks and Safety Risks Subpart OOOO—Standards of requirements specified in § 60.5411(c). (iii) You maintain records that The EPA interprets Executive Order Performance for Crude Oil and Natural document compliance with paragraphs 13045 as applying only to those Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. regulatory actions that concern (iv) In the event of removal of environmental health or safety risks that ■ 2. Section 60.5365 is amended by apparatus that recovers and routes vapor the EPA has reason to believe may revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: to a process, or operation that is disproportionately affect children, per inconsistent with the conditions § 60.5365 Am I subject to this subpart? the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) action’’ in section 2–202 of the * * * * * of this section, you must determine the Executive Order. This action is not (e) Each storage vessel affected storage vessel’s potential for VOC subject to Executive Order 13045 facility, which is a single storage vessel emissions according to this section because it does not concern an located in the oil and natural gas within 30 days of such removal or environmental health risk or safety risk. production segment, natural gas operation. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions processing segment or natural gas (4) For each new, reconstructed, or Concerning Regulations That transmission and storage segment, and modified storage vessel with startup, Significantly Affect Energy Supply, has the potential for VOC emissions startup of production, or which is Distribution, or Use equal to or greater than 6 tpy as returned to service, affected facility determined according to this section by status is determined as follows: If a This action is not subject to Executive October 15, 2013 for Group 1 storage storage vessel is reconnected to the Order 13211, because it is not a vessels and by April 15, 2014, or 30 original source of liquids or is used to significant regulatory action under days after startup (whichever is later) for replace any storage vessel affected Executive Order 12866. Group 2 storage vessels, except as facility, it is a storage vessel affected provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through facility subject to the same requirements I. National Technology Transfer and (4) of this section. The potential for VOC Advancement Act (NTTAA) as before being removed from service, or emissions must be calculated using a applicable to the storage vessel affected This rulemaking does not involve generally accepted model or calculation facility being replaced immediately technical standards. methodology, based on the maximum upon startup, startup of production, or average daily throughput determined for return to service. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal a 30-day period of production prior to Actions To Address Environmental * * * * * the applicable emission determination ■ 3. Section 60.5430 is amended by Justice in Minority Populations and deadline specified in this section. The revising the definitions of ‘‘Returned to Low-Income Populations determination may take into account Service’’ and ‘‘Storage Vessel’’ to read as requirements under a legally and follows: The EPA believes the human health or practically enforceable limit in an environmental risk addressed by this operating permit or other requirement § 60.5430 What definitions apply to this action will not have potential established under a Federal, State, local subpart? disproportionately high and adverse or tribal authority. * * * * * human health or environmental effects (1) For each new, modified or Returned to service means that a on minority, low-income or indigenous reconstructed storage vessel receiving Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel populations because it does not affect liquids pursuant to the standards for gas affected facility that was removed from the level of protection provided to well affected facilities in § 60.5375, service has been: human health or the environment. This including wells subject to § 60.5375(f), (1) Reconnected to the original source action is a reconsideration of an existing you must determine the potential for of liquids or has been used to replace rule and imposes no new impacts or VOC emissions within 30 days after any storage vessel affected facility; or costs. startup of production. (2) Installed in any location covered List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 (2) A storage vessel affected facility by this subpart and introduced with that subsequently has its potential for crude oil, condensate, intermediate Administrative practice and VOC emissions decrease to less than 6 hydrocarbon liquids or produced water. procedure, Air pollution control, tpy shall remain an affected facility * * * * * Environmental protection, under this subpart. Storage vessel means a tank or other Intergovernmental relations, Reporting (3) For storage vessels not subject to vessel that contains an accumulation of and recordkeeping. a legally and practically enforceable crude oil, condensate, intermediate Dated: March 17, 2015. limit in an operating permit or other hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water, Gina McCarthy, requirement established under Federal, and that is constructed primarily of Administrator. state, local or tribal authority, any vapor nonearthen materials (such as wood, from the storage vessel that is recovered concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) For the reasons set out in the and routed to a process through a VRU which provide structural support. A preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code designed and operated as specified in well completion vessel that receives of Federal Regulations is proposed to be this section is not required to be recovered liquids from a well after amended as follows: included in the determination of VOC startup of production following

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15185

flowback for a period which exceeds 60 is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, well completion vessel as defined in this days is considered a storage vessel barges or ships), and are intended to be section. under this subpart. A tank or other located at a site for less than 180 (2) Process vessels such as surge vessel shall not be considered a storage consecutive days. If you do not keep or control vessels, bottoms receivers or vessel if it has been removed from are not able to produce records, as knockout vessels. service in accordance with the required by § 60.5420(c)(5)(iv), showing requirements of § 60.5395(f) until such (3) Pressure vessels designed to that the vessel has been located at a site operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals time as such tank or other vessel has for less than 180 consecutive days, the been returned to service. For the and without emissions to the vessel described herein is considered to atmosphere. purposes of this subpart, the following be a storage vessel from the date the are not considered storage vessels: * * * * * original vessel was first located at the (1) Vessels that are skid-mounted or [FR Doc. 2015–06593 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] site. This exclusion does not apply to a permanently attached to something that BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 15186

Notices Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 55

Monday, March 23, 2015

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER displays a currently valid OMB control Description of Respondents: Not-for- contains documents other than rules or number. profit institutions; Individual or proposed rules that are applicable to the households; Business or other for-profit; Food and Nutrition Service public. Notices of hearings and investigations, State, Local or Tribal Government. committee meetings, agency decisions and Title: Supplementation Nutrition Number of Respondents: 5,261. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of Assistance Program (SNAP) Frequency of Responses: Reporting: petitions and applications and agency Employment & Training Study. statements of organization and functions are On occasion. OMB Control Number: 0584–NEW. Total Burden Hours: 2,238. examples of documents appearing in this Summary of Collection: The section. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Ruth Brown, Program (SNAP) serves as a safety net Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE for families who are having difficulty obtaining adequate nutrition. The U.S. [FR Doc. 2015–06590 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Submission for OMB Review; Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), BILLING CODE 3410–30–P Comment Request Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which administers SNAP, also March 18, 2015. administers the SNAP Employment and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The Department of Agriculture has Training (E&T) Program to assist submitted the following information members of households participating in Food and Nutrition Service collection requirement(s) to OMB for SNAP in gaining skills, training or Agency Information Collection review and clearance under the experience to ‘‘increase their ability to Activities: Proposed Collection; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, obtain regular employment’’. The Food Comment Request—Study on Nutrition Public Law 104–13. Comments and Nutrition Act of 2008 authorizes the and Wellness Quality in Childcare regarding (a) whether the collection of USDA to conduct program research and Settings (SNAQCS) information is necessary for the proper evaluation activities to ‘‘implement an performance of the functions of the employment and training program AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service agency, including whether the designed by the State agency and (FNS), USDA. information will have practical utility; approved by the Secretary for the ACTION: Notice. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate purpose of assisting members of of burden including the validity of the households participating in the SUMMARY: In accordance with the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the ways to enhance the quality, utility and Program in gaining skills, training, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) clarity of the information to be work, or experience that will increase invites the general public and other collected; (d) ways to minimize the their ability to obtain regular public agencies to comment on this burden of the collection of information employment (H.R. 2642, Pub. L. 113– proposed information collection. This on those who are to respond, including 128, Sec. 6(d)(4), p. 34).’’ collection is a new collection for the through the use of appropriate Need and Use of the Information: The Study on Nutrition and Wellness automated, electronic, mechanical, or study is needed to provide Food and Quality in Childcare Settings other technological collection Nutrition Service with information (SNAQCS). techniques or other forms of information about the characteristics of work technology should be addressed to: Desk registrants, E&T participants, and the DATES: Written comments on this notice Officer for Agriculture, Office of providers that serve them. This must be received on or before May 22, Information and Regulatory Affairs, nationally representative study will 2015. Office of Management and Budget identify the characteristics of registrants ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: (OMB), [email protected] and participants, the challenges they (a) Whether the proposed collection of or fax (202) 395–5806 and to face and the E&T services available to information is necessary for the proper Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, SNAP participants. The information performance of the functions of the OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC generated will help FNS understand agency, including whether the 20250–7602. Comments regarding these how these programs serve clients, what information shall have practical utility; information collections are best assured participants need to develop their skills, (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of having their full effect if received and whether current programs meet of the burden of the proposed collection within 30 days of this notification. clients’ needs. This study has three of information, including the validity of Copies of the submission(s) may be objectives: (1) To provide FNS with a the methodology and assumptions that obtained by calling (202) 720–8958. detailed description of the were used; (c) ways to enhance the An agency may not conduct or characteristics of SNAP work registrants quality, utility, and clarity of the sponsor a collection of information and SNAP E&T participants; (2) to information to be collected; and (d) unless the collection of information describe the needs and challenges faced ways to minimize the burden of the displays a currently valid OMB control by registrants and participants in collection of information on those who number and the agency informs finding and retaining employment in are to respond, including use of potential persons who are to respond to the changing economy; and (3) to appropriate automated, electronic, the collection of information that such describe the characteristics of the E&T mechanical, or other technological persons are not required to respond to service providers and the types of collection techniques or other forms of the collection of information unless it services available to participants. information technology.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15187

Comments may be sent to: Joseph F. in childcare facilities, relative to the and data quality while minimizing data Robare, Food and Nutrition Service, current Dietary Guidelines for collection costs and respondent burden. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Americans (DGA) which are prepared To address the study’s three broad Park Center Drive, Room 1004, by USDA and the U.S. Department of categories of research questions, the Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may Health and Human Services, and the data collection activities to be also be submitted via fax to the attention types of activities that might promote or undertaken subject to this notice will of Joseph F. Robare at 703–305–2128 or inhibit healthy weight and include the following surveys, forms, via email to [email protected]. development. The study will also and interviews: Comments will also be accepted through provide insights into how nutritional • Nutrition and wellness policies and the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to quality and physical activity in practices in childcare settings: http://www.regulations.gov, and follow childcare might be improved. Lastly, the Æ Provider Web Survey the online instructions for submitting study will collect data on the costs of Æ Menu Survey comments electronically. childcare meals and snacks in Æ Reference Portion Measurement All written comments will be open for relationship to CACFP reimbursements, Form public inspection at the office of the other funding, and meal quality. Æ Table Waste Observation Form Food and Nutrition Service during The study will take place in the • Child intake and weight status: regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 context of heightened concern about Æ Child Food Diary (completed by p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 adequate nutrition, diet quality and parents) Park Center Drive, Room 1004, obesity in young children. These Æ Standing Height and Weight Form Alexandria, Virginia 22302. concerns and developing knowledge (collected by study staff) All responses to this notice will be about nutritional requirements for Æ Infant Food Intake Form summarized and included in the request appropriate childhood growth, as Æ Parent Interview for Office of Management and Budget reflected in the updated 2010 DGA, led • Cost of meals provided in CACFP approval. All comments will be a matter the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Food childcare setting: of public record. and Nutrition Board to recommend new Æ Sponsor Pre-visit Cost Survey Æ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meal requirements for the CACFP in its Sponsor Pre-visit Cost Form Æ Requests for additional information or 2010 report Child and Adult Care Food Center Director Pre-visit Cost copies of this information collection Program: Aligning Dietary Guidance for Survey Æ should be directed to Joseph F. Robare All. USDA recently published a Sponsor Cost Interview Æ at 703–305–2128. proposed rule in the Federal Register to Center Director Cost Interview Æ Food Preparer Cost Interview SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: update the CACFP meal requirements Æ Overhead and Equipment Cost Title: Study on Nutrition and based on these recommendations Worksheet Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings (January 15, 2015; 80 FR 2037). While (SNAQCS). USDA has not yet implemented new In addition, the study will include an Form Number: N/A. CACFP meal requirements, the IOM Environmental Observation Form and a OMB Number: Not Yet Assigned. recommendations provide significant Meal Observation Form that will be Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined. benchmarks for assessing current meal completed by study staff and do not Type of Request: New Collection. quality in the CACFP. Moreover, a have any associated burden for study Abstract: Good nutrition is a key to comparison between current meal participants. proper childhood development, but not characteristics and the IOM Affected Public: Respondent enough is known about the food recommendations suggests the extent of categories of affected public and the children are eating in childcare and change that would be required to corresponding study participants will related programs. In 2011, 32.7 million implement the IOM recommendations. include: (a) Businesses (sample of children were in a regular childcare The need for research to establish a childcare providers); and (b) individual/ arrangement while their parents worked baseline of current meal characteristics households (sample of children and or pursued other activities outside of the and quality in childcare settings is their parents/guardians). home, according to the U.S. Census acknowledged in the IOM report, as are Estimated Number of Respondents: Bureau. In recognition of the importance the challenges of technical assistance, 12,472. The total proposed final number of nutrition and physical activity in monitoring, and cost that would come of unique respondents will include: (a) childcare, Congress directed the USDA with the implementation of new meal 3,753 sponsors, directors, food preparers to conduct a Study on Nutrition and requirements. The proposed study will and/or provider staff of childcare Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings directly address key research centers, family day care homes, and (SNAQCS) in Section 223 of the Healthy recommendations from the IOM report. after-school childcare providers Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010. The study seeks to collect a broad childcare that participate in the USDA The objectives set out by Congress range of data from a nationally Child and Adult Care Food Program encompass four broad topics: (1) representative sample which would (CACFP), and non-participating Nutritional quality of foods offered, (2) include: (1) Sponsors, directors, food providers; (b) 3,000 children receiving physical activity, (3) sedentary activity, preparers and/or provider staff of care from CACFP childcare centers, and (4) barriers to and facilitators of childcare centers, family day care family day care homes, and after-school nutritional quality, physical activity, homes, and after-school programs that programs; (c) 4,175 parents of children and participation by childcare centers participate in the CACFP and those that receiving care from CACFP childcare and family day care homes in the Child do not participate in CACFP; and (2) centers, family day care homes, and and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). children and parents of children after-school childcare programs; and (d) For efficiency, USDA is coordinating the receiving care from CACFP childcare 1,544 non-respondents. collection of other important variables centers, family day care homes, and Estimated Frequency of Responses per with the section 223 data collection. after-school programs during 2015– Respondent: 1.91 annually. All The intent of the study is to document 2016. The sample is designed to provide respondents will be asked to respond to the quality of meals and snacks offered required levels of statistical precision or complete instruments as follows: (a)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Sponsors will be asked to complete the asked to cooperate with study staff who Estimated Total Annual Responses: Sponsor Pre-visit Cost Survey, the will weigh and measure them for the 23,767. Sponsor Pre-visit Cost Form, and the Standing Height and Weight Form; and Estimated Time per Response: 35 Sponsor Cost Interview; (b) directors (f) parents will be asked to complete a minutes (0.59 hours). The estimated will be asked to complete the Provider Parent Interview and the Child Food time of response varies from 4 minutes Web Survey, the Center Director Pre- Diary for a childcare day, a non- (0.07 hours) to 195 minutes (3.25 hours) visit Cost Survey, the Center Director childcare day, and a subsample will be Cost Interview, and the Overhead & depending on the respondent group, as asked to complete a third diary which shown in the table below. These Equipment Cost Worksheet; (c) food could be either a childcare day or a non- preparers will be asked to complete the estimates include time to read the initial childcare day. All respondents will be Menu Survey, the Reference Portion materials as well as follow-up activities. asked to respond to or complete each Measurement Form, the Table Waste Estimated Total Annual Burden on instrument only once with the Observation Form, and the Food Respondents: 13,945.99 hours. See the exception of parents who will be asked Preparer Cost Interview; (d) provider table below for estimated total annual to complete a Child Food Diary on 2– staff will be asked to complete the Infant burden for each type of respondent. Food Intake Form; (e) children will be 3 days.

Average Total annual Data collection Estimated Frequency Total annual burden burden hours Affected public Respondents a number of hours activity respondents of response responses per estimate response (hours)

Businesses b ...... Provider Web Sur- Non-respondents .... 352 1 352 0.07 24.64 vey. Directors ...... 1,539 1 1,539 1.00 1,539.00 Businesses b ...... Menu Survey (on- Non-respondents .... 352 1 352 0.07 24.64 line). Food preparers ...... 1,539 1 1,539 2.93 4,509.27 Businesses b ...... Reference Portion Non-respondents .... 44 1 44 0.07 3.08 Measurement Food preparers ...... 532 1 532 0.25 133.00 Form. Businesses b ...... Table Waste Obser- Non-respondents .... 20 1 20 0.07 1.40 vation Form. Food preparers ...... 372 1 372 0.08 29.76 Businesses b ...... Infant Food Intake Non-respondents .... 2 1 2 0.07 0.14 Form. Provider staff ...... 75 1 75 0.75 56.25 Businesses b ...... Sponsor Pre-visit Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 Cost Survey. Sponsors ...... 600 1 600 0.17 102.00 Businesses b ...... Sponsor Pre-visit Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 Cost Form. Sponsors ...... 600 1 600 0.17 102.00 Businesses b ...... Center Director Pre- Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 visit Cost Survey. Directors ...... 600 1 600 0.25 150.00 Businesses b ...... Sponsor Cost Inter- Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 view (inperson). Sponsors ...... 600 1 600 3.25 1,950.00 Businesses b ...... Center Director Cost Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 Interview Directors ...... 600 1 600 0.75 450.00 (inperson). Businesses b ...... Food Preparer Cost Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 Interview Food preparers ...... 600 1 600 0.5 300.00 (inperson). Businesses b ...... Overhead & Equip- Non-respondents .... 143 1 143 0.07 10.01 ment Cost Work- Directors ...... 600 1 600 0.17 102.00 sheet. Subtotal Businesses ...... 4,602 2.18 10,028 0.95 9,547.25 Individuals/Households Standing Height and Non-respondents .... 158 1 158 0.07 11.06 Weight Form. Children (collected 3,000 1 3,000 0.08 240.00 by on-site study staff). Individuals/Households Child Food Diary Non-respondents .... 315 1 315 0.07 22.05 (Childcare day). Parents (reporting 2,685 1 2,685 0.50 1,342.50 on children). Individuals/Households Child Food Diary Non-respondents .... 537 1 537 0.07 37.59 (Non-childcare Parents (reporting 2,148 1 2,148 0.67 1,439.16 day). on children). Individuals/Households Child Food Diary Non-respondents .... 85 1 85 0.07 5.95 (Third day). Parents (reporting 416 1 416 0.58 241.28 on children). Individuals/Households Parent interview...... Non-respondents .... 220 1 220 0.07 15.40 Parents ...... 4,175 1 4,175 0.25 1,043.75 Subtotal Individ- ...... 7,870 1.75 13,739 0.32 4,398.74 uals/Households. Grand Total ...... 12,472 1.91 23,767 0.59 13,945.99 Notes: a In some cases, an alternate respondent may be called upon by the respondent to provide specific information to complete the data collection activity. For example, the director may need specific information from a staff person involved in food preparation in order to complete the section of the form asking about meal and snacks policies if he/she does not have this information. b Most of the childcare providers that will be included in the study will be businesses, though some will be operated by school districts and thus are public. No data are currently available to allow us to determine the percent that are businesses and the percent that are public. Similar to our procedures for determining burden in other studies of this population, we have classified all providers as businesses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15189

Dated: March 17, 2015. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 526–5255. The Council’s Web site, Audrey Rowe, www.mafmc.org also has details on the Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric meeting locations, webinar access, and Administration [FR Doc. 2015–06592 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] background materials. A scoping BILLING CODE 3410–30–P document will be posted to the Council Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Web site no later than March 24, 2015. Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There will Northeastern United States; Scoping be six scoping meetings (each lasting Process ARCHITECTURAL AND approximately 1–2 hours depending on TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries attendance) with the following dates/ COMPLIANCE BOARD Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and times/locations: Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1. Monday, April 6, 2015, 4 p.m., [Docket No. ATBCB–2013–0001] Commerce. Superior Trawl, 55 State Street, ACTION: Notice of public scoping Narragansett, RI 02882; telephone: (401) meetings. 782–1171. RIN 3014–AA42 2. Tuesday, April 7, 2015, 5 p.m., Rail Vehicles Access Advisory SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Montauk Library, 871 Montauk Committee Management Council will hold six Highway, Montauk, NY 11954; scoping hearings in April 2015 for an telephone: (631) 668–3377. AGENCY: Architectural and Amendment to the Fishery Management 3. Wednesday, April 8, 2015, 5 p.m., Transportation Barriers Compliance Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Mackerel, Fairfield Inn, 185 MacArthur Dr., New Board. Squid, and Butterfish (MSB). The Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) current focus of the amendment is to 634–2000. ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. consider alternatives to reduce the 4. Monday, April 13, 2015, 6 p.m., capacities of the longfin squid and Illex Congress Hall Hotel. 251 Beach Ave, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that squid fleets as defined by vessels with Cape May, NJ 08204, telephone: (888) the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory limited access permits. At the scoping 944–1816. Committee’s (RVAAC) charter is being hearings the Council will also take any 5. Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 5 p.m., renewed. general comments on MSB fishery Ocean Place Resort. 1 Ocean Blvd., Long management, which could inform future Branch, NJ, 07740; telephone: 732–571– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Council actions besides this 4000. Beatty, Designated Federal Officer at Amendment. There will also be a 6. Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6 p.m., (202) 272–0012 (Voice); (202) 272–0072 separate written comment period for This April 21, 2015 meeting will be (TTY). Electronic mail address: rvaac@ Amendment scoping, which will be conducted via webinar accessible via access-board.gov. described in an upcoming Federal the internet from the Council’s Web site, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Register announcement as a ‘‘Notice of www.mafmc.org. The Virginia Marine to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Intent (NOI)’’ to potentially develop an Resources Commission will also provide Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– EIS that accompanies the Amendment. in-person access to the webinar at its 463), and in accordance with Title 41 of That NOI will also contain information office at: 2600 Washington Avenue, 4th the Code of Federal Regulations, section regarding these scoping hearings, but to Floor, Newport News, VA 23607; 102–3.65(a), and following consultation provide the public with sufficient telephone: (757) 247–2200. Members of with the Committee Management advance notice of the hearings, this the public may also attend in-person at Secretariat, General Services notice is being published now since the the Council office address (see Administration, the RVAAC charter is NOI will likely publish shortly before ADDRESSES) for this webinar meeting, if renewed. The Committee will provide the scoping hearings. they contact the Council by April 19, advice to the Access Board on revising DATES: The meetings will be held over 2015. Please contact Jason Didden by and updating our accessibility several weeks between April 6, 2015 April 19, 2015 at [email protected] or guidelines issued pursuant to the and April 21, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY (302) 526–5254 if you would like to test/ Americans with Disabilities Act for INFORMATION for specific dates and confirm that your computer is set up to transportation vehicles that operate on times. access the webinar. fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, In the Council’s 2015 Implementation ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, Plan (available at http://www.mafmc. INFORMATION for specific locations of the and high speed rail). Additionally, the org/strategic-plan/), the Council decided hearings. renewal of the RVAAC has been to initiate an action on a ‘‘Squid Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery determined to be essential to the work Capacity Amendment.’’ There is Management Council, 800 N. State St., of the Access Board and to be in the considerable latent capacity in both the Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: public interest in connection with the longfin squid and Illex squid fisheries— (302) 674–2331. performance of duties required by law. a small portion of vessels with limited Comments: Comments will be taken at The Committee will continue to operate access squid permits account for most all scoping hearings. A separate Federal in accordance with the provisions of the landings in most years. The Council is Register announcement will be Federal Advisory Committee Act and concerned that activation of this latent published soon that provides additional the rules and regulations that capacity could cause problems in the information on how to make written implement that Act. fishery such as racing to fish and comments. increased incidental catch of non-target David M. Capozzi, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species. Accordingly, the Amendment is Executive Director. Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive likely to consider a variety of [FR Doc. 2015–06543 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery approaches for reducing capacity in the BILLING CODE 8150–01–P Management Council; telephone: (302) squid fisheries. Such approaches could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

include, but would not be limited to, a Special Accommodations surveying the South Atlantic deep-water requalification of limited access These meetings are physically species complex. Survey goals are permits, a tiered limited access system, accessible to people with disabilities. expected to include providing and/or a limited access privilege Requests for sign language abundance information and biological program (LAPP), which is more interpretation or other auxiliary aid samples to support stock assessments of commonly referred to as an ‘‘individual should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, deep water species. quota’’ or ‘‘catch share system.’’ The (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to Workshop Agenda, Tuesday, April 7– Council has recently updated control the meeting date. Thursday, April 9, 2015 dates for both squid fisheries—May 16, Dated: March 17, 2015. 2013 for longfin squid (http://www. 1. Identify focal species greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nr/ Tracey L. Thompson, 2. Provide species details Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 3. Recommend survey gears 2013/May/13smblongfinbutterfish 4. Recommend gear configurations controldatephl.pdf) and August 2, 2013 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2015–06438 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 5. Recommend survey data to collect for Illex squid (http://www.greater 6. Recommend a sampling universe atlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nr/2013/ BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 7. Provide survey design guidance August/13smbillexcontroldatephl.pdf). 8. Compare and contrast survey The Council may (or may not) use the platforms, including cooperative DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE current or previous control dates as research opportunities reference points as it considers whether, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 9. Provide cost estimates and/or how, to further limit the number Administration 10. Identify long-term and short-term of participants in the squid fisheries (see needs and cooperative research preceding links for additional details on RIN 0648–XD837 opportunities the control dates). Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Special Accommodations The Council will first gather Atlantic Fishery Management Council; This meeting is accessible to people information during the scoping period. Public Meeting with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary This is the first and best opportunity for aids should be directed to the SAFMC members of the public to raise concerns AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 related to the scope of issues that will business days prior to the meeting. be considered in the Amendment. The Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. Note: The times and sequence specified in Council needs your input both to this agenda are subject to change. identify management issues and ACTION: Design workshop for monitoring develop effective alternatives. Your deep water snapper-grouper species in Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. the South Atlantic. comments early in the amendment Dated: March 17, 2015. development process will help us SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Tracey L. Thompson, address issues of public concern in a Management Council (SAFMC) and thorough and appropriate manner. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Southeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Comment topics could include the (SEFSC) will host a workshop where [FR Doc. 2015–06437 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] scope of issues in the amendment, fishermen and scientists will discuss concerns and potential alternatives BILLING CODE 3510–22–P approaches for monitoring the deep related to capacity in the squid fisheries, water stocks component of the South and the appropriate level of Atlantic Snapper-Grouper complex. See DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE environmental analysis. If the Council SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. decides to move forward with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric DATES: The workshop will be held from Amendment, the Council will develop a Administration range of management alternatives to be 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 7, considered and prepare a draft 2015; 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., RIN 0648–XD826 Wednesday, April 8, 2015; and 8:30 a.m. Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Marine Mammals; File No. 17967 and/or other appropriate environmental to 3 p.m., Thursday, April 9, 2015. analyses. These analyses will consider ADDRESSES: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the impacts of the management Meeting address: The Workshop will Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and alternatives being considered, as be held at SEFSC Laboratory in Beaufort Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), required by the National Environmental NC, located at 101 Piver’s Island Road, Commerce. Policy Act (NEPA). Following a review Beaufort, NC 28516. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. of any comments on the draft analyses, Council address: South Atlantic the Council will then choose preferred Fishery Management Council, 4055 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that management measures for submission Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. the Minnesota Zoological Gardens, with a Final EIS or Environmental Charleston, SC 29405. 13000 Zoo Boulevard, Apple Valley, Assessment to the Secretary of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim MN 55124, has applied in due form for Commerce for publishing of a proposed Iverson, Public Information Officer, a permit to conduct research on and and then final rule, both of which have 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North enhancement of Hawaiian monk seals additional comment periods. While the Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) (Neomonachus schauinslandi) in Council is conducting these scoping 571–4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC–10; captivity. hearings, the Council will also accept fax: (843) 769–4520; email: DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email general comments on the MSB fisheries. [email protected]. comments must be received on or before These general comments could inform SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The goal April 22, 2015. Council decision making for upcoming of the Workshop is to identify optimal ADDRESSES: The application and related annual specifications or other actions. approaches and associated costs for documents are available for review by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15191

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public presence of West Nile virus, canine station provided at the Pacific Council Comment’’ from the ‘‘Features’’ box on distemper virus, and phocine distemper Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, the Applications and Permits for virus in seals previously vaccinated; (2) Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384; Protected Species (APPS) home page, various sedatives will be tested on the telephone: (503) 820–2280. https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then seals during routine health assessments selecting File No. 17967 from the list of to inform use in the wild population; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. available applications. and (3) seals may be used in research Kelly Ames, Pacific Council; telephone: These documents are also available projects authorized under separate (503) 820–2426. upon written request or by appointment permits (e.g., vaccination testing, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The in the Permits and Conservation remotely administrating sedatives, new primary purpose of the GMT working Division, Office of Protected Resources, capture techniques). MZG proposes to meeting is to prepare for the April 2015 maintain the seals for the duration of NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room Council meeting. Specific agenda topics their lives and will continue public 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone include NOAA’s proposed revisions to (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376. awareness on the status of the species National Standards 1, 3, and 7; a review Written comments on this application through education and public should be submitted to the Chief, observation of the seals. The permit is of the latest West Coast Groundfish Permits and Conservation Division, at requested for the maximum 5-year Observer Program data; inseason the address listed above. Comments may period. adjustments to groundfish fisheries also be submitted by facsimile to (301) In compliance with the National including carryover for the shorebased 713–0376, or by email to Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 individual fishing quota program; [email protected]. Please U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial further consideration for flexible include the File No. 17967 in the subject determination has been made that the management of annual catch limit set- line of the email comment. activity proposed is categorically asides; and comments on a Council Those individuals requesting a public excluded from the requirement to Operating Procedure for methodology hearing should submit a written request prepare an environmental assessment or reviews. The GMT may also address to the Chief, Permits and Conservation environmental impact statement. other assignments relating to groundfish Division at the address listed above. The Concurrent with the publication of management. No management actions request should set forth the specific this notice in the Federal Register, will be decided by the GMT. Public reasons why a hearing on this NMFS is forwarding copies of the comment will be accommodated if time application to the Marine Mammal application would be appropriate. allows, at the discretion of the GMT Commission and its Committee of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair. The GMT’s task will be to Scientific Advisors. Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) develop recommendations for 427–8401. Dated: March 17, 2015. consideration by the Pacific Council at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Julia Harrison, its April 10–16, 2015 meeting in subject permit is requested under the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Rohnert Park, CA. Office of Protected Resources, National authority of the Marine Mammal Although non-emergency issues not Protection Act of 1972, as amended Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2015–06449 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] contained in the meeting agenda may be (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the discussed, those issues may not be the regulations governing the taking and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P subject of formal action during this importing of marine mammals (50 CFR meeting. Action will be restricted to part 216), the Endangered Species Act of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE those issues specifically listed in this 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the document and any issues arising after National Oceanic and Atmospheric publication of this document that taking, importing, and exporting of Administration endangered and threatened species (50 require emergency action under section CFR 222–226). RIN 0648–XD835 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery The Minnesota Zoological Gardens Conservation and Management Act, Pacific Fishery Management Council; (MZG) proposes to maintain up to eight provided the public has been notified of Public Meeting non-releasable Hawaiian monk seals for the intent to take final action to address research and enhancement purposes. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the emergency. This would include five female monk Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Special Accommodations seals (currently being held at Sea World Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), San Antonio) and any other captive or Commerce. The meeting is physically accessible future non-releasable female monk seals ACTION: Notice; public meeting. to people with disabilities. Requests for taken under separate permit. The five sign language interpretation or other SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery seals currently at Sea World were auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. collected from the wild for Management Council’s (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2425 at rehabilitation under an enhancement least 5 days prior to the meeting date. permit and deemed non-releasable due will hold a conference call that is open to an eye disease of unknown etiology; to the public. To attend the GMT Dated: March 17, 2015. maintaining these seals in captivity teleconference, participants need to dial Tracey L. Thompson, would prevent the potential the following toll-free phone number: Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable transmission of disease to the wild (888) 283–0166; Passcode: 4432591. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. population. Proposed research on the DATES: The GMT meeting will be held [FR Doc. 2015–06435 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Tuesday, April 7, 2015, from 1 p.m. captive seals includes the following: (1) BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Annually, blood samples and nasal until business for the day is completed. swabs taken during routine health ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held assessments will be analyzed for via conference call with a listening

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15192 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE received comments from no other Department of Commerce building. In parties. addition, a complete version of the International Trade Administration Based on this information, the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can Department initiated this CCR on be accessed directly at http:// [A–570–831] October 16, 2014, explaining that while enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. there was sufficient evidence to initiate The signed Preliminary Decision Fresh Garlic From the People’s a changed circumstances review, the Memorandum and the electronic Republic of China: Preliminary Results Department needed to request versions of the Preliminary Decision of the Changed Circumstances Review additional information for this review as Memorandum are identical in content. of Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods provided by 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2).4 On Methodology Co., Ltd. October 29, 2014, the Department issued its initial CCR questionnaire to In accordance with section 751(b)(1) AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Qingshui, and Qingshui timely of the Act, we are conducting this International Trade Administration, responded to the Department’s changed circumstances review based Department of Commerce. questionnaire.5 The Department did not upon the information contained in SUMMARY: On October 23, 2014, the receive comments from other interested Qingshui’s submissions.7 In making a Department of Commerce (Department) parties concerning Qingshui’s successor-in-interest determination, the initiated a changed circumstance review questionnaire response. Department typically examines several (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) factors including, but not limited to, Scope of the Order order on fresh garlic from the People’s changes in: (1) Management; (2) Republic of China (PRC) in response to The merchandise covered by this production facilities; (3) supplier a request from Lanling Qingshui order is all grades of garlic, whether relationships; and (4) customer base.8 Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. (Qingshui), a whole or separated into constituent While no single factor or combination of producer/exporter of fresh and peeled cloves. The subject merchandise is factors will necessarily be dispositive, garlic from the People’s Republic of currently classifiable under the the Department generally will consider China (PRC).1 Pursuant to section 751(b) Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the the new company to be the successor to of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended United States (HTSUS) subheadings: the predecessor if the resulting (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216, the 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0010, operations of the successor are not Department preliminarily determines 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, materially dissimilar to that of its that Qingshui is the successor-in- 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, predecessor.9 Thus, if the record interest to Cangshan Qingshui Vegetable 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, demonstrates that, with respect to the Foods Co., Ltd. (Cangshan Qingshui). 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, production and sale of the subject We invite interested parties to comment 0703.20.0005, 2005.99.9700 and merchandise, the new company on these preliminary results. 0703.20.0015. Although the HTSUS operates as the same business entity as subheadings are provided for DATES: Effective March 23, 2015. the predecessor company, the convenience and customs purposes, the Department may assign the new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: written product description is company the cash deposit rate of its Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., AD/CVD dispositive. 10 Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and predecessor. For a full description of A complete description of the scope the methodology underlying our Compliance, International Trade of the order is contained in the conclusions, see the Preliminary Administration, U.S. Department of Preliminary Decision Memorandum.6 Decision Memorandum. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution The Preliminary Decision Memorandum Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; is a public document and is on file Preliminary Results of the Changed telephone: (202) 482–4340. electronically via Enforcement and Circumstances Review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Compliance’s Antidumping and Based on the evidence reviewed, we Countervailing Duty Centralized Background preliminarily determine that Qingshui is Electronic Service System (ACCESS). the successor-in-interest to Cangshan On November 16, 1994, the ACCESS is available to registered users Qingshui. Specifically, we find that any Department published the AD order on at http://access.trade.gov, and ACCESS changes that may have occurred after fresh garlic from the PRC in the Federal is available to all parties in the Central ‘‘Cangshan Qingshui Vegetable Foods Register.2 On September 4, 2014, Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Co., Ltd’’ became ‘‘Lanling Qingshui Qingshui requested that the Department Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd.’’ did not 4 conduct a CCR pursuant to section CCR Initiation Notice. constitute material changes to 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 5 See Letter to Qingshui from Mark E. Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Program Manager, Office VII, management, production facilities, 351.216(b) to determine that it is the Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Fresh Garlic from supplier relationships, customer successor-in-interest to Cangshan the People’s Republic of China: Changed relationships, or ownership/legal Qingshui for purposes of the Order.3 We Circumstances Review—Lanling Qingshui/ Cangshan Qingshui,’’ October 29, 2014 (Qingshui 7 CCR Questionnaire); see also Letter from Qingshui See Qingshui CCR Request and Qingshui CCR 1 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Changed Questionnaire Response. China: Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, Circumstances Determination—Fresh Garlic from 8 See, e.g., Certain Activated Carbon From the 79 FR 63381 (October 23, 2014) (CCR Initiation the People’s Republic of China (Case No. A–570– People’s Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Notice). 831)—Response to Questionnaire,’’ November 18, Changed Circumstances Review, 74 FR 19934, 2 See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from 2014 (Qingshui CCR Questionnaire Response). 19935 (April 30, 2009). the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 6 See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant 9 See, e.g., Notice of Initiation of Antidumping (November 16, 1994) (Order). Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 3 See Letter from Qingshui to the Secretary of ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 71 FR Commerce, ‘‘Request for Request for Expedited of the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 327, 327 (January 4, 2006). Changed Circumstances Determination—Fresh Review of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 10 See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (Case of China: Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., From Norway; Final Results of Changed No. A–570–831),’’ September 4, 2014 (Qingshui Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently and hereby adopted in Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative CCR Request). this notice. Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15193

structure with respect to the production Oral presentations will be limited to days-at-sea program in support of and sale of the subject merchandise. issues raised in the briefs. If a request research conducted by the National Thus, we preliminarily determine that for a hearing is made, parties will be Fisheries Institute that is investigating Qingshui operates as the same business notified of the time and date for the scallop incidental mortality in the entity as Cangshan Qingshui with hearing to be held at the U.S. scallop dredge fishery. Additionally, the respect to the subject merchandise. A Department of Commerce, 1401 Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt list of topics discussed in the Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, participating vessels from the crew size Preliminary Decision Memorandum DC 20230.19 restriction; mesh size restrictions; appears in the Appendix to this notice. obstruction in gear restrictions; and Final Results of the Review If the Department upholds these possession limits and minimum size preliminary results in the final results, In accordance with 19 CFR requirements for sampling purposes Qingshui will be assigned the cash 351.216(e), the Department intends to only. deposit rate currently assigned to issue the final results of this changed Regulations under the Magnuson- Cangshan Qingshui with respect to the circumstances review, not later than 270 Stevens Fishery Conservation and subject merchandise (i.e., the $3.06 per days after the date on which the review Management Act require publication of kilogram cash deposit rate currently is initiated. this notification to provide interested assigned to Cangshan Qingshui).11 If Notification to Parties parties the opportunity to comment on these preliminary results are adopted in applications for proposed Exempted the final results of this changed The Department issues and publishes Fishing Permits. these results in accordance with circumstances review, we will instruct DATES: Comments must be received on U.S. Customs and Border Protection to sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the or before April 7, 2015. suspend liquidation of entries of fresh Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221. ADDRESSES: You may submit written garlic made and exported by Qingshui, Dated: March 17, 2015. comments by any of the following effective on the publication date of the Paul Piquado, methods: final results, at the cash deposit rate Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and • Email: [email protected]. assigned to Cangshan Qingshui. Compliance. Include in the subject line ‘‘Comments Public Comment on NFI 2014 Incidental Discard Appendix Interested parties may submit written Mortality EFP.’’ • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional comments by no later than 30 days after List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic the date of publication of these Decision Memorandum preliminary results of review in the I. Summary Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Federal Register.12 Rebuttals, limited to II. Background Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. issues raised in the written comments, III. Scope of the Order Mark the outside of the envelope may be filed by no later than five days IV. Preliminary Results of Changed ‘‘Comments on NFI 2014 Incidental Circumstances Review after the written comments are filed.13 Discard Mortality EFP.’’ V. Recommendation • Fax: (978) 281–9135. Parties that submit written comments or rebuttals are encouraged to submit with [FR Doc. 2015–06558 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: each argument: (1) A statement of the BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management issue; (2) a brief summary of the Specialist, 978–282–8456. argument; and (3) a table of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE authorities.14 All briefs are to be filed awarded the National Fisheries Institute 15 (NFI) a grant through the 2014 Atlantic electronically using ACCESS. An National Oceanic and Atmospheric sea scallop research set-aside program electronically filed document must be Administration received successfully in its entirety by in support of a project titled, ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on RIN 0648–XD844 ‘‘Determining Incidental Discard the day on which it is due.16 Mortality of Atlantic Sea Scallops, Any interested party may request a Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Placopecten magellanicus, in the hearing to the Assistant Secretary of General Provisions for Domestic Scallop Dredge Fishery in the Mid- Enforcement and Compliance using Fisheries; Application for Exempted Atlantic Bight.’’ NFI submitted a ACCESS within 30 days of publication Fishing Permits complete Exempted Fishing Permit 17 of this notice in the Federal Register. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries (EFP) application on May 13, 2014, but Hearing requests should contain the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and delayed work on the project until spring following information: (1) The party’s Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), of 2015. NFI is requesting exemptions name, address, and telephone number; Commerce. that would allow one commercial (2) the number of participants; and (3) ACTION: Notice; request for comments. fishing vessel to fish outside of the a list of the issues to be discussed.18 limited access Atlantic sea scallop days- SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional at-sea (DAS) regulations found at 50 11 See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, CFR 648.53(b); mesh size restrictions at China: Final Results of the Semiannual § 648.51(a)(2); obstruction in dredge Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has Merry Vegetable Co., Ltd. and Cangshan Qingshui made a preliminary determination that gear restrictions at § 648.51(b)(4)(iii); Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd.; 2012–2013, 79 FR 62103, an Exempted Fishing Permit application and the crew size regulations at (October 16, 2014). contains all of the required information § 648.51(c). In addition, the EFP would 12 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). temporarily exempt the participating 13 and warrants further consideration. This See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). vessel from possession limits and 14 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) & (d)(2). Exempted Fishing Permit would allow 15 See 19 CFR 351.303(b) and (f). one commercial fishing vessel to fish minimum size requirements specified in 16 See 19 CFR 351.303(b) outside of the limited access scallop 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D 17 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). through O, for sampling purposes only. 18 See id. 19 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Any fishing activity conducted outside

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

the scope of the exempted fishing year. EFP modifications and extensions Statements and providing guidance on activity would be prohibited. may be granted without further notice if continued development of Fishery The project would conduct dredging they are deemed essential to facilitate Ecosystem Plan II. The AP will receive activities to assess the incidental completion of the proposed research presentations from Bureau of Ocean mortality of scallops passing through and have minimal impacts that do not Energy Management (BOEM) Office of the 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings of a 12-foot change the scope or impact of the Renewable Energy Programs and BOEM (4.57-meter) Turtle Deflector Dredge on initially approved EFP request. Any Outer Continental Shelf/Geological and sandy and hard (gravel) substrates. fishing activity conducted outside the Geophysical Programs on mapping, Dredging would be conducted over scope of the exempted fishing activity characterization, impact analyses and approximately 5 DAS during the would be prohibited. planning efforts in the South Atlantic proposed period of May 2015 through Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Region. June 2015. All dredging would occur in The AP will subsequently discuss open access scallop fishing areas off the Dated: March 18, 2015. redrafting the EFH Policy Statement on coast of New Jersey. A total of 20 scallop Emily H. Menashes, Energy Exploration, Development and tows would be conducted (10 tows per Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Transportation. The AP will provide substrate). Each tow would be made at Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. recommendations to the Council for depths of 18 to 25 fathoms for a [FR Doc. 2015–06550 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] consideration. duration of 40 minutes. The scallop BILLING CODE 3510–22–P vessel would fish two dredges Special Accommodations simultaneously. One dredge would use The meeting is physically accessible an experimental net bag cover and the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE to people with disabilities. Requests for other would fish with the industry auxiliary aids should be directed to the standard 12-foot (4.57-meter) turtle National Oceanic and Atmospheric Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days excluder dredge. The experimental Administration prior to the meeting. cover is constructed of 17⁄8-inch (4.76- RIN 0648–XD822 Note: The times and sequence specified in cm) mesh and sewn into the top of the this agenda are subject to change. dredge apron. The bag can be dumped Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South independently of the 4-inch (10.16-cm) Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Dated: March 17, 2015. ring bag to collect the scallops and other Public Meeting Tracey L. Thompson, organisms that pass through the 4-inch Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable (10.16-cm) rings. The dredge AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and configurations would be switched to the [FR Doc. 2015–06436 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] opposite side after five tows for each Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), BILLING CODE 3510–22–P substrate. Commerce. All scallops that filter through the 4- ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. inch (10.16-cm) rings and into the mesh bag would be measured for shell height SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL and assessed for damage to the shell in Management Council will hold a PROTECTION one of three categories: Not injured; meeting of its Habitat and [Docket No: CFPB–2015–0012] sub–lethal (repairable); or lethal (non- Environmental Protection (Habitat) repairable). After shell condition is Advisory Panel (AP) in N. Charleston, Agency Information Collection assessed, shells would be spray painted SC. The meeting is open to the public. Activities: Comment Request with tow number in the corresponding DATES: The meeting will be held from 9 AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial spray paint color and placed in a whelk a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April Protection. pot, which would be attached to the sea 7, 2015, and from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. floor near the fishing grounds. Two Wednesday, April 8, 2015. additional DAS would be utilized, one ADDRESSES: SUMMARY: In accordance with the each at 1 week and 2 weeks after initial Meeting address: The meeting will be Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 survey, to assess mortality based on held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4381 (PRA), the Consumer Financial initial damage. The whelk pots would Tanger Outlet Blvd., North Charleston, Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting be removed from the ocean bottom after SC 29418; telephone: (843) 744–4422; a new generic information collection week-two sampling is complete. The fax: (843) 744–4472. plan, titled, ‘‘Generic Information weight of scallop catch retained in the Council address: South Atlantic Collection Plan for Surveys Using the 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bags of both Fishery Management Council, 4055 Consumer Credit Panel’’. dredges would be estimated by the Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. captain. Researchers would take shell DATES: Written comments are Charleston, SC 29405. measurements of a subsample of 50 encouraged and must be received on or scallops per tow per dredge to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim before May 22, 2015 to be assured of determine size selectivity within each Iverson, Public Information Officer, consideration. dredge. All other bycatch in the South Atlantic Fishery Management ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, experimental net bag would be sorted, Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite identified by the title of the information the captain would estimate the weights, 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; collection, OMB Control Number (see and researchers would measure a telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free: below), and docket number (see above), minimum of 25 lengths per individual (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; by any of the following methods: species. No catch would be landed for email: [email protected]. • Electronic: http:// sale. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The www.regulations.gov. Follow the If approved, the applicant may Habitat AP will work on updating instructions for submitting comments. request minor modifications and existing and developing new Council • Mail: Consumer Financial extensions to the EFP throughout the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Policy Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15195

Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, performance of the functions of the Please note that comments submitted DC 20552. Bureau, including whether the after the comment period will not be • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer information will have practical utility; accepted. In general, all comments Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: (b) The accuracy of the Bureau’s received will become public records, PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., estimate of the burden of the collection including any personal information Washington, DC 20002. of information, including the validity of provided. Sensitive personal Please note that comments submitted the methods and the assumptions used; information, such as account numbers after the comment period will not be (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, or social security numbers, should not accepted. In general, all comments and clarity of the information to be be included. received will become public records, collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: including any personal information burden of the collection of information Documentation prepared in support of provided. Sensitive personal on respondents, including through the this information collection request is information, such as account numbers use of automated collection techniques available at www.regulations.gov. or social security numbers, should not or other forms of information Requests for additional information be included. technology. Comments submitted in should be directed to the Consumer FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: response to this notice will be Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: Documentation prepared in support of summarized and/or included in the PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., this information collection request is request for Office of Management and Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435–9575, available at www.regulations.gov. Budget (OMB) approval. All comments or email: [email protected]. Please do not Requests for additional information will become a matter of public record. submit comments to this mailbox. should be directed to the Consumer Dated: March 12, 2015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: Ashwin Vasan, Title of Collection: Generic PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Information Collection Plan to Conduct Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435–9575, Consumer Financial Protection. Cognitive Research and Pilot Testing. or email: [email protected]. Please do not [FR Doc. 2015–06569 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] OMB Control Number: 3170–XXXX. submit comments to this mailbox. BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P Type of Review: Request for New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number. Title of Collection: Generic Affected Public: Individuals and Information Collection Plan for Surveys BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL Households. Using the Consumer Credit Panel. PROTECTION Estimated Number of Respondents: OMB Control Number: 3170–XXXX. 7,890. Type of Review: Request for a new [Docket No. CFPB–2015–0009] Estimated Total Annual Burden OMB Control Number. Hours: 8,235. Affected Public: Individuals and Agency Information Collection Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Households. Activities: Comment Request Street Reform and Consumer Protection Estimated Number of Respondents: Act, the Consumer Financial Protection AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Bureau is charged with researching, 8,500. Protection. Estimated Total Annual Burden analyzing, and reporting on topics Hours: 4,250. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. relating to the Bureau’s mission, Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall SUMMARY: In accordance with the including developments in markets for Street Reform and Consumer Protection Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 consumer financial products and Act, the Consumer Financial Protection (PRA), the Consumer Financial services, consumer awareness, and Bureau is charged with researching, Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting consumer behavior. In order to improve analyzing, and reporting on topics approval for a new generic information its understanding of how consumers relating to the Bureau’s mission, collection plan titled, ‘‘Generic engage with financial markets, the CFPB including consumer behavior, consumer Information Collection Plan to Conduct seeks to obtain approval for a generic awareness, and developments in Cognitive Research and Pilot Testing.’’ information collection plan to conduct markets for consumer financial products research to improve the quality of data DATES: and services. In order to improve its Written comments are collection by examining the understanding of how consumers encouraged and must be received on or effectiveness of data-collection engage with financial markets, the CFPB before May 22, 2015 to be assured of procedures and processes, including uses the Consumer Credit Panel, a consideration. potential psychological and cognitive proprietary sample dataset from one of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, issues. the national credit reporting agencies, as identified by the title of the information Request for Comments: Comments are a frame to survey people about their collection, OMB Control Number (see invited on: (a) Whether the collection of experiences in consumer credit markets. below), and docket number (see above), information is necessary for the proper The Bureau seeks to obtain approval for by any of the following methods: performance of the functions of the a generic information collection plan for • Electronic: http:// Bureau, including whether the these types of surveys. Survey responses www.regulations.gov. Follow the information will have practical utility; will be used for general, formative, and instructions for submitting comments. (b) The accuracy of the Bureau’s informational research on consumer • Mail: Consumer Financial estimate of the burden of the collection financial markets and consumers’ use of Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA of information, including the validity of financial products and will not directly Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, the methods and the assumptions used; provide the basis for specific DC 20552. (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, policymaking at the Bureau. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer and clarity of the information to be Request for Comments: Comments are Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the invited on: (a) Whether the collection of PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., burden of the collection of information information is necessary for the proper Washington, DC 20002. on respondents, including through the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

use of automated collection techniques CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15- Programs (ARSF), Headquarters, U.S. or other forms of information calendar day notification requirement. Marine Corps, 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350–3000, technology. Comments submitted in Henry Williams Jr., response to this notice will be telephone (703) 614–3685. Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison summarized and/or included in the Officer, DAF. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps’ notices for systems of request for Office of Management and [FR Doc. 2015–06466 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] records subject to the Privacy Act of Budget (OMB) approval. All comments BILLING CODE 5001–10–P will become a matter of public record. 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register Dated: March 10, 2015. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and are available from the address in Ashwin Vasan, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or Chief Information Officer, Bureau of Department of the Navy from the Defense Privacy and Civil Consumer Financial Protection. Liberties Office Web site at http:// [Docket ID: USN–2015–0003] [FR Doc. 2015–06566 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] dpcld.defense.gov/. BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P Privacy Act of 1974; System of The proposed system report, as Records required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was AGENCY: United States Marine Corps, submitted on December 16, 2014, to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DoD. House Committee on Oversight and ACTION: Notice to alter a system of Government Reform, the Senate Department of the Air Force records. Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and United States Air Force Academy SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal proposes to alter the system of records, of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A– Advisory Committee Meeting; M05100–6, entitled ‘‘MCB Camp 130, ‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities Cancellation Lejeune Historic Drinking Water for Maintaining Records About Notification Registry’’ in its inventory of Individuals,’’ dated February 8, 1996 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, United record systems subject to the Privacy (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Act of 1974, as amended. States Air Force Academy Board of Dated: March 17, 2015. Visitors (USAFA BoV), Department of This system is used to obtain and maintain contact information of people Aaron Siegel, the Air Force, DoD. who may have been exposed to Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison ACTION: Quarterly meeting notice; contaminated drinking water at Marine Officer, Department of Defense. cancellation. Corps Base Camp Lejeune or persons M05100–6 interested in the issue. Information is SUMMARY: On Thursday, February 26, used to notify, update, or correspond SYSTEM NAME: 2015 (38 FR 10462), the Department of with registrants. MCB Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Defense published in the Federal DATES: Comments will be accepted on or Water Notification Registry (December Register, a notice to announce the before April 22, 2015. This proposed 14, 2009, 74 FR 66111). action will be effective the day quarterly meeting of the United States CHANGES: Air Force Academy Board of Visitors on following the end of the comment * * * * * Monday, March 16, 2015, beginning at period unless comments are received 10:15 a.m. The meeting was cancelled which result in a contrary SYSTEM LOCATION: due to last-minute circumstances determination. Delete entry and replace with ‘‘Marine indicating there would not be a quorum ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Corps Installations East G6, Bldg. 24, for the meeting. identified by docket number and title, McHugh Blvd., Camp Lejeune, NC by any of the following methods: 28542–0004.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// next scheduled USAFA BoV meeting www.regulations.gov. Follow the CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE has not been established, but will be instructions for submitting comments. SYSTEM: published in the Federal Register at • Mail: Federal Docket Management Delete entry and replace with ‘‘Active least 15 days prior to the meeting. System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, duty, Reserve, retired, and separated East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, service members; military dependents, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. Federal government employees and Meeting Announcement: The Instructions: All submissions received civilian personnel who were stationed, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the must include the agency name and lived, or were employed aboard Marine Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force docket number for this Federal Register Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Academy has cancelled the previously document. The general policy for Carolina, in 1987 or before; and scheduled meeting for March 16, 2015. comments and other submissions from individuals interested in the Camp Due to the timing of this decision, members of the public is to make these Lejeune historic drinking water issue.’’ submissions available for public which was beyond the control of the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Department of Defense or the DFO, the viewing on the Internet at http:// Delete entry and replace with ‘‘Full DFO was unable to ensure compliance www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any name, current address, phone number, with the requirements of 41 CFR 102– and email address.’’ 3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory personal identifiers or contact Committee Management Officer for the information. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delete entry and replace with ‘‘10 Sally A. Hughes, Head, FOIA/PA U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, U.S. Marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15197

Corps: Function; composition, and PL screened and cleared for need-to-know. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in 110–181, Sec. 315, Notification of System software uses Primary Key response to this notice should be Certain Residents and Civilian Infrastructure (PKI)/Common Access submitted electronically through the Employees at Camp Lejeune, North Card (CAC) authentication to lock out Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// Carolina, of Exposure to Drinking Water unauthorized access.’’ www.regulations.gov by selecting Contamination.’’ Docket ID number ED–2015–ICCD–0032 RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: or via postal mail, commercial delivery, PURPOSE(S): Delete entry and replace with or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov Delete entry and replace with ‘‘The ‘‘Destroy 50 years after Camp Lejeune is site is not available to the public for any purpose of this system is to obtain and deleted from the National Priorities reason, ED will temporarily accept maintain the contact information of List.’’ comments at [email protected]. people who may have been exposed to SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Please note that comments submitted by contaminated drinking water at Marine fax or email and those submitted after Delete entry and replace with ‘‘Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune or persons the comment period will not be Corps Installations East G6, Bldg. 24, interested in the issue. Information is accepted; ED will ONLY accept McHugh Blvd., Camp Lejeune, NC used to notify, update, or correspond comments during the comment period 28542–0004.’’ with registrants.’’ in this mailbox when the regulations.gov ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: site is not available. Written requests for SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Delete entry and replace with information or comments submitted by THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: ‘‘Individuals seeking to determine postal mail or delivery should be Delete entry and replace with ‘‘In whether information about themselves addressed to the Director of the addition to those disclosures generally is contained in this system should Information Collection Clearance permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the address written inquiries to Marine Division, U.S. Department of Education, Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Corps Installations Command, 3000 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, records contained in the system may Marine Corps Pentagon, Room 2D153A, Mailstop L–OM–2–2E319, Room 2E103, specifically be disclosed outside the Washington, DC 20350–3000. Washington, DC 20202. DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 Written requests should contain full FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: name and must be signed and specific questions related to collection Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522a(b)(8) to notarized.’’ activities, please contact Beth federal and state public health and Grebeldinger, 202–377–4018. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: environmental agencies in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The performance of their official duties Delete entry and replace with Department of Education (ED), in related to the protection and study of ‘‘Individuals seeking access to accordance with the Paperwork human health and the environment as information about themselves contained Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. affected by potential exposure to toxic in this system should address written 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general contamination. inquiries to Marine Corps Installations public and Federal agencies with an To the Department of Veterans Affairs Command, 3000 Marine Corps opportunity to comment on proposed, (DVA) for the purpose of providing Pentagon, Room 2D153A, Washington, revised, and continuing collections of medical care to former service members DC 20350–3000. information. This helps the Department and retirees, to determine the eligibility Written requests should contain full assess the impact of its information for or entitlement to benefits, to name and must be signed and collection requirements and minimize coordinate cost sharing activities, and to notarized.’’ the public’s reporting burden. It also facilitate collaborative research * * * * * helps the public understand the activities between the DoD and DVA. [FR Doc. 2015–06507 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Department’s information collection To officials and employees of the BILLING CODE 5001–06–P requirements and provide the requested Agency for Toxic Substances and data in the desired format. ED is Diseases Registry (ATSDR) to facilitate soliciting comments on the proposed ATSDR research activities. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of The DoD Blanket Routine Uses that [Docket No.: ED–2015–ICCD–0032] appear at the beginning of the Marine Education is especially interested in Corps’ systems of records notices may Agency Information Collection public comment addressing the apply to this system.’’ Activities; Comment Request; Pell following issues: (1) Is this collection * * * * * Grant Reporting Under the Common necessary to the proper functions of the Origination and Disbursement (COD) Department; (2) will this information be RETRIEVABILITY: System processed and used in a timely manner; Delete entry and replace with (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; ‘‘Records may be retrieved by name, AGENCY: Federal Student Aid (FSA), (4) how might the Department enhance current address, phone number, or Department of Education (ED). the quality, utility, and clarity of the email address.’’ ACTION: Notice. information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the SAFEGUARDS: SUMMARY: In accordance with the burden of this collection on the Delete entry and replace with ‘‘The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 respondents, including through the use database servers are located in a secure U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is of information technology. Please note area at Marine Corps Base Camp proposing an extension of an existing that written comments received in Lejeune. Access to records is limited to information collection. response to this notice will be person(s) responsible for servicing the DATES: Interested persons are invited to considered public records. record in the performance of their submit comments on or before May 22, Title of Collection: Pell Grant official duties and who are properly 2015. Reporting under the Common

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Origination and Disbursement (COD) of delays in handling conventional mail, EA–185–D. An additional copy is to be System. it is recommended that documents be provided directly to both Edward J. OMB Control Number: 1845–0039. transmitted by overnight mail, by Zabrocki, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Type of Review: An extension of an electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@ 2000 Westchester Ave., 1st Floor, existing information collection. hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202–586– Purchase, NY 10577 and Daniel E. Respondents/Affected Public: Private 8008. Frank, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Sector, State, Local and Tribal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW., Suite 700, Governments. electricity from the United States to a Washington, DC 20001. Total Estimated Number of Annual foreign country are regulated by the A final decision will be made on this Responses: 8,488,842. Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to application after the environmental Total Estimated Number of Annual sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the impacts have been evaluated pursuant Burden Hours: 594,219. Department of Energy Organization Act Abstract: The Federal Pell Grant to DOE’s National Environmental Policy (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR program is a student financial assistance authorization under section 202(e) of program authorized under the Higher part 1021) and after a determination is the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. made by DOE that the proposed action Education Act of 1965, as amended. The 824a(e)). program provides grant assistance to an will not have an adverse impact on the On June 9, 2010, DOE issued Order sufficiency of supply or reliability of the eligible student attending an institution No. EA–185–C to the applicant, which of higher education. The institution U.S. electric power supply system. authorized MSCG to transmit electric Copies of this application will be determines the student’s award and energy from the United States to Canada disburses program funds on behalf of made available, upon request, for public as a power marketer for a five-year term inspection and copying at the address the Department of Education (ED). using existing international Institutions are required to report provided above, by accessing the transmission facilities. That authority student Pell Grant payment information program Web site at http://energy.gov/ expires on August 21, 2015. On March to ED electronically. Electronic node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy 2, 2015, the Applicant filed an reporting is conducted through the at [email protected]. application with DOE for renewal of the Common Origination and Disbursement export authority contained in Order No. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, (COD) system. The COD system is used EA–185–C for an additional five-year 2015. by institutions to request, report and term. Brian Mills, reconcile grant funds received from the In its application, the Applicant states Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Pell Grant program. that it does not own or operate any Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Dated: March 17, 2015. electric generation or transmission [FR Doc. 2015–06562 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Kate Mullan, facilities, and it does not have a BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Acting Director, Information Collection franchised service area. The electric Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and energy that the Applicant proposes to Records Management Services, Office of export to Canada would be surplus DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Management. energy purchased from third parties [FR Doc. 2015–06467 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] such as electric utilities and Federal Federal Energy Regulatory BILLING CODE 4000–01–P power marketing agencies pursuant to Commission voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to [Project No. 9403–008] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY be utilized by the Applicant have New Hampshire Hydro Associates; [OE Docket No. EA–185–D] previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc.; Notice of Application To Export Electric Energy; Executive Order 10485, as amended, Transfer of Exemption Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties. 1. By letter filed March 10, 2015, New AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery Procedural Matters: Any person Hampshire Hydro Associates informed and Energy Reliability, DOE. desiring to be heard in this proceeding the Commission that the exemption ACTION: Notice of Application. should file a comment or protest to the from licensing for the HDI Mascoma application at the address provided Dam Project, FERC No. 9403, originally SUMMARY: Morgan Stanley Capital Group above. Protests should be filed in issued September 21, 1988,1 has been Inc. (Applicant or MSCG) has applied to accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal transferred to Rivermill Hydroelectric, renew its authority to transmit electric Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Inc. The project is located on the energy from the United States to Canada Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 Mascoma River in Grafton County, New pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to Hampshire. The transfer of an Power Act. become a party to these proceedings exemption does not require Commission DATES: Comments, protests, or motions should file a motion to intervene at the approval. to intervene must be submitted on or above address in accordance with FERC 2. Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc. is now before April 22, 2015. Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies the exemptee of the HDI Mascoma Dam ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, of such comments, protests, or motions Project, FERC No. 9403. All motions to intervene, or requests for to intervene should be sent to the correspondence should be forwarded to: more information should be addressed address provided above on or before the Michael Hansen, Rivermill to: Office of Electricity Delivery and date listed above. Hydroelectric, Inc., 44 Deer Ridge Drive, Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, Comments and other filings Barrington, NH 03825. U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 concerning the MSCG’s application to Independence Avenue SW., export electric energy to Canada should 1 44 FERC ¶ 62,273, Order Granting Exemption Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because be clearly marked with OE Docket No. from Licensing (5 MW or Less) (1988).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15199

Dated: March 16, 2015. Protests may be considered, but efiling.asp. Commenters can submit Kimberly D. Bose, intervention is necessary to become a brief comments up to 6,000 characters, Secretary. party to the proceeding. without prior registration, using the [FR Doc. 2015–06531 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] eFiling is encouraged. More detailed eComment system at http:// BILLING CODE 6717–01–P information relating to filing www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ requirements, interventions, protests, ecomment.asp. You must include your service, and qualifying facilities filings name and contact information at the end DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ of your comments. For assistance, docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For please contact FERC Online Support at Federal Energy Regulatory other information, call (866) 208–3676 [email protected], (866) Commission (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 Dated: March 16, 2015. (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please Combined Notice of Filings send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Take notice that the Commission has Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Deputy Secretary. First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. received the following Natural Gas [FR Doc. 2015–06555 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: The first page of any filing should BILLING CODE 6717–01–P include docket number DI15–03–000. Filings Instituting Proceedings k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Egnaczak Net Docket Numbers: RP15–645–000. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline Zero Hydropower Project would consist LLC. of existing and new facilities that would Federal Energy Regulatory provide electricity to the applicant’s Description: Compliance filing per Commission 154.203: Order No. 801 (maps on home and workshop. The existing interactive Web site) to be effective 4/1/ [Docket No. DI15–03–000] facilities consist of: (1) An 8-foot-high, 2015. 60-foot-wide stone dam at the outlet of Kenneth & Susan Egnaczak; Notice of Filed Date: 3/13/15. the Hoosic River; (2) an existing 600- Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Accession Number: 20150313–5171. foot-long headrace; and (3) two Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/15. Comments, Protests, and Motions To manually operated headgates adjacent to Intervene the dam. The new facilities would Docket Numbers: RP15–646–000. consist of: (1) Two 50-foot-long Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. Take notice that the following penstocks between the headrace and Description: § 4(d) rate filing per application has been filed with the two separate powerhouses; (2) a 154.204: PAL Negotiated Rate Commission and is available for public powerhouse containing a 3.4-kilowatt Agreement—Koch Energy Services, LLC inspection: (kW) generating unit with a rated head to be effective 3/13/2015. a. Application Type: Declaration of of 12 feet and a hydraulic capacity of 5.2 Filed Date: 3/13/15. Intention. cubic feet per second (cfs); (3) a second Accession Number: 20150313–5172. b. Docket No: DI15–03–000. powerhouse containing a 7.3-kW Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/15. c. Date Filed: February 23, 2015. generating unit with a rated head of 20 Docket Numbers: RP15–647–000. d. Applicant: Kenneth & Susan feet and a hydraulic capacity of 6.7 cfs; Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Egnaczak. and (4) appurtenant facilities. Company LLC. e. Name of Project: Egnaczak Net Zero When a Declaration of Intention is Description: Compliance filing per Hydropower Project. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 154.203: Order No. 801 (Maps on the f. Location: The proposed Net Zero Commission, the Federal Power Act Interactive Web site) to be effective Hydropower Project will be located on requires the Commission to investigate 4/1/2015. the Hoosic River, in the town of and determine if the project would Filed Date: 3/13/15. Cheshire, Berkshire County, affect the interests of interstate or Accession Number: 20150313–5174. Massachusetts. foreign commerce. The Commission also Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/15. g. Filed Pursuant to: section 23(b)(1) determines whether or not the project: Docket Numbers: RP15–648–000. of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. (1) Would be located on a navigable Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas 817(b) (2012). waterway; (2) would occupy public Transmission, L. h. Applicant Contact: Kenneth & lands or reservations of the United Description: Compliance filing per Susan Egnaczak, 1211 Windsor Road, States; (3) would utilize surplus water 154.203: Order No. 801 (Maps on the Cheshire, MA 01225; telephone: (413) or water power from a government dam; Interactive Web site) to be effective 743–9497, email address: ksegnaczak@ or (4) would be located on a non- 4/1/2015. msn.com. navigable stream over which Congress Filed Date: 3/13/15. i. FERC Contact: Any questions on has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and Accession Number: 20150313–5175. this notice should be addressed to would be constructed or enlarged after Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/15. Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502–6437, or 1935. The filings are accessible in the email address: Jennifer.Polardino@ l. Locations of the Application: This Commission’s eLibrary system by ferc.gov. filing may be viewed on the clicking on the links or querying the j. Deadline for filing comments, Commission’s Web site at http:// docket number. protests, and/or motions is: 30 days www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Any person desiring to intervene or from the issuance date of this notice by Enter the docket number excluding the protest in any of the above proceedings the Commission. last three digits in the docket number must file in accordance with Rules 211 The Commission strongly encourages field to access the document. You may and 214 of the Commission’s electronic filing. Please file comments, also register online at http:// Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and protests, and motions to intervene using www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern the Commission’s eFiling system at esubscription.asp to be notified via time on the specified comment date. http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ email of new filings and issuances

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

related to this or other pending projects. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The first page of any filing should For assistance, call 1–866–208–3676 or include docket number P–13704–002. email [email protected], for Federal Energy Regulatory The Commission’s Rules of Practice TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also Commission require all intervenors filing documents available for inspection and [Project No. 13704–002] with the Commission to serve a copy of reproduction at the address in item (h) that document on each person on the above. FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of official service list for the project. Application Ready for Environmental Further, if an intervenor files comments m. Individuals desiring to be included Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, or documents with the Commission on the Commission’s mailing list should Recommendations, Terms and relating to the merits of an issue that so indicate by writing to the Secretary Conditions, and Prescriptions may affect the responsibilities of a of the Commission. particular resource agency, they must n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Take notice that the following also serve a copy of the document on Intervene: Anyone may submit hydroelectric application has been filed that resource agency. comments, a protest, or a motion to with the Commission and is available k. This application has been accepted intervene in accordance with the for public inspection. for filing and is now ready for a. Type of Application: Original Major requirements of Rules of Practice and environmental analysis. License—Existing Dam. l. The proposed Arkabutla Lake Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. b. Project No.: 13704–002. In determining the appropriate action to c. Date filed: November 13, 2013. Project would utilize the following take, the Commission will consider all d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC. existing Corps’ Arkabutla Lake Dam protests or other comments filed, but e. Name of Project: Arkabutla Lake facilities: (1) A 10,000-foot-long, 65-foot- only those who file a motion to Hydroelectric Project. high earth fill embankment dam; (2) a intervene in accordance with the f. Location: The proposed project reservoir; and (3) outlet works Commission’s Rules may become a would be located at the U.S. Army consisting of a concrete intake tower, party to the proceeding. Any comments, Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) existing three gated inlets that combine to direct protests, or motions to intervene must Arkabutla Lake Dam, on the Coldwater flow through a 355-foot-long, 16.0-foot be received on or before the specified River, near the town of Hernando, in by 18.25-foot ovoid concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling basin. comment date for the particular Tate and DeSoto Counties, Mississippi. The proposed Arkabutla Lake Project application. The proposed project would occupy approximately 48.2 acres of federal land would consist of the following new o. Filing and Service of Responsive administered by the Corps. facilities: (1) A 325-foot-long, 15.5-foot- Documents: All filings must bear in all g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power diameter steel liner installed within the capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot- ‘‘PROTESTS’’, AND ‘‘MOTIONS TO h. Applicant Contact: Ramya long, varying width steel-lined, concrete INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the Swaminathan, Rye Development, 745 bifurcation chamber containing two Docket Number of the particular Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA hydraulically-operated gates used to application to which the filing refers. A 02111; telephone (617) 804–1326. control the amount of flow diverted copy of any Motion to Intervene must i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards, from the existing stilling basin to the also be served upon each representative telephone (202) 502–6181 and email powerhouse; (3) a 272-foot-long, 12-foot- of the Applicant specified in the [email protected], or Patti diameter steel penstock; (4) a 60-foot particular application. Leppert, telephone (202) 502–6034 and wide, 50-foot-long, 83-foot-high steel and reinforced-concrete forebay housing p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, email [email protected]. j. Deadline for filing comments, trashracks and a fish bypass gate; (5) an and local agencies are invited to file recommendations, terms and 80-foot-long, 46-foot-wide concrete comments on the described application. conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days powerhouse containing two vertical A copy of the application may be from the issuance date of this notice; Kaplan turbine-generator units having a obtained by agencies directly from the reply comments are due 105 days from combined installed capacity of 5.1 Applicant. If an agency does not file the issuance date of this notice. megawatts; (6) a 200-foot long, 85-foot- comments within the time specified for The Commission strongly encourages wide tailrace; (7) a 1,574-foot-long, 4.16- filing comments, it will be presumed to electronic filing. Please file comments, kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a have no comments. One copy of an recommendations, terms and substation; and (9) a 2,712-foot-long, agency’s comments must also be sent to conditions, and prescriptions using the 12.5-kV overhead transmission line the Applicant’s representatives. Commission’s eFiling system at http:// extending from the substation to a Dated: March 16, 2015. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. utility-owned distribution line. The Commenters can submit brief comments average annual generation would be Kimberly D. Bose, up to 6,000 characters, without prior 19,000 megawatt-hours. Secretary. registration, using the eComment system m. A copy of the application is [FR Doc. 2015–06528 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ available for review at the Commission BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ecomment.asp. You must include your in the Public Reference Room, or may be name and contact information at the end viewed on the Commission’s Web site at of your comments. For assistance, http://www.ferc.gov, using the please contact FERC Online Support at ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket [email protected], (866) number, excluding the last three digits 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 in the docket number field, to access the (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please document. For assistance, contact FERC send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Online Support. A copy is available for Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 inspection and reproduction at the First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. address in item h above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15201

Register online at http:// DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and interested agencies on the project. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Your input will help the Commission esubscription.asp to be notified via Federal Energy Regulatory staff determine what issues they need to email of new filings and issuances Commission evaluate in the EA. Please note that the related to this or other pending projects. [Docket No. ER15–402–001; Docket No. scoping period will close on April 17, For assistance, contact FERC Online ER15–817–000; Docket No. ER15–861–000] 2015. Support. You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital California Independent System to submit written comments are in the letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘REPLY Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Public Participation section of this COMMENTS,’’ Staff Attendance notice. If you sent comments on this ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS The Federal Energy Regulatory project to the Commission before the AND CONDITIONS,’’ or Commission (Commission) hereby gives opening of this docket on December 30, ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in the notice that on March 18, 2015 members 2014, you will need to file those heading the name of the applicant and of its staff will attend the California comments in Docket No. PF15–9–000 to the project number of the application to Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) ensure they are considered as part of which the filing responds; (3) furnish Market Performance and Planning this proceeding. In lieu of or in addition the name, address, and telephone Forum. The agenda and other to sending written comments, the number of the person submitting the documents for the meeting are available Commission invites you to attend the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with on CAISO’s Web site, www.caiso.com. public scoping meeting scheduled as the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 Sponsored by CAISO, the meeting is follows: through 385.2005. All comments, open to all market participants and recommendations, terms and conditions staff’s attendance is part of the Date and time Location or prescriptions must set forth their Commission’s ongoing outreach efforts. evidentiary basis and otherwise comply The meeting may discuss matters at April 7, 2015, James F. Baugher Elemen- with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). issue in the above captioned dockets. 6:00 p.m. tary School, All Purpose Agencies may obtain copies of the For further information, contact Saeed (Eastern Room, 60 Brenda application directly from the applicant. Farrokhpay at saeed.farrokhpay@ Time). Rovenolt Circle, Milton, PA Each filing must be accompanied by ferc.gov (916) 294–0322. 17847. proof of service on all persons listed on Dated: March 16, 2015. This notice is being sent to the the service list prepared by the Kimberly D. Bose, Commission’s current environmental Commission in this proceeding, in Secretary. mailing list for this project. State and accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and local government representatives should 385.2010. [FR Doc. 2015–06529 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P notify their constituents of this planned n. Procedural Schedule: project and encourage them to comment The application will be processed on their areas of concern. according to the following revised hydro DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY If you are a landowner receiving this licensing schedule. Revisions to the notice, a pipeline company Federal Energy Regulatory schedule may be made as appropriate. representative may contact you about Commission the acquisition of an easement to Milestone Target date [Docket No. PF15–9–000] construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would Filing of recommendations, May 2015. UGI Sunbury, LLC; Notice of Intent To seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable terms and conditions, and Prepare an Environmental Assessment agreement. However, if the Commission prescriptions. for the Planned Sunbury Pipeline approves the project, that approval Commission issues Draft EA December Project and Request for Comments on conveys with it the right of eminent 2015. domain. Therefore, if easement Comments on Draft EA Due January 2016. Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting negotiations fail to produce an Commission Issues Final EA May 2016. agreement, the pipeline company could The staff of the Federal Energy initiate condemnation proceedings o. Public notice of the filing of the Regulatory Commission (FERC or where compensation would be initial development application, which Commission) will prepare an determined in accordance with state has already been given, established the environmental assessment (EA) that will law. due date for filing competing discuss the environmental impacts of A fact sheet prepared by the FERC applications or notices of intent. Under the Sunbury Pipeline Project (Project) entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural Gas the Commission’s regulations, any involving the construction and Facility On My Land? What Do I Need competing development application operation of approximately 34.5 miles of To Know?’’ is available for viewing on must be filed in response to and in 20-inch diameter pipeline and related the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This compliance with public notice of the facilities by UGI Sunbury, LLC fact sheet addresses a number of initial development application. No (Sunbury) in Snyder, Union, typically asked questions, including the competing applications or notices of Northumberland, Montour, and use of eminent domain and how to intent may be filed in response to this Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania. The participate in the Commission’s notice. Commission will use this EA in its proceedings. Dated: March 16, 2015. decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public Summary of the Planned Project Kimberly D. Bose, convenience and necessity. Sunbury plans to construct, own, and Secretary. This notice announces the opening of operate a new natural gas pipeline [FR Doc. 2015–06526 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] the scoping process the Commission extending from Lycoming County, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P will use to gather input from the public Pennsylvania to a gas-fired power plant,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Hummel Station LLC (Hummel), at the construction and operation of the provided under the Public Participation existing site of coal-fired Sunbury planned project under these general section of this notice. Generation LP facility near Shamokin headings: Consultations Under Section 106 of the Dam, in Snyder County, Pennsylvania. • Geology and soils; National Historic Preservation Act Hummel is planning to construct the • land use; power plant at the existing site of the • water resources, fisheries, and In accordance with the Advisory coal-fired facility near Shamokin Dam. wetlands; Council on Historic Preservation’s The project has a planned capacity to • cultural resources; implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic transport approximately 200,000 • vegetation and wildlife, including Preservation Act, we are using this dekatherms of natural gas per day. migratory birds; notice to initiate consultation with the The Sunbury Pipeline Project would • air quality and noise; Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation consist of the following facilities: • endangered and threatened species; • One new 34.5-mile, 20-inch- Office, and to solicit their views and • socioeconomics; diameter pipeline; and • those of other government agencies, • associated aboveground facilities public safety; and interested Indian tribes, and the public • consisting of two new mainline vales, cumulative impacts. on the project’s potential effects on four meter stations, and two launcher We will also evaluate possible historic properties.4 We will define the and receivers. alternatives to the planned project or project-specific Area of Potential Effects The general location of the project portions of the project, and make (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as facilities is shown in appendix 1.1 recommendations on how to lessen or the project develops. On natural gas avoid impacts on the various resource Land Requirements for Construction facility projects, the APE at a minimum areas. encompasses all areas subject to ground Construction of the planned pipeline Although no formal application has disturbance (examples include would disturb about 488 acres of land. been filed, we have already initiated our construction right-of-way, contractor/ Land disturbance for the planned above NEPA review under the Commission’s pipe storage yards, compressor stations, ground facilities would encompass an pre-filing process. The purpose of the and access roads). Our EA for this area of 3.7 acres, which would be pre-filing process is to encourage early project will document our findings on reduced to 2.1 acres for operation of involvement of interested stakeholders the impacts on historic properties and these facilities. Following construction, and to identify and resolve issues before summarize the status of consultations Sunbury would maintain about 209 the FERC receives an application. As under section 106. acres for permanent operation of the part of our pre-filing review, we project’s pipeline facilities, and 2.1 participated in public Open House Public Participation acres for the above ground facilities. The meetings sponsored by Sunbury in the You can make a difference by remaining 279 acres would be used for project area on February 24th and providing us with your specific temporary construction workspace and February 25th to explain the comments or concerns about the project. be restored and to former uses. environmental review process to Your comments should focus on the interested stakeholders. Also, we have potential environmental effects, The EA Process begun to contact some federal and state reasonable alternatives, and measures to The National Environmental Policy agencies to discuss their involvement in avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to the scoping process and the preparation The more specific your comments, the take into account the environmental of the EA. more useful they will be. To ensure that impacts that could result from an action The EA will present our independent your comments are timely and properly whenever it considers the issuance of a analysis of the issues. The EA will be recorded, please send your comments so Certificate of Public Convenience and available in the public record through that the Commission receives them in Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to eLibrary. Depending on the comments Washington, DC on or before April 17, discover and address concerns the received during the scoping process, we 2015. public may have about proposals. This may also publish and distribute the EA For your convenience, there are three process is referred to as scoping. The to the public for an allotted comment methods you can use to submit your main goal of the scoping process is to period. We will consider all comments comments to the Commission. In all focus the analysis in the EA on the on the EA before we make our instances, please reference the project important environmental issues. By this recommendations to the Commission. docket number (PF15–9–000) with your notice, the Commission requests public To ensure we have the opportunity to submission. The Commission comments on the scope of the issues to consider and address your comments, encourages electronic filing of address in the EA. We will consider all please carefully follow the instructions comments and has expert staff available filed comments during the preparation in the Public Participation section. to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or of the EA. With this notice, we are asking [email protected]. In the EA we will discuss impacts that agencies with jurisdiction by law and/ (1) You can file your comments could occur as a result of the or special expertise with respect to the electronically using the eComment environmental issues related to this feature located on the Commission’s 1 The appendices referenced in this notice will Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of project to formally cooperate with us in 3 to Documents and Filings. This is an appendices were sent to all those receiving this the preparation of the EA. Agencies notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov that would like to request cooperating easy method for interested persons to using the link called ‘‘eLibrary’’ or from the agency status should follow the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 888 First instructions for filing comments 4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) regulations are at title 36, Code of Federal 502–8371. For instructions on connecting to Regulations, part 800. Those regulations define eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. 3 The Council on Environmental Quality historic properties as any prehistoric or historic 2 ‘‘We,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the regulations addressing cooperating agency district, site, building, structure, or object included environmental staff of the Commission’s Office of responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register Energy Projects. Regulations, part 1501.6. of Historic Places.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15203

submit brief, text-only comments on a the proceeding by filing a request to Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to project; intervene. Instructions for becoming an § 201(d) of the Powerplant and (2) You can file your comments intervenor are in the User’s Guide under Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), electronically using the eFiling feature the ‘‘e-filing’’ link on the Commission’s as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 located on the Commission’s Web site Web site. Please note that the CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Commission will not accept requests for thereunder require DOE to publish a Documents and Filings. With eFiling, intervenor status at this time. You must notice of filing of self-certification in the you can provide comments in a variety wait until the Commission receives a Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and of formats by attaching them as a file formal application for the project. 10 CFR 501.61(c). with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by Additional Information ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability clicking on ‘‘eRegister.’’ You must select Additional information about the self-certification filings are available for the type of filing you are making. If you project is available from the public inspection, upon request, in the are filing a comment on a particular Commission’s Office of External Affairs, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy project, please select ‘‘Comment on a at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web Reliability, Mail Code OE–20, Room Filing’’; or site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary 8G–024, Forrestal Building, 1000 (3) You can file a paper copy of your link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on Independence Avenue SW., comments by mailing them to the ‘‘General Search’’ and enter the docket Washington, DC 20585. following address: number, excluding the last three digits Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 9). Be sure you have selected an Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586– First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, appropriate date range. For assistance, 5260. DC 20426. please contact FERC Online Support at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of Environmental Mailing List [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, contact FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et The environmental mailing list (202) 502–8659. The eLibrary link also seq.), provides that no new base load includes federal, state, and local provides access to the texts of formal electric powerplant may be constructed government representatives and documents issued by the Commission, or operated without the capability to use agencies; elected officials; such as orders, notices, and coal or another alternate fuel as a environmental and public interest rulemakings. primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA groups; Native American Tribes; other In addition, the Commission offers a in order to meet the requirement of coal interested parties; and local libraries free service called eSubscription which capability, the owner or operator of such and newspapers. This list also includes allows you to keep track of all formal a facility proposing to use natural gas or all affected landowners (as defined in issuances and submittals in specific petroleum as its primary energy source the Commission’s regulations) who are dockets. This can reduce the amount of shall certify to the Secretary of Energy potential right-of-way grantors, whose time you spend researching proceedings (Secretary) prior to construction, or property may be used temporarily for by automatically providing you with prior to operation as a base load electric project purposes, or who own homes notification of these filings, document powerplant, that such powerplant has within certain distances of aboveground summaries, and direct links to the the capability to use coal or another facilities, and anyone who submits documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs- comments on the project. We will alternate fuel. Such certification filing/esubscription.asp. establishes compliance with FUA update the environmental mailing list as Finally, public meetings or site visits the analysis proceeds to ensure that we section 201(a) as of the date it is filed will be posted on the Commission’s with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311. send the information related to this calendar located at www.ferc.gov/ environmental review to all individuals, EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along The following owner of a proposed organizations, and government entities with other related information. new base load electric powerplant has interested in and/or potentially affected filed a self-certification of coal- by the planned project. Dated: March 16, 2015. capability with DOE pursuant to FUA If we publish and distribute the EA, Kimberly D. Bose, section 201(d) and in accordance with copies will be sent to the environmental Secretary. DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61: mailing list for public review and [FR Doc. 2015–06530 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Owner: NTE Ohio, LLC. comment. If you would prefer to receive BILLING CODE 6717–01–P a paper copy of the document instead of Capacity: 525 megawatts (MW). the CD version or would like to remove Plant Location: Cincinnati Dayton your name from the mailing list, please DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Road, Middletown, Ohio. return the attached Information Request [Certification Notice—232] (appendix 2). In-Service Date: As early as January 2018. Becoming an Intervenor Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, Once Sunbury files its application and Industrial Fuel Use Act 2015. with the Commission, you may want to Brian Mills, become an ‘‘intervenor’’ which is an AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery official party to the Commission’s and Energy Reliability, DOE. Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. proceeding. Intervenors play a more ACTION: Notice of Filing. formal role in the process and are able [FR Doc. 2015–06559 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be SUMMARY: On March 2, 2015, NTE Ohio, BILLING CODE 6450–01–P heard by the courts if they choose to LLC, as owner and operator of a new appeal the Commission’s final ruling. base load electric powerplant, submitted An intervenor formally participates in a coal capability self-certification to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15204 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY release 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) into ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’ as the bypassed reach of Power Creek in applicable; (2) set forth in the heading Federal Energy Regulatory order to study accretion flow, the the name of the applicant and the Commission environmental effects to fish, and to project number of the application to [Project No. 11243–075] potentially develop a proposal to which the filing responds; (3) furnish permanently suspend the requirements the name, address, and telephone Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.; of Article 404 in order to generate number of the person protesting or Notice of Application Accepted for additional power at a reduced cost with intervening; and (4) otherwise comply Filing and Soliciting Comments, less emissions compared to the with the requirements of 18 CFR Motions To Intervene and Protests alternative of diesel power generation 385.2001 through 385.2005. All during the low flow period. The comments, motions to intervene, or Take notice that the following licensee states that preliminary studies protests must set forth their evidentiary hydroelectric application has been filed have indicated that the bypassed reach basis and otherwise comply with the with the Commission and is available has an average accretion flow 20 cfs requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). for public inspection: during low flow periods with a Agencies may obtain copies of the a. Application Type: Request for two minimum measured flow of 7.79 cfs in application directly from the applicant. year temporary variance of license March as measured just upstream of the A copy of any protest or motion to Article 404. powerhouse. Therefore, the licensee’s intervene must be served upon each b. Project No: 11243–075. request is not expected to dewater the representative of the applicant specified c. Date Filed: February 17, 2015. bypass reach, as it should still receive in the particular application. If an d. Applicant: Cordova Electric the intended 5 cfs from accretion flow. intervener files comments or documents Cooperative, INC (licensee). l. Locations of the Application: A with the Commission relating to the e. Name of Project: Power Creek copy of the application is available for merits of an issue that may affect the Project. inspection and reproduction at the responsibilities of a particular resource f. Location: The Power Creek Project Commission’s Public Reference Room, agency, they must also serve a copy of is located on Power Creek near the town located at 888 First Street, NE., Room the document on that resource agency. of Cordova, Alaska. The project is 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling A copy of all other filings in reference located entirely on Eyak Corporation 202–502–8371. This filing may also be to this application must be accompanied lands and is adjacent to Chugach viewed on the Commission’s Web site at by proof of service on all persons listed National Forest. http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power in the service list prepared by the efiling.asp. Enter the docket number Commission in this proceeding, in Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. excluding the last three digits in the h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Clay accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and docket number field to access the 385.2010. Koplin, CEO—Cordova Electric document. You may also register online Cooperative, INC, 705 Second Street, at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Dated: March 16, 2015. P.O. Box 20 Cordova, AK 99574, (907) esubscription.asp to be notified via Kimberly D. Bose, 424–5555. email of new filings and issuances Secretary. i. FERC Contact: Mr. Michael T. related to this or other pending projects. [FR Doc. 2015–06522 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Calloway, (202) 502–8041, For assistance, call 866–208–3676 or BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [email protected]. email [email protected], for j. Deadline for filing comments, TTY, call 202–502–8659. A copy is also motions to intervene, and protests is 30 available for inspection and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY days from the issuance date of this reproduction at the address in item (h) notice by the Commission. above. Federal Energy Regulatory All documents may be filed m. Individuals desiring to be included Commission electronically via the Internet. See, 18 on the Commission’s mailing list should [Project No. 13702–002] CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the so indicate by writing to the Secretary instructions on the Commission’s Web of the Commission. FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Application Ready for Environmental efiling.asp. If unable to be filed Intervene: Anyone may submit Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, electronically, documents may be paper- comments, a protest, or a motion to Recommendations, Terms and filed. To paper-file, an original and intervene in accordance with the Conditions, and Prescriptions seven copies should be mailed to: requirements of Rules of Practice and Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. Take notice that the following Commission, 888 First Street NE., In determining the appropriate action to hydroelectric application has been filed Washington, DC 20426. Commenters take, the Commission will consider all with the Commission and is available can submit brief comments up to 6,000 protests or other comments filed, but for public inspection. characters, without prior registration, only those who file a motion to a. Type of Application: Original Major using the eComment system at http:// intervene in accordance with the License—Existing Dam. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Commission’s Rules may become a b. Project No.: 13702–002. ecomment.asp. You must include your party to the proceeding. Any comments, c. Date filed: November 13, 2013. name and contact information at the end protests, or motions to intervene must d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC. of your comments. be received on or before the specified e. Name of Project: Grenada Lake Please include the project number comment date for the particular Hydroelectric Project. (P–11243–075) on any comments, application. f. Location: The proposed project motions, or recommendations filed. o. Filing and Service of Responsive would be located at the U.S. Army k. Description of Request: The Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) existing licensee is requesting to suspend the all capital letters the title Grenada Lake Dam, on the Yalobusha Article 404 requirement to continuously ‘‘COMMENTS’’; ‘‘PROTESTS’’, or River, near the Town of Grenada,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15205

Grenada County, Mississippi. The The proposed Grenada Lake Project the service list prepared by the proposed project would occupy would consist of the following new Commission in this proceeding, in approximately 35.5 acres of federal land facilities: (1) A 327.5-foot-long, 16-foot- accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and administered by the Corps. diameter steel liner installed within the 385.2010. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot- n. Procedural Schedule: Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). long, variable width steel-lined, The application will be processed h. Applicant Contact: Ramya concrete bifurcation chamber containing according to the following revised hydro Swaminathan, Rye Development, 745 two hydraulically-operated gates used to licensing schedule. Revisions to the Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA control the amount of flow diverted schedule may be made as appropriate. 02111; telephone (617) 804–1326. from the existing stilling basin to the i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards, powerhouse; (3) a 260-foot-long, 14-foot- Milestone Target date telephone (202) 502–6181 and email diameter steel penstock; (4) a 78-foot [email protected]; or Patti wide, 50-foot-long, 86-foot-high steel Filing of recommendations, May 2015. Leppert, telephone (202) 502–6034 and terms and conditions, and and reinforced concrete forebay housing prescriptions. email [email protected]. trashracks and a fish bypass outlet gate; j. Deadline for filing comments, Commission issues Draft EA December (5) a 120-foot-long, 60-foot-wide 2015. recommendations, terms and concrete powerhouse containing two Comments on Draft EA Due January 2016. conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units Commission Issues Final EA May 2016. from the issuance date of this notice; having a combined installed capacity of reply comments are due 105 days from 9.0 megawatts; (6) a 150-foot-long, 70- o. Public notice of the filing of the the issuance date of this notice. foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 670-foot-long, initial development application, which The Commission strongly encourages 4.16-kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a has already been given, established the electronic filing. Please file comments, substation; and (9) a 1,980-foot-long, due date for filing competing recommendations, terms and 12.5–kV overhead transmission line applications or notices of intent. Under conditions, and prescriptions using the extending from the substation to a the Commission’s regulations, any Commission’s eFiling system at http:// utility-owned distribution line. The competing development application www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. average annual generation would be must be filed in response to and in Commenters can submit brief comments 31,000 megawatt-hours. compliance with public notice of the up to 6,000 characters, without prior m. A copy of the application is initial development application. No registration, using the eComment system available for review at the Commission competing applications or notices of at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ in the Public Reference Room, or may be intent may be filed in response to this ecomment.asp. You must include your viewed on the Commission’s Web site at notice. name and contact information at the end http://www.ferc.gov, using the of your comments. For assistance, ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket Dated: March 16, 2015. please contact FERC Online Support at number, excluding the last three digits Kimberly D. Bose, [email protected], (866) in the docket number field, to access the Secretary. 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 document. For assistance, contact FERC [FR Doc. 2015–06524 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please Online Support. A copy is available for BILLING CODE 6717–01P send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal inspection and reproduction at the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 address in item h above. First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Register online at http:// DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The first page of any filing should www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ [Certification Notice—233] include docket number P–13702–002. esubscription.asp to be notified via The Commission’s Rules of Practice email of new filings and issuances Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of require all intervenors filing documents related to this or other pending projects. Coal Capability Under the Powerplant with the Commission to serve a copy of For assistance, contact FERC Online and Industrial Fuel Use Act that document on each person on the Support. official service list for the project. All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery Further, if an intervenor files comments letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘REPLY and Energy Reliability, DOE. or documents with the Commission COMMENTS,’’ ACTION: Notice of Filing. relating to the merits of an issue that ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS may affect the responsibilities of a AND CONDITIONS,’’ or SUMMARY: On March 2, 2015, NTE particular resource agency, they must ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in the Carolinas, LLC, as owner and operator also serve a copy of the document on heading the name of the applicant and of a new base load electric powerplant, that resource agency. the project number of the application to submitted a coal capability self- k. This application has been accepted which the filing responds; (3) furnish certification to the Department of for filing and is now ready for the name, address, and telephone Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the environmental analysis. number of the person submitting the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act l. The proposed Grenada Lake Project filing; and (4) otherwise comply with of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE would utilize the following existing the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA Corps’ Grenada Lake Dam facilities: (1) through 385.2005. All comments, and regulations thereunder require DOE A 13,900-foot-long, 80-foot-high earth recommendations, terms and conditions to publish a notice of filing of self- fill embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; or prescriptions must set forth their certification in the Federal Register. 42 and (3) outlet works consisting of a evidentiary basis and otherwise comply U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 501.61(c). concrete intake tower, three gated inlets with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability that combine to direct flow through a Agencies may obtain copies of the self-certification filings are available for 377.5-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter application directly from the applicant. public inspection, upon request, in the concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling Each filing must be accompanied by Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy basin. proof of service on all persons listed on Reliability, Mail Code OE–20, Room

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15206 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

8G–024, Forrestal Building, 1000 e. Name of Project: Sardis Lake embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; and Independence Avenue SW., Hydroelectric Project. (3) outlet works consisting of a concrete Washington, DC 20585. f. Location: The proposed project intake tower, four gated inlets that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: would be located at the U.S. Army combine to direct flow through a 560- Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586– Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) existing foot-long, 16.0-foot by 18.25-foot ovoid 5260. Sardis Lake Dam, on the Little concrete outlet conduit, and a stilling Tallahatchie River, near the Town of basin. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of Sardis, Panola County, Mississippi. The The proposed Sardis Lake Project FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et proposed project would occupy would consist of the following new seq.), provides that no new base load approximately 59 acres of federal land facilities: (1) A 510-foot-long, 15.5-foot- electric powerplant may be constructed administered by the Corps. diameter steel liner installed within the or operated without the capability to use g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power existing outlet conduit; (2) a 50-foot- coal or another alternate fuel as a Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). long, 30-foot-wide (varies) steel-lined, primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA h. Applicant Contact: Ramya concrete bifurcation chamber containing in order to meet the requirement of coal Swaminathan, Rye Development, 745 two hydraulically-operated gates used to capability, the owner or operator of such Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA control the amount of flow diverted a facility proposing to use natural gas or 02111; telephone (617) 804–1326. from the existing stilling basin to the petroleum as its primary energy source i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards, powerhouse; (3) a 250-foot-long, 15.5- shall certify to the Secretary of Energy telephone (202) 502–6181 and email foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a 78- (Secretary) prior to construction, or [email protected]; or Patti foot-wide, 50-foot-long, 102.6-foot-high prior to operation as a base load electric Leppert, telephone (202) 502–6034 and steel and reinforced concrete forebay powerplant, that such powerplant has email [email protected]. housing trashracks and a fish bypass the capability to use coal or another j. Deadline for filing comments, gate; (5) a 120-foot-long, 85-foot-wide alternate fuel. Such certification recommendations, terms and concrete powerhouse containing two establishes compliance with FUA conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units section 201(a) as of the date it is filed from the issuance date of this notice; having a combined installed capacity of with the Secretary. 42 U. S. C. 8311. reply comments are due 105 days from 14.6 megawatts; (6) a 200-foot-long, 100- The following owner of a proposed the issuance date of this notice. foot-wide tailrace; (7) an 887-foot-long, new base load electric powerplant has The Commission strongly encourages 4.16-kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a filed a self-certification of coal- electronic filing. Please file comments, substation; and (9) a 6,210-foot-long, capability with DOE pursuant to FUA recommendations, terms and 161-kV overhead transmission line section 201(d) and in accordance with conditions, and prescriptions using the extending from the substation to a DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61: Commission’s eFiling system at http:// utility-owned distribution line. The Owner: NTE Carolinas, LLC. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. average annual generation would be Capacity: 475 megawatts (MW). Commenters can submit brief comments 52,000 megawatt-hours. Plant Location: Gage Road, Kings up to 6,000 characters, without prior m. A copy of the application is Mountain, NC 28086. registration, using the eComment system available for review at the Commission In-Service Date: As early as January at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ in the Public Reference Room, or may be 2018. ecomment.asp. You must include your viewed on the Commission’s Web site at Issued in Washington, DC on March 17, name and contact information at the end http://www.ferc.gov, using the 2015. of your comments. For assistance, ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket Brian Mills, please contact FERC Online Support at number, excluding the last three digits Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of [email protected], (866) in the docket number field, to access the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 document. For assistance, contact FERC [FR Doc. 2015–06552 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please Online Support. A copy is available for send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal inspection and reproduction at the BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 address in item h above. First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Register online at http:// DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The first page of any filing should www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ include docket number P–13701–002. esubscription.asp to be notified via Federal Energy Regulatory The Commission’s Rules of Practice email of new filings and issuances Commission require all intervenors filing documents related to this or other pending projects. with the Commission to serve a copy of For assistance, contact FERC Online [Project No. 13701–002] that document on each person on the Support. All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of official service list for the project. letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘REPLY Application Ready for Environmental Further, if an intervenor files comments COMMENTS,’’ Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, or documents with the Commission ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS Recommendations, Terms and relating to the merits of an issue that AND CONDITIONS,’’ or Conditions, and Prescriptions may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in the Take notice that the following also serve a copy of the document on heading the name of the applicant and hydroelectric application has been filed that resource agency. the project number of the application to with the Commission and is available k. This application has been accepted which the filing responds; (3) furnish for public inspection. for filing and is now ready for the name, address, and telephone a. Type of Application: Original Major environmental analysis. number of the person submitting the License—Existing Dam. l. The proposed Sardis Lake Project filing; and (4) otherwise comply with b. Project No.: 13701–002. would utilize the following existing the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 c. Date filed: November 13, 2013. Corps’ Sardis Lake Dam facilities: (1) A through 385.2005. All comments, d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC. 15,300-foot-long, 97-foot-high earth fill recommendations, terms and conditions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15207

or prescriptions must set forth their Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. evidentiary basis and otherwise comply 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SA 28–SD First Docket Numbers: ER15–1293–000. with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Revised—LGIA with Beethoven Wind Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Agencies may obtain copies of the LLC to be effective 3/17/2015. Inc. application directly from the applicant. Filed Date: 3/16/15. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Each filing must be accompanied by Accession Number: 20150316–5077. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to Attachment proof of service on all persons listed on Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. AE Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 to be the service list prepared by the Docket Numbers: ER15–1283–000. effective 5/15/2015. Commission in this proceeding, in Applicants: Southwestern Electric Filed Date: 3/16/15. accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and Power Company. Accession Number: 20150316–5187. 385.2010. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. n. Procedural Schedule: 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWEPCO-Hope PSA Docket Numbers: ER15–1294–000. The application will be processed Amendment to be effective 1/1/2015. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric according to the following revised hydro Filed Date: 3/16/15. Company. licensing schedule. Revisions to the Accession Number: 20150316–5143. Description: Pacific Gas and Electric schedule may be made as appropriate. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. Company submits Notice of Termination of Agreement with the City Milestone Target date Docket Numbers: ER15–1287–000. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, of Los Angeles Department of Water and Filing of recommendations, May 2015. L.L.C. Power, Rate Schedule No. 131. terms and conditions, and Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Filed Date: 3/16/15. prescriptions. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First Revised Service Accession Number: 20150316–5188. Commission issues Draft EA December Agreement No. 3669; Queue Nos. Y3– Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. 2015. 046, Y3–051, Z1–058 . . . to be effective The filings are accessible in the Comments on Draft EA Due January 2016. 2/13/2015. Commission’s eLibrary system by Commission Issues Final EA May 2016. Filed Date: 3/16/15. clicking on the links or querying the docket number. o. Public notice of the filing of the Accession Number: 20150316–5159. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. Any person desiring to intervene or initial development application, which protest in any of the above proceedings Docket Numbers: ER15–1289–000. has already been given, established the must file in accordance with Rules 211 Applicants: Midcontinent due date for filing competing and 214 of the Commission’s Independent System Operator, Inc., applications or notices of intent. Under Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Great River Energy. the Commission’s regulations, any 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Description: § 205(d) rate filing per competing development application time on the specified comment date. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–03–16_GRE RTO must be filed in response to and in Protests may be considered, but Adder Filing to be effective 1/6/2015. compliance with public notice of the intervention is necessary to become a Filed Date: 3/16/15. initial development application. No party to the proceeding. Accession Number: 20150316–5163. competing applications or notices of eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. intent may be filed in response to this information relating to filing notice. Docket Numbers: ER15–1290–000. requirements, interventions, protests, Dated: March 16, 2015. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, service, and qualifying facilities filings Kimberly D. Bose, L.L.C. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Secretary. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First Revised Service [FR Doc. 2015–06523 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] other information, call (866) 208–3676 Agreement No. 2775; Queue Nos. Y3– (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 045, Y3–052, Y3–107 to be effective 2/13/2015. Dated: March 16, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Filed Date: 3/16/15. Accession Number: 20150316–5168. Deputy Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. [FR Doc. 2015–06554 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Commission Docket Numbers: ER15–1291–000. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Applicants: Public Service Company Combined Notice of Filings #2 of Colorado. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Take notice that the Commission _ received the following electric rate 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–3–16 PSC–PLND– Federal Energy Regulatory filings: A&R ISA 110–0.0.0-Agrmt to be effective Commission 3/17/2015. Docket Numbers: ER15–929–002. [Docket No. DI15–02–000] Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Filed Date: 3/16/15. Inc. Accession Number: 20150316–5173. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/15. Southern Energy, Inc.; Notice of Description: Tariff Amendment per Declaration of Intention and Soliciting 35.17(b): Motion for Deferral in OMPA Docket Numbers: ER15–1292–000. Comments, Protests, and Motions To Revised Stated Rate—ER15–929 to be Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Intervene effective 12/31/9998. L.L.C. Filed Date: 3/13/15. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Take notice that the following Accession Number: 20150313–5176. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First Revised Service application has been filed with the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. Agreement No. 2181; Queue No. V4–045 Commission and is available for public Docket Numbers: ER15–1282–000. to be effective 2/12/2015. inspection: Applicants: NorthWestern Filed Date: 3/16/15. a. Application Type: Declaration of Corporation. Accession Number: 20150316–5176. Intention.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15208 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

b. Docket No: DI15–02–000. connecting the powerhouse with the capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, c. Date Filed: January 16, 2015. Little Salmon River; (7) an underground, ‘‘PROTESTS’’, and ‘‘MOTIONS TO d. Applicant: Southern Energy, Inc. 4-mile-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the e. Name of Project: Walker Lake line extending from the project to a Docket Number of the particular Hydroelectric Project. point of interconnection with Inside application to which the filing refers. A f. Location: The proposed Walker Passage Electric Cooperative’s power copy of any Motion to Intervene must Lake Hydroelectric Project would be grid; and (8) appurtenant facilities. also be served upon each representative located on Wilson Lake, near the City of When a Declaration of Intention is of the Applicant specified in the Haines, in Haines Borough, Alaska. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory particular application. g. Filed Pursuant to: section 23(b)(1) Commission, the Federal Power Act p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. requires the Commission to investigate and local agencies are invited to file 817(b) (2012). and determine if the project would comments on the described application. h. Applicant Contact: John Floreske, affect the interests of interstate or A copy of the application may be Jr., President, Southern Energy, Inc., foreign commerce. The Commission also obtained by agencies directly from the P.O. Box 489, Mile 1.5 Haines Highway, determines whether or not the project: Applicant. If an agency does not file Haines, AK 99827; telephone: (909) (1) Would be located on a navigable comments within the time specified for 766–2899; email: northern@ waterway; (2) would occupy public filing comments, it will be presumed to aptalaska.net. lands or reservations of the United have no comments. One copy of an i. FERC Contact: Any questions on States; (3) would utilize surplus water agency’s comments must also be sent to this notice should be addressed to or water power from a government dam; the Applicant’s representatives. Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502–6437, or or (4) would be located on a non- email: [email protected]. navigable stream over which Congress Dated: March 16, 2015. j. Deadline for filing comments, has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and Kimberly D. Bose, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 would be constructed or enlarged after Secretary. days from the issuance date of this 1935. [FR Doc. 2015–06527 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] notice by the Commission. l. Locations of the Application: This BILLING CODE 6717–01–P The Commission strongly encourages filing may be viewed on the electronic filing. Please file comments, Commission’s Web site at http:// protests, and motions to intervene using www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission’s eFiling system at Enter the docket number excluding the http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ last three digits in the docket number Federal Energy Regulatory efiling.asp. Commenters can submit field to access the document. You may Commission brief comments up to 6,000 characters, also register online at http:// without prior registration, using the www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Combined Notice of Filings #1 eComment system at http:// esubscription.asp to be notified via Take notice that the Commission www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ email of new filings and issuances received the following electric corporate ecomment.asp. You must include your related to this or other pending projects. filings: name and contact information at the end For assistance, call 1–866–208–3676 or Docket Numbers: EC15–92–000. of your comments. For assistance, email [email protected], for please contact FERC Online Support at Applicants: American Transmission TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also Company LLC (ATC),Consolidated [email protected], (866) available for inspection and 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 Water Power Company. reproduction at the address in item (h) Description: Joint Application for (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please above and in the Commission’s Public send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Authority to Acquire Transmission Reference Room located at 888 First Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. of American Transmission Company 20426, or by calling (202) 502–8371. LLC, et al. The first page of any filing should m. Individuals desiring to be included Filed Date: 3/13/15. include docket number DI15–02–000. on the Commission’s mailing list should Accession Number: 20150313–5211. k. Description of Project: The so indicate by writing to the Secretary Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. proposed Walker Lake Hydroelectric of the Commission. Project would consist of: (1) Two n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Docket Numbers: EC15–93–000. rockfilled 15-foot-wide dams, creating Intervene: Anyone may submit Applicants: American Transmission 4,300 acre-feet of usable storage capacity comments, a protest, or a motion to Company LLC (ATC). in Walker Lake at a normal maximum intervene in accordance with the Description: Application for operating elevation of 1,195 feet mean requirements of Rules of Practice and Authority to Acquire Transmission sea level (msl); (2) a concrete spillway Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA and diversion channel for controlled In determining the appropriate action to of American Transmission Company releases to Walker Creek; (3) a take, the Commission will consider all LLC. freestanding concrete intake and protests or other comments filed, but Filed Date: 3/13/15. reservoir outlet works at elevation 1,170 only those who file a motion to Accession Number: 20150313–5212. feet msl diverting flow from the intervene in accordance with the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. southeast dam into the penstock; (4) a Commission’s Rules may become a Docket Numbers: EC15–94–000. 24-inch-diameter, 12,000-foot-long party to the proceeding. Any comments, Applicants: American Transmission penstock, of which approximately protests, or motions to intervene must Company LLC (ATC). 10,000 feet would be buried and 2,000 be received on or before the specified Description: Application for feet would be aboveground; (5) a comment date for the particular Authority to Acquire Transmission powerhouse containing one generating application. Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA unit rated at 1 megawatt at 780 feet of o. Filing and Service of Responsive of American Transmission Company net head; (6) a 50-foot-long tailrace Documents: All filings must bear in all LLC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15209

Filed Date: 3/13/15. Applicants: Transource Missouri, Any person desiring to intervene or Accession Number: 20150313–5213. LLC. protest in any of the above proceedings Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. Description: Tariff Amendment per must file in accordance with Rules 211 Docket Numbers: EC15–95–000. 35.17(b): TMO Facilities Sharing and 214 of the Commission’s Applicants: American Transmission Agreement Concurrence Amendment to Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Company LLC (ATC). be effective 12/31/9998. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Description: Application for Filed Date: 3/13/15. time on the specified comment date. Authority to Acquire Transmission Accession Number: 20150313–5180. Protests may be considered, but Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. intervention is necessary to become a of American Transmission Company Docket Numbers: ER15–1185–000. party to the proceeding. LLC. Applicants: Midcontinent eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Filed Date: 3/13/15. Independent System Operator, Inc., information relating to filing Accession Number: 20150313–5214. American Transmission Systems, requirements, interventions, protests, Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. Incorporated. service, and qualifying facilities filings Description: § 205(d) rate filing per can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Docket Numbers: EC15–96–000. _ Applicants: Osprey Energy Center, 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–03–06 SA 766 docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For LLC, Duke Energy Florida, Inc. Amended ATC–WPSC Bills of Sale to be other information, call (866) 208–3676 Description: Joint Application for effective 5/6/2015. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Approval Under Section 203 of the Filed Date: 3/6/15. Dated: March 16, 2015. Accession Number: 20150306–5392. Federal Power Act and Request for Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/15. Shortened Comment Period of Osprey Deputy Secretary. Docket Numbers: ER15–1275–000. Energy Center, LLC and Duke Energy [FR Doc. 2015–06553 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Florida, Inc. Applicants: New York State Electric & BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Filed Date: 3/13/15. Gas Corporation. Accession Number: 20150313–5217. Description: Informational Filing Detailing Refunds Paid in connection Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Take notice that the Commission with Engineering and Procurement received the following electric rate Agreements of New York State Electric Federal Energy Regulatory filings: & Gas Corporation. Commission Filed Date: 3/12/15. Docket Numbers: ER10–2543–003; Accession Number: 20150312–5156. [Project No. 13703–002] ER14–1153–002; ER11–2159–004; ER10– Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/2/15. FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Notice of 2609–010; ER10–2606–010; ER10–2604– Docket Numbers: ER15–1279–000. Application Ready for Environmental 008; ER10–2602–011. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC, L.L.C., Monongahela Power Company. Recommendations, Terms and Verso Androscoggin Power LLC, Verso Description: § 205(d) rate filing per Conditions, and Prescriptions Maine Energy LLC, Luke Paper 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Monongahela Power Company, New Page Energy Services, submits Service Agreement Nos. 4090 Take notice that the following Inc., Consolidated Water Power and 4098—HREA/Mon Power to be Company, Escanaba Paper Company. hydroelectric application has been filed effective 5/12/2015. with the Commission and is available Description: Supplement to February Filed Date: 3/13/15. 2, 2015 Notice of Non-Material Change for public inspection. Accession Number: 20150313–5181. a. Type of Application: Original Major in Status of the Verso MBR and Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. NewPage MBR Entities. License—Existing Dam. Docket Numbers: ER15–1280–000. Filed Date: 3/13/15. b. Project No.: 13703–002. Applicants: Midcontinent Accession Number: 20150313–5206. c. Date filed: November 13, 2013. Independent System Operator, Inc. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. d. Applicant: FFP Missouri 2, LLC. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per e. Name of Project: Enid Lake Docket Numbers: ER15–1046–005. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–03–13_SA 2696 Hydroelectric Project. Applicants: Kansas City Power & ITC–IPL Amended E&P (J233) to be f. Location: The proposed project Light Company. effective 3/5/2015. would be located at the U.S. Army Description: Tariff Amendment per Filed Date: 3/13/15. Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) existing 35.17(b): KCP&L Supplemental Rate Accession Number: 20150313–5182. Enid Lake Dam, on the Yocona River, Schedule 140 Filing to be effective Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. near the town of Oakland, in Yalobusha 12/31/9998. Docket Numbers: ER15–1281–000. County, Mississippi. The proposed Filed Date: 3/13/15. Applicants: New York Independent project would occupy approximately 30 Accession Number: 20150313–5185. System Operator, Inc. acres of federal land administered by Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. Description: § 205(d) rate filing per the Corps. Docket Numbers: ER15–1048–004. 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO 205 filing re: g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri additional capacity resource Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)—825(r). Operations Company. interconnection service to be effective 5/ h. Applicant Contact: Ramya Description: Tariff Amendment per 12/2015. Swaminathan, Rye Development, 745 35.17(b): KCP&L–GMO Supplemental Filed Date: 3/13/15. Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA Rate Schedule 136 Filing to be effective Accession Number: 20150313–5184. 02111; telephone (617) 804–1326. 12/31/9998. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards, Filed Date: 3/13/15. The filings are accessible in the telephone (202) 502–6181 and email Accession Number: 20150313–5177. Commission’s eLibrary system by [email protected]; or Patti Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/15. clicking on the links or querying the Leppert, telephone (202) 502–6034 and Docket Numbers: ER15–1052–001. docket number. email [email protected].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

j. Deadline for filing comments, trashracks and a fish bypass gate; (5) an Milestone Target date recommendations, preliminary terms 80-foot-long, 50-foot-wide concrete and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 powerhouse containing two vertical Filing of recommendations, May 2015. days from the issuance date of this Kaplan turbine-generator units having a terms and conditions, and notice; reply comments are due 105 combined installed capacity of 4.6 prescriptions. Commission issues Draft EA December days from the issuance date of this megawatts; (6) a 150-foot-long, 75-foot- notice. 2015. wide tailrace; (7) a 181-foot-long, 4.16- Comments on Draft EA Due January 2016. The Commission strongly encourages kilovolt (kV) buried cable; (8) a Commission Issues Final EA May 2016. electronic filing. Please file comments, substation; and (9) a 2,036-foot-long, recommendations, terms and 12.5-kV overhead transmission line o. Public notice of the filing of the conditions, and prescriptions using the initial development application, which Commission’s eFiling system at http:// extending from the substation to a utility-owned distribution line. The has already been given, established the www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. due date for filing competing Commenters can submit brief comments average annual generation would be 17,700 megawatt-hours. applications or notices of intent. Under up to 6,000 characters, without prior the Commission’s regulations, any registration, using the eComment system m. A copy of the application is competing development application at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ available for review at the Commission must be filed in response to and in ecomment.asp. You must include your in the Public Reference Room, or may be compliance with public notice of the name and contact information at the end viewed on the Commission’s Web site at initial development application. No of your comments. For assistance, http://www.ferc.gov, using the competing applications or notices of please contact FERC Online Support at ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket intent may be filed in response to this [email protected], (866) number, excluding the last three digits notice. 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 in the docket number field, to access the (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please Dated: March 16, 2015. document. For assistance, contact FERC send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Kimberly D. Bose, Online Support. A copy is available for Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Secretary. First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. [FR Doc. 2015–06525 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] The first page of any filing should BILLING CODE 6717–01–P include docket number P–13703–002. Register online at http:// The Commission’s Rules of Practice www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ require all intervenors filing documents esubscription.asp to be notified via ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION with the Commission to serve a copy of email of new filings and issuances AGENCY that document on each person on the related to this or other pending projects. official service list for the project. [EPA–HQ–OARM–2015–0210; FRL 9924–95– For assistance, contact FERC Online OARM] Further, if an intervenor files comments Support. or documents with the Commission All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital National and Governmental Advisory relating to the merits of an issue that Committees to the U.S. Representative may affect the responsibilities of a letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘REPLY COMMENTS,’’ to the Commission for Environmental particular resource agency, they must Cooperation also serve a copy of the document on ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS that resource agency. AND CONDITIONS,’’ or AGENCY: Environmental Protection k. This application has been accepted ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in the Agency (EPA). for filing and is now ready for heading the name of the applicant and ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee environmental analysis. the project number of the application to meeting. l. The proposed Enid Lake Project which the filing responds; (3) furnish would utilize the following existing the name, address, and telephone SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Corps’ Enid Lake Dam facilities: (1) An number of the person submitting the Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8,400-foot-long, 85-foot-high earth fill filing; and (4) otherwise comply with gives notice of a meeting of the National embankment dam; (2) a reservoir; and the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 Advisory Committee (NAC) and (3) outlet works consisting of a concrete through 385.2005. All comments, intake tower, two gated inlets that Governmental Advisory Committee recommendations, terms and conditions combine to direct flow through two 370- (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the or prescriptions must set forth their foot-long, 11-foot-diameter concrete North American Commission for evidentiary basis and otherwise comply outlet conduits, and a stilling basin. Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The The proposed Enid Lake Project with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). National and Governmental Advisory would consist of the following new Agencies may obtain copies of the Committees advise the EPA facilities: (1) A 320-foot-long, 10.25-foot- application directly from the applicant. Administrator in her capacity as the diameter steel liner installed within one Each filing must be accompanied by U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. of the two existing outlet conduits; (2) proof of service on all persons listed on The committees are authorized under a 50-foot-long, 20-foot-wide (varies) the service list prepared by the Articles 17 and 18 of the North steel-lined, concrete bifurcation Commission in this proceeding, in American Agreement on Environmental chamber containing two hydraulically- accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and Cooperation (NAAEC), North American operated gates used to control the 385.2010. Free Trade Agreement Implementation amount of flow diverted from the n. Procedural Schedule: Act, Public Law 103–182, and as existing stilling basin to the directed by Executive Order 12915, powerhouse; (3) a 240-foot-long, 10-foot- The application will be processed entitled ‘‘Federal Implementation of the diameter steel penstock; (4) a 55-foot according to the following revised hydro North American Agreement on wide, 50-foot-long, 100-foot-high steel licensing schedule. Revisions to the Environmental Cooperation.’’ The NAC and reinforced concrete forebay housing schedule may be made as appropriate. is composed of 15 members

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15211

representing academia, environmental Dated: March 12, 2015. Dated: March 17, 2015. non-governmental organizations, and Oscar Carrillo, Sarah Sowell, private industry. The GAC consists of 14 Designated Federal Officer. Acting Deputy Director, Office of members representing state, local, and [FR Doc. 2015–06591 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Environmental Education. tribal governments. The committees are BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Dated: March 17, 2015. responsible for providing advice to the Javier Araujo, U.S. Representative on a wide range of (NEEAC) Designated Federal Officer. strategic, scientific, technological, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [FR Doc. 2015–06581 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] regulatory, and economic issues related AGENCY BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to implementation and further [FRL 9925–07–OA] elaboration of the NAAEC. The purpose of the meeting is to National Environmental Education FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting provide advice on issues related to the COMMISSION CEC’s draft Operational Plan and Budget AGENCY: Environmental Protection for 2015–16, the CEC’s draft Strategic Agency (EPA). [3060–0636] Plan for 2015–2020, and to discuss additional trade and environment ACTION: Notice of meeting. Information Collection Being issues. The meeting will also include a SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Submitted for Review and Approval to public comment session. The agenda, Committee Act, the Environmental the Office of Management and Budget meeting materials, and general Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of AGENCY: information about the NAC and GAC Federal Communications a series of teleconference meetings of Commission. will be available at http:// the National Environmental Education ACTION: Notice and request for www2.epa.gov/faca/nac-gac. Advisory Council (NEEAC). The NEEAC comments. DATES: The National and Governmental was created by Congress to advise, Advisory Committees will hold an open consult with, and make SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort meeting on Thursday, April 16, 2015 recommendations to the Administrator to reduce paperwork burdens, and as from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, of the Environmental Protection Agency required by the Paperwork Reduction April 17, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 (EPA) on matters related to activities, Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– p.m. functions and policies of EPA under the 3520), the Federal Communications National Environmental Education Act Commission (FCC or the Commission) ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at (the Act). 20 U.S.C. 5508(b).The purpose invites the general public and other the U.S. EPA, Conference Room B–305, of this teleconference(s) is to discuss Federal agencies to take this located in the William Jefferson Clinton specific topics of relevance for opportunity to comment on the North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. consideration by the council in order to following information collection. NW., Washington, DC 20004. provide advice and insights to the Comments are requested concerning: Telephone: 202–564–2294. The meeting Agency on environmental education. Whether the proposed collection of is open to the public, with limited DATES: The National Environmental information is necessary for the proper seating on a first-come, first-served Education Advisory Council will hold a performance of the functions of the basis. public teleconference on Friday, April Commission, including whether the 17, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information shall have practical utility; Eastern Daylight Time. Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal the accuracy of the Commission’s Officer, [email protected], 202– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: burden estimate; ways to enhance the 564–0347, U.S. EPA, Office of Diversity, Javier Araujo, Designated Federal quality, utility, and clarity of the Advisory Committee Management and Officer, [email protected], 202– information collected; ways to minimize Outreach (1601–M), 1200 Pennsylvania 564–2642, U.S. EPA, Office of the burden of the collection of Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Environmental Education, William information on the respondents, Jefferson Clinton North Room, 1426, including the use of automated SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., collection techniques or other forms of to make oral comments, or provide Washington, DC 20460. information technology; and ways to written comments to the committees, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members further reduce the information should be sent to Oscar Carrillo, of the public wishing to gain access to collection burden on small business Designated Federal Officer, at the the teleconference, make brief oral concerns with fewer than 25 employees. contact information above. If you plan comments, or provide a written The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a to attend, please register with Ms. statement to the NEEAC must contact collection of information unless it Stephanie McCoy, by April 9th by Javier Araujo, Designated Federal displays a currently valid control calling 202–564–7297 or via email at Officer, at [email protected] or 202– number. No person shall be subject to [email protected]. Please 564–2642 by 10 business days prior to any penalty for failing to comply with provide your name, organization, each regularly scheduled meeting. a collection of information subject to the address and telephone number. Meeting Access: For information on PRA that does not display a valid Office Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with of Management and Budget (OMB) access or services for individuals with disabilities or to request control number. disabilities, or to request accommodations, please contact Javier DATES: Written PRA comments should accommodation of a disability, please Araujo at [email protected] or 202– be submitted on or before April 22, contact Oscar Carrillo, at least 10 days 564–2642, preferably at least 10 days 2015. If you anticipate that you will be prior to the meeting to give EPA as prior to the meeting, to give EPA as submitting comments, but find it much time as possible to process your much time as possible to process your difficult to do so within the period of request. request. time allowed by this notice, you should

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

advise the contact listed below as soon of the Commission’s Rules to Deregulate the accuracy of the Commission’s as possible. the Equipment Authorization burden estimate; ways to enhance the ADDRESSES: Submit your PRA comments Requirements for Digital Devices. quality, utility, and clarity of the to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of (a) The Declaration of Conformity information collected; ways to minimize Management and Budget, via fax at 202– equipment authorization procedure, 47 the burden of the collection of 395–5167 or via Internet at Nicholas_ CFR 2.1071, requires that a information on the respondents, [email protected] and to Benish manufacturers or equipment supplier including the use of automated Shah, Federal Communications test a product to ensure compliance collection techniques or other forms of Commission, via the Internet at with technical standards that limit radio information technology; and ways to [email protected]. To submit your frequency emissions. further reduce the information PRA comments by email send them to: (b) Additionally, the manufacturer or collection burden on small business [email protected]. supplier must also include a DoC (with concerns with fewer than 25 employees. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the standards) in the literature furnished The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a Benish Shah, Office of Managing with the equipment, and the equipment collection of information unless it Director, (202) 418–7866. manufacturer or supplier must also displays a currently valid OMB control make this statement of conformity and number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: supporting technical data available to No person shall be subject to any OMB Control Number: 3060–0636. the FCC, at the Commission’s request. penalty for failing to comply with a Title: Sections 2.906, 2.909, 2.1071, (c) The DoC procedure represents a collection of information subject to the 2.1075, 2.1077 and 15.37, Equipment simplified filing and reporting PRA that does not display a valid OMB Authorizations—Declaration of procedure for authorizing equipment for control number. Conformity. Form No.: Not applicable. marketing. DATES: Written PRA comments should Type of Review: Extension of a (d) Finally, testing and documentation be submitted on or before May 22, 2015. currently approved collection. of compliance are needed to control If you anticipate that you will be Respondents: Business or other for- potential interference to radio submitting comments, but find it profit entities. communications. The data gathering are difficult to do so within the period of Number of Respondents: 6,000 necessary for investigating complaints time allowed by this notice, you should respondents; 12,000 responses. of harmful interference or for verifying advise the contact listed below as soon Estimated Time per Response: 9.5 the manufacturer’s compliance with the as possible. hours (average). Commission’s rules. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Frequency of Response: One-time Federal Communications Commission. Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email PRA@ reporting requirement, recordkeeping Sheryl D. Todd, fcc.gov and to [email protected]. requirement and third party disclosure Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For requirements. Office of the Managing Director. additional information about the Obligation to Respond: Required to [FR Doc. 2015–06510 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] information collection, contact Nicole obtain or retain benefits. Statutory BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Ongele at (202) 418–2991. authority for this information collection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, OMB Control Number: 3060–0790. 302, 303(e), 303(r), 304 and 307. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Title: Section 68.110 (c), Availability Total Annual Burden: 114,000 hours. COMMISSION of Inside Wiring Information. Total Annual Cost: $24,000,000. [OMB 3060–0790] Form Number: N/A. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Type of Review: Extension of a impact. Information Collection Being Reviewed currently approved collection. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: by the Federal Communications Respondents: Business or other for- No assurances of confidentiality are Commission Under Delegated profit. provided to respondents. Authority Number of Respondents: 200 Needs and Uses: The Commission respondents; 1,200 responses. will submit this information collection AGENCY: Federal Communications Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. to Office of Management and Budget Commission. Frequency of Response: (OMB) after this 60 day comment period ACTION: Notice and request for Recordkeeping requirement and third in order to obtain the full three year comments. party disclosure requirement. clearance from them. The Commission Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. is requesting an extension, there is no SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort Statutory authority for this collection of change in the reporting, recordkeeping to reduce paperwork burdens, and as information is contained in 47 U.S.C. and/or third party disclosure required by the Paperwork Reduction 151, 154, 201–205, 218, 220 and 405 of requirements. The Commission is Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– the Communications Act of 1934, as reporting an adjustment to reflect an 3520), the Federal Communications amended. increase to the total number of Commission (FCC or Commission) Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours. respondents/responses, the total annual invites the general public and other Annual Cost Burden: $5,000. hourly burden, and the total annual cost Federal agencies to take this Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No to respondents from the previous opportunity to comment on the impact. estimates, in order to reflect an increase following information collections. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: in the number of devices authorized Comments are requested concerning: The Commission is not requesting that under the DOC program. Whether the proposed collection of respondents submit any confidential In 1996, the Declaration of Conformity information is necessary for the proper trade secrets or proprietary information (DoC) procedure was established in a performance of the functions of the to the FCC. Report and Order, FCC 96–208, In the Commission, including whether the Needs and Uses: Section 68.110(c) Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 information shall have practical utility; requires that any available technical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15213

information concerning carrier-installed a nonbanking company, the review also Boyer Family Group; to retain voting wiring on the customer’s side of the includes whether the acquisition of the shares of KANZA Financial demarcation point, including copies of nonbanking company complies with the Corporation, parent of KANZA Bank, existing schematic diagrams and service standards in section 4 of the BHC Act both in Kingman, Kansas. records, shall be provided by the (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve telephone company upon request of the noted, nonbanking activities will be System, March 18, 2015. building owner or agent thereof. The conducted throughout the United States. Michael J. Lewandowski, Unless otherwise noted, comments provider of wireline Associate Secretary of the Board. telecommunications services may regarding each of these applications charge the building owner a reasonable must be received at the Reserve Bank [FR Doc. 2015–06561 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] fee for this service, which shall not indicated or the offices of the Board of BILLING CODE 6210–01–P exceed the cost involved in locating and Governors not later than April 17, 2015. copying the documents. In the A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta alternative, the provider may make (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND these documents available for review President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., HUMAN SERVICES and copying by the building owner or Atlanta, Georgia 30309: National Institutes of Health his agent. In this case, the wireline 1. Sunshine Bancorp, Inc., Plant City, Florida; to become a bank holding telecommunications carrier may charge National Cancer Institute; Amended company by acquiring 100 percent of a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed Notice of Meeting the cost involved in making the the voting shares of Community documents available, and may also Southern Holdings, Inc., and its Notice is hereby given of a change in require the building owner or his agent subsidiary, Community Southern Bank, the meeting of the National Cancer to pay a deposit to guarantee the both of Lakeland, Florida. Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March documents’ return. The information is Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 26, 2015 6:30 p.m. to March 27, 2015, needed so that building owners may System, March 18, 2015. 4 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & choose to contract with an installer of Michael J. Lewandowski, Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, their choice on inside wiring Associate Secretary of the Board. Bethesda, MD 20852 which was maintenance and installation services to [FR Doc. 2015–06560 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2015, 80FR8331. modify existing wiring or assist with the BILLING CODE 6210–01–P installation of additional inside wiring. The meeting notice is amended to change the date and start time to be held Federal Communications Commission. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM on March 27, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. The Marlene H. Dortch, meeting is closed to the public. Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Change in Bank Control Notices; the Managing Director. Dated: March 17, 2015. Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Melanie J. Gray, [FR Doc. 2015–06509 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Bank Holding Company BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory The notificants listed below have Committee Policy. applied under the Change in Bank [FR Doc. 2015–06478 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and BILLING CODE 4140–01–P § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank Mergers of Bank Holding Companies or bank holding company. The factors DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND that are considered in acting on the HUMAN SERVICES The companies listed in this notice notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of Agency for Healthcare Research and have applied to the Board for approval, the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). pursuant to the Bank Holding Company The notices are available for Quality Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) immediate inspection at the Federal Patient Safety Organizations: (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 225), and all other applicable statutes Voluntary Relinquishment From PSO also will be available for inspection at Services Group and regulations to become a bank the offices of the Board of Governors. holding company and/or to acquire the Interested persons may express their AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research assets or the ownership of, control of, or views in writing to the Reserve Bank and Quality (AHRQ), Department of the power to vote shares of a bank or indicated for that notice or to the offices Health and Human Services (HHS). bank holding company and all of the of the Board of Governors. Comments ACTION: Notice of Delisting. banks and nonbanking companies must be received not later than April 7, owned by the bank holding company, 2015. SUMMARY: The Patient Safety and including the companies listed below. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 The applications listed below, as well City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice U.S.C. 299b–21 to b–26, (Patient Safety as other related filings required by the President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas Act) and the related Patient Safety and Board, are available for immediate City, Missouri 64198–0001: Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 1. John E. Boyer, individually and as CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), indicated. The applications will also be trustee of the Merlyn Boyer Irrevocable published in the Federal Register on available for inspection at the offices of GST Trust, the John E. Boyer November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70732– the Board of Governors. Interested Grandchildren’s Trust, the Emily Ryan 70814), provide for the formation of persons may express their views in Boyer Irrevocable Trust, and the Jack Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), writing on the standards enumerated in Eric Boyer Irrevocable Trust, all of which collect, aggregate, and analyze the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the Kingman, Kansas; and Emily Boyer, confidential information regarding the proposal also involves the acquisition of Kingman, Kansas, as a member of The quality and safety of healthcare

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

delivery. The Patient Safety Rule Services Group was delisted effective at information to the Division of Dockets authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 5, Management (HFA 305), Food and Drug Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an 2015. Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. entity that attests that it meets the PSO Services Group has patient safety 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All statutory and regulatory requirements work product (PSWP) in its possession. comments should be identified with the for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ by The PSO will meet the requirements of docket number found in brackets in the the Secretary if it is found to no longer section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient heading of this document. meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, providers that have reported to the PSO. PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food when a PSO chooses to voluntarily In addition, according to sections and Drug Administration, 8455 relinquish its status as a PSO for any 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver reason, or when a PSO’s listing expires. Patient Safety Rule regarding Spring, MD 20993–0002; PRAStaff@ AHRQ has accepted a notification of disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 fda.hhs.gov. voluntary relinquishment from PSO days from the effective date of delisting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Services Group of its status as a PSO, and revocation to complete the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal and has delisted the PSO accordingly. disposition of PSWP that is currently in Agencies must obtain approval from the DATES: the PSO’s possession. The directories for both listed Office of Management and Budget More information on PSOs can be and delisted PSOs are ongoing and (OMB) for each collection of obtained through AHRQ’s PSO Web site reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The information they conduct or sponsor. at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/ delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined index.html. ET (2400) on January 5, 2015. in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR ADDRESSES: Both directories can be Dated: March 17, 2015. 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests accessed electronically at the following Sharon B. Arnold, or requirements that members of the HHS Web site: http:// Deputy Director, AHRQ. public submit reports, keep records, or www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html. [FR Doc. 2015–06455 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] provide information to a third party. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : BILLING CODE 4160–90–P Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND the Federal Register concerning each Telephone (toll free): (866) 403–3697; HUMAN SERVICES proposed collection of information, Telephone (local): (301) 427–1111; TTY including each proposed extension of an (toll free): (866) 438–7231; TTY (local): Food and Drug Administration existing collection of information, (301) 427–1130; Email: PSO@ [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0742] before submitting the collection to OMB AHRQ.hhs.gov. for approval. To comply with this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency Information Collection requirement, FDA is publishing notice Activities; Proposed Collection; of the proposed collection of Background Comment Request; Registration of information set forth in this document. The Patient Safety Act authorizes the Producers of Drugs and Listing of With respect to the following listing of PSOs, which are entities or Drugs in Commercial Distribution collection of information, FDA invites component organizations whose comments on these topics: (1) Whether mission and primary activity are to AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, the proposed collection of information conduct activities to improve patient HHS. is necessary for the proper performance safety and the quality of health care ACTION: Notice. of FDA’s functions, including whether delivery. the information will have practical SUMMARY: The Food and Drug HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s Administration (FDA) is announcing an implement the Patient Safety Act. estimate of the burden of the proposed opportunity for public comment on the AHRQ administers the provisions of the collection of information, including the proposed collection of certain Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety validity of the methodology and information by the Agency. Under the Rule relating to the listing and operation assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule the quality, utility, and clarity of the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an information to be collected; and (4) publish notice in the Federal Register entity that attests that it meets the ways to minimize the burden of the concerning each proposed collection of statutory and regulatory requirements collection of information on information, including each proposed for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ if respondents, including through the use extension of an existing collection of it is found to no longer meet the of automated collection techniques, information, and to allow 60 days for requirements of the Patient Safety Act when appropriate, and other forms of public comment in response to the and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO information technology. chooses to voluntarily relinquish its notice. This notice solicits comments on status as a PSO for any reason, or when the requirements for drug establishment Registration of Producers of Drugs and a PSO’s listing expires. Section 3.108(d) registration and drug listing. Listing of Drugs in Commercial of the Patient Safety Rule requires DATES: Submit either electronic or Distribution—21 CFR Part 207 (OMB AHRQ to provide public notice when it written comments on the collection of Control Number 0910–0045)—Extension removes an organization from the list of information by May 22, 2015. Requirements for drug establishment federally approved PSOs. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic registration and drug listing are set forth AHRQ has accepted a notification comments on the collection of in section 510 of the Federal Food, from PSO Services Group, PSO number information to http:// Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) P0028, to voluntarily relinquish its www.regulations.gov. Submit written (21 U.S.C. 360), section 351 of the status as a PSO. Accordingly, PSO comments on the collection of Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15215

262), and part 207 (21 CFR part 207). instances, at the time of submitting or which commercial distribution has been Fundamental to FDA’s mission to updating drug listing information, discontinued; (3) all drug or biological protect the public health is the private label distributors must certify to products for which a notice of collection of this information, which is the registered establishment that discontinuance was submitted and for used for important activities such as manufactured, prepared, propagated, which commercial distribution has been postmarket surveillance for serious compounded, or processed (which resumed; and (4) any material change in adverse drug reactions, inspection of includes, among other things, any information previously submitted. drug manufacturing and processing repackaging and relabeling) the listed No update is required if no changes facilities, and monitoring of drug drug that the drug listing submission have occurred since the previously products imported into the United was made. Establishments must, within submitted list. States. Comprehensive, accurate, and up 5 days of beginning the manufacture of Historically, drug establishment to date information is critical to drugs or biologicals, submit to FDA a registration and drug listing information conducting these activities with listing for every drug or biological have been submitted in paper form efficiency and effectiveness. product in commercial distribution at using Form FDA 2656 (Registration of Under section 510 of the FD&C Act, that time. Private label distributors may Drug Establishment/Labeler Code FDA is authorized to establish a system elect to submit to FDA a listing of every Assignment), Form FDA 2657 (Drug for registration of producers of drugs drug product they place in commercial Product Listing), and Form FDA 2658 and for listing of drugs in commercial distribution. Registered establishments (Registered Establishments’ Report of distribution. To implement section 510 must submit to FDA drug product Private Label Distributors) (collectively of the FD&C Act, FDA issued part 207. listing for those private label referred to as FDA Forms). Changes in Under current § 207.20, manufacturers, distributors who do not elect to submit the FD&C Act resulting from enactment repackers, and relabelers that engage in listing information. of the Food and Drug Administration the manufacture, preparation, Under § 207.25, product listing Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110– propagation, compounding, or information submitted to FDA by 85) (FDAAA) require that drug processing of human or veterinary drugs domestic and foreign manufacturers establishment registration and drug and biological products, including bulk must, depending on the type of product listing information be submitted drug substances and bulk drug being listed, include any new drug electronically unless a waiver is substances for prescription application number or biological granted. Before the enactment of compounding, and drug premixes as establishment license number, copies of FDAAA, section 510(p) of the FD&C Act well as finished dosage forms, whether current labeling and a sampling of expressly provided for electronic prescription or over-the-counter, are advertisements, a quantitative listing of submission of drug establishment required to register their establishment. the active ingredient for each drug or registration information upon a finding In addition, manufacturers, repackers, biological product not subject to an that electronic receipt was feasible, and and relabelers are required to submit a approved application or license, the section 510(j) of the FD&C Act provided listing of every drug or biological NDC number, and any drug imprinting that drug listing information be product in commercial distribution. information. submitted in the form and manner Owners or operators of establishments In addition to the product listing prescribed by FDA. Section 224 of that distribute under their own label or information required, FDA may also FDAAA, which amends section 510(p) trade name a drug product require, under § 207.31, a copy of all of the FD&C Act, now expressly, manufactured by a registered advertisements and a quantitative listing requires electronic drug listing in establishment are not required either to of all ingredients for each listed drug or addition to drug establishment register or list. However, distributors biological product not subject to an registration. In certain cases, if it is may elect to submit drug listing approved application or license; the unreasonable to expect a person to information in lieu of the registered basis for a determination, by the submit registration and listing establishment that manufactures the establishment, that a listed drug or information electronically, FDA may drug product. Foreign drug biological product is not subject to grant a waiver from the electronic establishments must also comply with marketing or licensing approval format requirement. the establishment registration and requirements; and a list of certain drugs In the Federal Register of June 1, 2009 product listing requirements if they or biological products containing a (74 FR 26248), FDA announced the import or offer for import their products particular ingredient. FDA may also availability of a guidance for industry into the United States. request, but not require, the submission entitled ‘‘Providing Regulatory Under current § 207.21, of a qualitative listing of the inactive Submissions in Electronic Format— establishments, both domestic and ingredients for all listed drugs or Drug Establishment Registration and foreign, must register with FDA within biological products, and a quantitative Drug Listing’’ (the 2009 guidance). The 5 days after beginning the manufacture listing of the active ingredients for all document provides guidance to industry of drugs or biologicals, or within 5 days listed drugs or biological products on the statutory requirement to submit after the submission of a drug subject to an approved application or electronically drug establishment application or biological license license. registration and drug listing application. In addition, establishments Under § 207.30, establishments must information. The guidance describes the must register annually. Changes in update their product listing information types of information to include for individual ownership, corporate or every June and December or, at the purposes of drug establishment partnership structure, location, or drug discretion of the establishment, when registration and drug listing and how to handling activity must be submitted as any change occurs. These updates must prepare and submit the information in amendments to registration under include the following information: (1) A an electronic format (Structured Product current § 207.26 within 5 days of such listing of all drug or biological products Labeling (SPL) files) that FDA can changes. Under § 207.20(b), private label introduced for commercial distribution process, review, and archive. In distributors may request their own that have not been included in any addition to the information that labeler code and elect to submit drug previously submitted list; (2) all drug or previously was collected on the FDA listing information to FDA. In such biological products formerly listed for Forms, the guidance addresses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

electronic submission of other required • a site-specific Data Universal • requests for waivers from the information as follows: Numbering System number for each electronic submission process as • For registered foreign drug entity (e.g., the registrant, described in the draft guidance. establishments, the name, address, and establishments, U.S. agent, importer); When FDA published the 2009 • the NDC product code for the telephone number of its U.S. agent guidance on submitting establishment source drug that is repacked or (§ 207.40(c)); registration and drug listing information • the name of each importer that is relabeled; • in electronic format, the Agency also known to the establishment (the U.S. distinctive characteristics of certain listed drugs, i.e., the flavor, the color, amended its burden estimates for OMB company or individual in the United control number 0910–0045 to include States that is an owner, consignee, or and image of the actual solid dosage form; and the additional burden for the collection recipient of the foreign establishment’s • of information that had not been drug that is imported into the United registrants may indicate that they submitted using the FDA forms, and to States. An importer does not include the view as confidential the registrant’s create and upload the SPL file. The consumer or patient who ultimately business relationship with an amended burden estimates included the purchases, receives, or is administered establishment, or an inactive ingredient. In addition to this collection of one-time preparation of an SOP for the drug, unless the foreign information, there is an additional creating and uploading the SPL file. establishment ships the drug directly to burden for the following activities: the consumer or the patient) (section Although most firms will already have • preparing a standard operating prepared an SOP for the electronic 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act); and procedure (SOP) for the electronic • the name of each person who submission of drug establishment submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing imports or offers for import (the name registration and drug listing of each agent, broker, or other entity, information, each year additional firms information; will need to create an SOP. As provided other than a carrier, that the foreign • creating the SPL file, including drug establishment uses to facilitate the in Table 2 of this document, FDA accessing and reviewing the technical estimates that approximately 1,000 import of their drug into the United specifications and instructional States) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C firms will have to expend a one-time documents provided by FDA (accessible burden to prepare, review, and approve Act). at http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/ FDA also recommends the voluntary an SOP, and the Agency estimates that spl.html); it will take 40 hours per recordkeeper to submission of the following additional • reviewing and selecting appropriate create 1,000 new SOPs for a total of information, when applicable: terms and codes used to create the SPL 40,000 hours. • To facilitate correspondence file (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/ between foreign establishments and oc/datacouncil/spl.html); In Tables 1 and 2, the information FDA, the email address for the U.S. • obtaining the digital certificate used collection requirements of the drug agent, and the telephone number(s) and with FDA’s electronic submission establishment registration and drug email address for the importer and gateway and uploading the SPL file for listing requirements have been grouped person who imports or offers for import submission (accessible at http:// according to the information collection their drug; www.fda.gov/esg/default.htm); and areas of the requirements.

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Number of Average Activity Number of responses per Total annual burden per Total hours respondents respondent responses response

New registrations, including new labeler codes requests ... 1,400 2 2,800 4.5 12,600 Annual updates of registration information ...... 10,000 1 10,000 4.5 45,000 New drug listings ...... 1,567 7 11,000 4.5 49,500 New listings for private label distributor ...... 146 10.06 1,469 4.5 6,611 June and December updates of all drug listing information 5,300 20 106,000 4.5 477,000 Waiver requests ...... 1 1 1 1 1

Total ...... 590,712 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN 1

Number of Average Activity resulting from section 510(p) of the FD&C Act as Number of records per Total annual burden per Total hours amended by FDAAA recordkeepers recordkeeper records recordkeeping

One-time preparation of SOP ...... 1,000 1 1,000 40 40,000 SOP maintenance ...... 3,295 1 3,295 1 3,295

Total ...... 43,295 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with the collection of information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15217

Dated: March 17, 2015. the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Electronic Submission of Lot Leslie Kux, for electronic access to the guidance Distribution Reports’’ dated August Associate Commissioner for Policy. document. 2014. FDA published a correction notice [FR Doc. 2015–06497 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Submit electronic comments on the to correct the docket number in the BILLING CODE 4164–01–P guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Federal Register of September 16, 2014 Submit written comments to the (79 FR 55497). FDA received a few Division of Dockets Management (HFA– comments on the draft guidance and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 305), Food and Drug Administration, those comments were considered as the HUMAN SERVICES 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, guidance was finalized. FDA is MD 20852. finalizing the draft guidance with only Food and Drug Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori editorial changes. The guidance [Docket No. FDA–2014–D–1288] J. Churchyard, Center for Biologics announced in this notice finalizes the Evaluation and Research, Food and draft guidance dated August 2014. Electronic Submission of Lot Drug Administration, 10903 New Distribution Reports; Guidance for Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, The guidance is being issued Industry; Availability Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240– consistent with FDA’s good guidance 402–7911; or Jared Lantzy, Center for practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Drug Evaluation and Research, Food The guidance represents FDA’s current HHS. and Drug Administration, 10903 New thinking on this topic. It does not create ACTION: Notice. Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 1116, or confer any rights for or on any person Silver Spring, MD 20993, email: esub@ and does not operate to bind FDA or the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug fda.hhs.gov. public. An alternative approach may be Administration (FDA) is announcing the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: used if such approach satisfies the availability of a document entitled requirements of the applicable statutes ‘‘Electronic Submission of Lot I. Background and regulations. Distribution Reports; Guidance for FDA is announcing the availability of Industry.’’ The guidance document a document entitled ‘‘Electronic II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides information and Submission of Lot Distribution Reports; This guidance refers to previously recommendations pertaining to the Guidance for Industry.’’ The guidance electronic submission of lot distribution approved collections of information provides information and found in FDA regulations. These reports for applicants with approved recommendations pertaining to the biologics license applications (BLAs). collections of information are subject to electronic submission of lot distribution review by the Office of Management and FDA recently published in the Federal reports. The guidance provides Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Register a final rule requiring that, information on how to electronically Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– among other things, lot distribution submit lot distribution reports for reports be submitted to FDA in an biological products under approved 3520). The collections of information in electronic format that the Agency can BLAs for which CBER or CDER has 21 CFR 600.81 and 600.90 have been process, review, and archive. The regulatory responsibility. The guidance approved under 0910–0308. guidance announced in this notice does not apply to any other biological III. Comments finalizes the draft guidance entitled product. ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Electronic FDA published in the Federal Interested persons may submit either Submission of Lot Distribution Reports’’ Register of June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33072), electronic comments regarding this dated August 2014, and is intended to a final rule requiring electronic document to http://www.regulations.gov help licensed manufacturers of products submission of certain postmarketing or written comments to the Division of distributed under an approved BLA submissions. Among other things, under Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It (henceforth referred to as applicants) this rule applicants are required to comply with the final rule. is only necessary to send one set of submit biological lot distribution reports comments. Identify comments with the DATES: Submit either electronic or to FDA in an electronic format that the docket number found in brackets in the written comments on Agency guidances Agency can process, review, and heading of this document. Received at any time. archive. The guidance is intended to comments may be seen in the Division ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for help applicants subject to lot of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. single copies of the guidance to the distribution reporting comply with the and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and Office of Communication, Outreach and final rule. Along with other information, will be posted to the docket at http:// Development, Center for Biologics the guidance provides updated www.regulations.gov. Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food information about the following: (1) and Drug Administration, 10903 New Structured Product Labeling standard IV. Electronic Access Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, and vocabulary for electronic Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002 or submission of lot distribution reporting; Persons with access to the Internet Division of Drug Information, Center for (2) additional resources such as may obtain the guidance at either http:// Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), implementation guide, validation www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ Food and Drug Administration, 10903 procedures and links with further GuidanceCompliance New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. information; and (3) procedures for RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. requesting temporary waivers from the default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ Send one self-addressed adhesive label electronic submission requirement. GuidanceCompliance to assist the office in processing your In the Federal Register of August 29, RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ requests. The guidance may also be 2014 (79 FR 51576), FDA announced the default.htm, or http:// obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1– availability of the draft guidance www.regulations.gov. 800–835–4709 or 240–402–7800. See entitled ’’ Guidance for Industry:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Dated: March 17, 2015. letter, which finds Licensee’s kit to be a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Leslie Kux, medical device substantially equivalent to 552. Associate Commissioner for Policy. one or more similar legally marketed devices, and states that the Licensee’s device can be Dated: March 17, 2015. [FR Doc. 2015–06498 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] marketed in the U.S. (i.e., 510(k) cleared), Richard U. Rodriguez, BILLING CODE 4164–01–P such test kit to be distributed in commerce Acting Director, Office of Technology for the purpose of predicting survival, Transfer, National Institutes of Health. response to therapy, or cancer recurrence in [FR Doc. 2015–06487 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND breast cancer patients.’’ BILLING CODE 4140–01–P HUMAN SERVICES Upon the expiration or termination of National Institutes of Health the exclusive evaluation option license, ProVivoX, Inc., will have the exclusive DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Prospective Grant of Exclusive right to execute an exclusive HUMAN SERVICES License: The Development of commercialization license which will National Institutes of Health Theranostic Kits for mTOR Analog- supersede and replace the exclusive based Chemotherapy evaluation option license with no Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day greater field of use and territory than Comment Request Prevalence, AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, granted in the exclusive evaluation HHS. Incidence, Epidemiology and option license. Molecular Variants of HIV in Blood ACTION: Notice. DATES: Only written comments or Donors in Brazil (NHLBI) SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordance applications for a license (or both) SUMMARY: Under the provisions of with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, which are received by the NIH Office of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork that the National Institutes of Health, Technology Transfer on or before April Reduction Act of 1995, the National Department of Health and Human 7, 2015 will be considered. Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Services, is contemplating the grant to ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the (NHLBI), the National Institutes of ProVivoX, Inc., of an exclusive patent application, inquiries, comments, Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office evaluation option license to practice the and other materials relating to the of Management and Budget (OMB) a inventions embodied in the following contemplated exclusive evaluation request for review and approval of the US Patent, US Patent Application, and option license should be directed to: information collection listed below. International Patent Application (and all Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Licensing and This proposed information collection foreign counterparts): US Provisional Patenting Manager, Office of was previously published in the FR in Patent Application Serial No. 61/ Technology Transfer, National Institutes Volume 79 on December 31, 2014 on 144,501, filed 14 January 2009, entitled: of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, page 78876 and allowed 60-days for ‘‘Ratio-based Biomarker of Survival Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804; public comment. One public comment Utilizing PTEN and Phospho-AKT’’ Telephone: (301) 435–5560; Facsimile: was received that was a personal [HHS Reference No. E–025–2009/0–US– (301) 402–0220; Email: mccuepat@ opinion regarding conducting research 01]; International Application No. PCT/ mail.nih.gov. about the Brazil blood donation system. US2010/020944, filed on 13 January SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The The purpose of this notice is to allow an 2010, entitled: ‘‘Ratio-based Biomarkers technology describes a method of additional 30 days for public comment. and Methods of Use Thereof’’ [HHS identifying cancer patients that may The National Institutes of Health may Reference No. E–025–2009/0–PCT–02]; benefit from mTOR analog-based not conduct or sponsor, and the US Patent Application Serial No. 13/ chemotherapy or agents directed against respondent is not required to respond 144,474, filed 13 July 2011 [HHS the AKT pathway. to, an information collection that has Reference No. E–025–2009/0–US–02]; The prospective exclusive evaluation been extended, revised, or implemented and Canadian Patent Application No. license is being considered under the on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 2,749,601, filed on 13 January 2010 small business initiative launched on 1 displays a currently valid OMB control [HHS Reference No. E–025–2009/0–CA– October 2011, and will comply with the number. 05]. The patent rights in this invention terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 Direct Comments To Omb: Written have been assigned to the Government and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective comments and/or suggestions regarding of the United States of America. exclusive evaluation option license, and the item(s) contained in this notice, The prospective exclusive evaluation a subsequent exclusive especially regarding the estimated option license territory may be United commercialization license, may be public burden and associated response States and Canada, and the field of use granted unless the NIH receives written time, should be directed to the: Office may be limited to: evidence and argument that establishes of Management and Budget, Office of a. ‘‘Exclusive use of the Licensed Patent that the grant of the license would not Regulatory Affairs, OIRA_submission@ Rights to develop an immunohistochemistry be consistent with the requirements of omb.eop.gov or by fax to 202–395–6974, (IHC)- or tissue microarray-based test kit for 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 Attention: Desk Officer for NIH. use with human tissue samples and approved Comments Due Date: Comments in the United States and Canada as a Class within fifteen (15) days from the date of III medical device, such test kit to be this published notice. regarding this information collection are distributed in commerce for the for the Complete applications for a license in best assured of having their full effect if purpose of predicting survival, response to the field of use filed in response to this received within 30 days of the date of therapy, or cancer recurrence in breast cancer notice will be treated as objections to this publication. patients.’’ the grant of the contemplated exclusive FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To b. ‘‘Non-exclusive use of the Licensed evaluation option license. Comments obtain a copy of the data collection Patent Rights to develop an immunohistochemistry (IHC)- or tissue and objections submitted to this notice plans and instruments or request more microarray-based test kit for use with human will not be made available for public information on the proposed project tissue samples and for which the United inspection and, to the extent permitted contact: Simone Glynn, MD, Project States FDA issues an order, in the form of a by law, will not be released under the Officer/ICD Contact, Two Rockledge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15219

Center, Suite 9142, 6701 Rockledge associated with HIV infection by genotyping and drug resistance testing. Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call 301– combining data collected in the The results of the drug resistance testing 435–0065, or Email your request, previous REDS–II project with that are communicated back to the HIV- including your address to: glynnsa@ which will be obtained in the planned positive participants during an in- nhlbi.nih.gov. Formal requests for research activities. person counseling session at the blood additional plans and instruments must Given the initiation of NAT testing for center. For those individuals who do be requested in writing. HIV (and HCV) in Brazil, it will be not return for confirmatory testing, the important to continue to collect Proposed Collection: Prevalence, samples will be anonymized and sent to molecular surveillance and risk factor the REDS–III Central Laboratory to Incidence, Epidemiology and Molecular data on HIV infections. especially now Variants of HIV, in Blood Donors in perform the recent infection testing that infections that might not have been algorithm (RITA). Brazil 0925–0597, Expiration Date, July identified by serology testing alone 31, 2015, Extension, the National Heart, This research effort will allow for an could be recognized through the use of evaluation of trends in the trafficking of Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the NAT. NAT-only infections represent National Institutes of Health (NIH) non-B HIV subtypes and rates of very recently acquired infections. The transmission of drug resistant viral Need and Use of Information NAT assay will continue to be used at strains in low risk blood donors. These Collection: Establishing and monitoring the four REDS–III blood centers in data could also be compared with data viral prevalence and incidence rates, Brazil during the research activities. In from similar studies in higher risk and identifying behavioral risk addition, in order to distinguish populations. Monitoring drug resistance behaviors for HIV infection among between recent seroconversion and strains is extremely important in a donors are critical steps to assessing and long-standing infection, samples from country that provides free anti-retroviral reducing risk of HIV transmission all HIV antibody dual reactive donations therapy for HIV infected individuals, through blood transfusion. Detecting and/or NAT positive donations will many of whom have low level education donors with recently acquired HIV continue to be tested by the Recent and modest resources, thus making infection is particularly critical as it Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) compliance with drug regimens and enables characterization of the viral which is based on use of a sensitive/ hence the risk of drug resistant HIV a subtypes currently transmitted within less-sensitive enzyme immunoassay serious problem. It is worth noting that the screened population. In addition to (‘‘detuned’’ Enzyme Immunoassay). Brazil is the first developing country to characterizing genotypes of recently RITA testing will continue to be implement early treatment initiation for infected donors for purposes of blood performed by the Blood Systems all individuals living with HIV/AIDS safety, molecular surveillance of Research Institute, San Francisco, irrespective of CD4 count; this new incident HIV infections in blood donors California, USA, which is the REDS–III universal treatment policy went into serves important public health roles by Central Laboratory. effect in 2014. identifying new HIV infections for anti- Since Dec 2012, the study has retroviral treatment, and enabling enrolled 223 HIV-positive donors (51 at Findings from this study will be documentation of the rates of primary Hemorio-Rio de Janeiro, 38 at compared to trends in prevalence, transmission of anti-viral drug resistant Hemominas-Minas Gerais, 67 at incidence, and molecular variants from strains in the community. This study is Hemope-Pernambuco and 67 at studies of the general population and a continuation of the current protocol Fundacao Pro-Sangue-Sao Paulo) with a high risk populations in Brazil, thus that is approved by OMB, which expires target enrollment of 500 by 2017. It is allowing for broader and more effective on July 31, 2015, includes both a important to continue the study and monitoring of the HIV epidemic in prospective surveillance and a case enroll more HIV infected donors to Brazil, as well as assessment of the study designed to enroll eligible HIV inform trend analyses. Preliminary impact of donor selection criteria on seropositives detected at four evaluation of data has shown that these parameters. We also propose to participating blood centers in Brazil. respondent donors are completing the continue to examine trends in risk This project is being conducted at the entire questionnaire including behaviors by comparing the data same four blood centers in Brazil, information about their risk behaviors. previously collected to the data we plan located in the cities of Sao Paulo, Recife, According to the Brazilian guidelines, to collect for the next three year period. Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte, but blood donors are requested to return to This will allow for extended trend this time restricted to the study of HIV- the blood bank for HIV confirmatory analyses over a 10-year period that positive subjects. testing and HIV counseling. Donors are complements similar monitoring of HIV The primary study aims are to invited to participate in the study prevalence, incidence, transfusion risk continue monitoring HIV molecular through administration of informed and molecular variants in the USA and variants and risk behaviors in blood consent when they return for HIV other funded international REDS–III donors in Brazil, and to evaluate HIV counseling. Once informed consent has sites in South Africa and China, thus subtype and drug resistance profiles been administered and enrollment has allowing direct comparisons of these among HIV-positive donors according to occurred, participants are asked to parameters on a global level. HIV infection status (recent versus long- complete a confidential self- OMB approval is requested for 3 standing infection), year of donation, administered risk factor questionnaire years. There are no costs to respondents and site of collection. Additional study by computer. In addition, a small blood other than their time. The total objectives include determining trends in sample is collected from each HIV- estimated annualized burden hours are HIV molecular variants and risk factors positive participant to be used for the 40.

Average Total Type of Number of Number of burden per annual Form name respondent respondents responses per response burden respondent (in hours) hour

Risk Factor Informed Consent ...... Adult Donors 100 1 5/60 8

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Average Total Type of Number of Number of burden per annual Form name respondent respondents responses per response burden respondent (in hours) hour

Risk Factor Assessment ...... Adult Donors 100 1 19/60 40

Dated: March 11, 2015. Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Lynn Susulske, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; HUMAN SERVICES NHLBI Project Clearance Liaison, National Telephone (toll free): (866) 403–3697; Institutes of Health. Telephone (local): (301) 427–1111; TTY National Institutes of Health [FR Doc. 2015–06565 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] (toll free): (866) 438–7231; TTY (local): Prospective Grant of an Exclusive BILLING CODE 4141–01–P (301) 427–1130; Email: PSO@ Commercial License Agreement: AHRQ.hhs.gov. Development of 5T4 Antibody-Drug DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conjugates for the Treatment of HUMAN SERVICES Human Cancers Background AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and The Patient Safety Act authorizes the HHS. Quality listing of PSOs, which are entities or ACTION: Notice. component organizations whose Patient Safety Organizations: Expired SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordance Listing From Premerus PSO, LLC mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research safety and the quality of health care Department of Health and Human and Quality (AHRQ), Department of delivery. Health and Human Services (HHS). Services, is contemplating the grant of HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to ACTION: Notice of delisting. an start-up exclusive commercial implement the Patient Safety Act. license to practice the inventions SUMMARY: The Patient Safety and AHRQ administers the provisions of the embodied in U.S. Patent Application Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety No. 62/034,995 entitled ‘‘Human U.S.C. 299b–21 to b–26, (Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation Monoclonal Antibodies Specific for 5T4 Act) and the related Patient Safety and of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule and Methods of Their Use’’ filed August Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an 8, 20014 [HHS Ref. E–158–2014/0–US– CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), entity that attests that it meets the 01] and all related continuing and published in the Federal Register on statutory and regulatory requirements foreign patents/patent applications for November 21, 2008, (73 FR 70732– for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ if the technology family to Concortis, Inc. 70814), provide for the formation of it is found to no longer meet the The patent rights in these inventions Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), requirements of the Patient Safety Act have been assigned to the Government which collect, aggregate, and analyze and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO of the United States of America. The confidential information regarding the chooses to voluntarily relinquish its prospective start-up exclusive quality and safety of healthcare status as a PSO for any reason, or when commercial license territory may be delivery. The Patient Safety Rule the PSO’s listing expires. Section worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the development of 5T4 authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule antibody drug conjugate therapeutics for Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an requires AHRQ to provide public notice entity that attests that it meets the the treatment of human cancers using when it removes an organization from statutory and regulatory requirements Concortis’ proprietary conjugation the list of federally approved PSOs. for listing. A PSO can be ‘‘delisted’’ by technologies. the Secretary if it is found to no longer Premerus PSO, LLC, PSO number P0120, a component entity of Premerus, DATES: Only written comments and/or meet the requirements of the Patient applications for a license which are Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, Inc., chose to let its listing expire by not seeking continued listing. Accordingly, received by the NIH Office of when a PSO chooses to voluntarily Technology Transfer on or before April Premerus PSO, LLC was delisted relinquish its status as a PSO for any 7, 2015 will be considered. effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on reason, or when a PSO’s listing expires. ADDRESSES: January 10, 2015. Requests for copies of the The listing from the Premerus PSO, LLC patent applications, inquiries, has expired and AHRQ has delisted the More information on PSOs can be comments, and other materials relating PSO accordingly. obtained through AHRQ’s PSO Web site to the contemplated exclusive DATES: The directories for both listed at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/ evaluation option license should be and delisted PSOs are ongoing and index.html. directed to: Whitney Hastings, Ph.D., reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The Dated: March 17, 2015. Senior Licensing and Patenting delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight Sharon B. Arnold, Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, ET (2400) on January 10, 2015. National Institutes of Health, 6011 ADDRESSES: Both directories can be Deputy Director, AHRQ. Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, accessed electronically at the following [FR Doc. 2015–06454 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Rockville, MD 20852–3804; Telephone: HHS Web site: http:// BILLING CODE 4160–90–P (301) 451–7337; Facsimile: (301) 402– www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html. 0220; Email: [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5T4 is an Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality antigen expressed in a number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15221

carcinomas. Its expression is limited in not be made available for public that fall under the GDTA contract. This normal tissue, but is prevalent in inspection and, to the extent permitted currently only includes discretionary malignant tumors throughout their by law, will not be released under the grants but is expected to include block development. This confined expression Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. grants in future years. Training and makes it an attractive target for cancer 552. technical assistance from the GDTA immunotherapy. 5T4 is often found in Dated: March 17, 2015. contract will focus on helping grantees colorectal, ovarian, and gastric tumors Richard U. Rodriguez, use their Government and Performance and thus has been used as a prognostic Acting Director, Office of Technology Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) data for aid for these cancers. In addition, its Transfer, National Institutes of Health. performance management and role in antibody-directed [FR Doc. 2015–06488 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] monitoring, and services improvement. immunotherapy for delivering response The information being collected in this BILLING CODE 4140–01–P modifiers to tumors has been studied needs assessment will inform CBHSQ using murine monoclonal antibodies regarding the types of activities (mAbs) and the cancer vaccine TroVax DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SAMHSA’s grants use their funding for (currently in clinical trials for multiple HUMAN SERVICES and what types of training activities solid tumors) targets 5T4. The present they would like to receive in the future. invention describes the identification Substance Abuse and Mental Health Description of Forms: Forms will and characterization of two fully human Services Administration include two questions. The first mAbs (m1001 and m1002) that bind to question asks about the services 5T4. Since the mAbs are fully human, Agency Information Collection provided under the grant. Answer they could have less immunogenicity Activities: Submission for OMB options include activities such as and better safety profiles than the Review; Comment Request behavioral health care services, existing mouse and humanized Periodically, the Substance Abuse and screening, prevention activities, and antibodies. Mental Health Services Administration services to specific populations. The The prospective start-up exclusive (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of second question asks respondents to commercial license is being considered information collection requests under identify topics for training and technical under the small business initiative OMB review, in compliance with the assistance they would like to receive launched on October 1, 2011 and will Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. from a pre-populated list. Answer comply with the terms and conditions Chapter 35). To request a copy of these options include items such as data of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. documents, call the SAMHSA Reports collection, data entry, and using data in The prospective start-up exclusive Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243. creative ways. Both questions have an commercial license may be granted option for respondents to write-in an unless within fifteen (15) days from the Project: Grantee Data Technical answer that is not included in the list. date of this published notice, the NIH Assistance (GDTA) Training Needs Description of Respondents: The receives written evidence and argument Assessment Survey for SAMHSA respondent universe for this data that establishes that the grant of the Grantees-NEW collection effort is one Project Director license would not be consistent with the In 2014, the Center for Behavioral from each SAMHSA-funded grants requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) being served by the GDTA contract. This CFR part 404. funded the GDTA contract to provide currently only includes discretionary Any additional, properly filed, and training and technical assistance to all grants but is expected to include block complete applications for a license in grantees receiving funding from the grants in future years. There are the field of use filed in response to this Center for Substance Abuse Treatment currently 2,670 SAMHSA-funded notice will be treated as objections to (CSAT), the Center for Mental Health discretionary grants served by the GDTA the grant of the contemplated exclusive Services (CMHS), and some grantees contract, therefore this is the number of commercial license. Comments and receiving funding from the Center for respondents expected for this data objections submitted to this notice will Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) collection effort.

TABLE 1—ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATE

Annual Form name Number of responses per Total annual Hours per Total annual respondents respondent responses response hour burden

Grantee Needs Assessment ...... 2,670 1 2,670 0.1 267

Written comments and their comments to OMB via email to: Affairs, New Executive Office Building, recommendations concerning the [email protected]. Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503. proposed information collection should Although commenters are encouraged to Summer King, be sent by April 22, 2015 to the send their comments via email, SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of commenters may also fax their Statistician. Information and Regulatory Affairs, comments to: 202–395–7285. [FR Doc. 2015–06532 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Office of Management and Budget Commenters may also mail them to: BILLING CODE 4162–20–P (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of Office of Management and Budget, comments, and to avoid potential delays Office of Information and Regulatory in OMB’s receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND composite items, 14 items measure how services; quality measurement and HUMAN SERVICES often medical offices have problems improvement; and database exchanging information with other development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), Agency for Healthcare Research and settings and other patient safety and and (8). Quality quality issues. AHRQ made the survey Method of Collection publicly available along with a Survey Agency Information Collection User’s Guide and other toolkit materials To achieve the goal of this project the Activities: Proposed Collection; in December 2008 on the AHRQ Web following activities and data collections Comment Request site (located at http://www.ahrq.gov/ will be implemented: professionals/quality-patient-safety/ (1) Eligibility and Registration Form— AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research The medical office point-of-contact and Quality, HHS. patientsafetyculture/medical-office/ index.html). Since its release, the survey (POC) completes a number of data ACTION: Notice. has been voluntarily used by hundreds submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of an online SUMMARY: This notice announces the of medical offices in the U.S. eligibility and registration form. The intention of the Agency for Healthcare The Medical Office SOPS purpose of this form is to determine the Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Medical Office Survey eligibility status and initiate the that the Office of Management and registration process for medical offices Budget (OMB) approve the proposed on Patient Safety Culture. Medical offices in the U.S. are asked to seeking to voluntarily submit their information collection project: ‘‘Medical Medical Office SOPS data to the Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor Westat. Medical Office SOPS Comparative Comparative Database.’’ In accordance Database. with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 The Medical Office SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935–0196, last approved on (2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the of the data use agreement, completed by public to comment on this proposed June 12, 2012) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from the medical office POC, is to state how information collection. medical offices interested in knowing data submitted by medical offices will DATES: Comments on this notice must be how their patient safety culture survey be used and provides confidentiality received by May 22, 2015. results compare to those of other assurances. ADDRESSES: Written comments should medical offices in their efforts to (3) Medical Office Site Information be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, improve patient safety. Form—The purpose of the site Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by Rationale for the information information form is to obtain basic email at [email protected]. collection. The Medical Office SOPS information about the characteristics of Copies of the proposed collection and the Comparative Database support the medical offices submitting their plans, data collection instruments, and AHRQ’s goals of promoting Medical Office SOPS data to the specific details on the estimated burden improvements in the quality and safety Medical Office SOPS Comparative can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports of health care in medical office settings. Database (e.g. number of providers and Clearance Officer. The survey, toolkit materials, and staff, ownership, and type of specialty). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comparative database results are all The medical office POC completes the Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports made publicly available on AHRQ’s form. Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by Web site. Technical assistance is (4) Data Files Submission—The email at [email protected]. provided by AHRQ through its number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contractor at no charge to medical offices, to facilitate the use of these medical offices do not administer the Proposed Project materials for medical office patient survey and submit data every year. Data safety and quality improvement. submission is typically handled by one Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety POC who is either an office manager, Culture Comparative Database The goal of this project is to renew the Medical Office SOPS Comparative nurse manager, or a survey vendor who Background on the Medical Office Database. This Database will: contracts with a medical office to collect Survey on Patient Safety Culture (1) Allow medical offices to compare their data. POCs submit data on behalf (Medical Office SOPS). In 1999, the their patient safety culture survey of 10 medical offices, on average, Institute of Medicine called for health results with those of other medical because many medical offices are part of care organizations to develop a ‘‘culture offices, a health system that includes many of safety’’ such that their workforce and (2) Provide data to medical offices to medical office sites, or the POC is a processes focus on improving the facilitate internal assessment and vendor that is submitting data for reliability and safety of care for patients learning in the patient safety multiple medical offices. After (IOM, 1999; To Err is Human: Building improvement process, and registering, if registrants are deemed a Safer Health System). To respond to (3) Provide supplemental information eligible to submit data, an automated the need for tools to assess patient safety to help medical offices identify their email is sent to authenticate the account culture in health care, AHRQ developed strengths and areas with potential for and update the user password. Next the and pilot tested the Medical Office improvement in patient safety culture. POC enters medical office information SOPS with OMB approval (OMB NO. This study is being conducted by and uploads the survey questionnaire 0935–0131; Approved July 5, 2007). AHRQ through its contractor Westat, and submits a data use agreement. POCs The survey is designed to enable pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory authority then upload their data file(s), using the medical offices to assess provider and to conduct and support research on medical office data file specifications, to staff opinions about patient safety health care and on systems for the ensure that users submit standardized issues, medical error, and error delivery of such care, including and consistent data in the way variables reporting. The survey includes 38 items activities with respect to: The quality, are named, coded, and formatted. that measure 10 composites of patient effectiveness, efficiency, Survey data from the AHRQ Medical safety culture. In addition to the appropriateness and value of health care Office SOPS are used to produce three

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15223

types of products: (1) A Medical Office with other settings and other patient in their efforts to improve patient safety SOPS Comparative Database Report that safety and quality issues. The report and health care quality. is produced periodically and made also displays these results by medical publicly available on the AHRQ Web office characteristics (size of office, Estimated Annual Respondent Burden site (see http://www.ahrq.gov/ specialty, geographic region, etc.) and Exhibit 1 shows the estimated professionals/quality-patient-safety/ respondent characteristics (staff annualized burden hours for the patientsafetyculture/medical-office/ position). respondents’ time to participate in the 2014/index.html); (2) Individual Data submitted by medical offices are database. An estimated 150 POCs, each Medical Office Survey Feedback Reports used to give each medical office its own representing an average of 10 individual that are confidential, customized reports customized survey feedback report that produced for each medical office that presents the medical office’s results medical offices each, will complete the submits data to the database (the compared to the latest comparative database submission steps and forms number of reports produced is based on database results. annually. Completing the registration the number of medical offices Medical offices use the Medical Office form will take about 3 minutes. The submitting each year); and (3) Research SOPS, Comparative Database Reports Medical Office Information Form is data sets of individual-level and and Individual Medical Office Survey completed by all POCs for each of their medical office-level de-identified data to Feedback Reports for a number of medical offices (150 × 10 = 1,500 forms enable researchers to conduct analyses. purposes, to in total) and is estimated to take 5 Medical offices are asked to • Raise staff awareness about patient minutes to complete. Each POC will voluntarily submit their Medical Office safety. complete a data use agreement which SOPS survey data to the Comparative • Diagnose and assess the current takes 3 minutes to complete and Database. The data are then cleaned and status of patient safety culture in their submitting the data will take an hour on aggregated and used to produce a medical office. average. The total burden is estimated to • Comparative Database Report that Identify strengths and areas for be 291 hours. displays averages, standard deviations, improvement in patient safety culture. and percentile scores on the survey’s 38 • Evaluate the cultural impact of Exhibit 2 shows the estimated items that measure 10 composites of patient safety initiatives and annualized cost burden based on the patient safety culture, and 14 items interventions. respondents’ time to submit their data. measuring how often medical offices • Compare patient safety culture The cost burden is estimated to be have problems exchanging information survey results with other medical offices $13,968 annually.

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Number of Number of Form name respondents/ responses Hours per Total burden POCs per POC response hours

Eligibility/Registration Form ...... 150 1 3/60 8 Data Use Agreement ...... 150 1 3/60 8 Medical Office Information Form ...... 150 10 5/60 125 Data Files Submission ...... 150 1 1 150

Total ...... 600 NA NA 291

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Number of Average Form name respondents/ Total burden hourly wage Total cost POCs hours rate * burden

Registration Form ...... 150 8 $48.00 $384 Data Use Agreement ...... 150 8 48.00 384 Medical Office Information Form ...... 150 125 48.00 6,000 Data Files Submission ...... 150 150 48.00 7,200

Total ...... 600 816 NA 13,968 * Mean hourly wage rate of $48.00 for Medical and Health Services Managers (SOC code 11–9111) was obtained from the May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 621100—Offices of Physicians located at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/ may/naics4_621100.htm.

Request for Comments dissemination functions, including respondents, including the use of whether the information will have automated collection techniques or In accordance with the Paperwork practical utility; (b) the accuracy of other forms of information technology. Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including Comments submitted in response to information collection are requested hours and costs) of the proposed this notice will be summarized and with regard to any of the following: (a) collection(s) of information; (c) ways to included in the Agency’s subsequent Whether the proposed collection of enhance the quality, utility, and clarity request for OMB approval of the information is necessary for the proper of the information to be collected; and proposed information collection. All performance of AHRQ health care (d) ways to minimize the burden of the comments will become a matter of research and health care information collection of information upon the public record.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Dated: March 17, 2015. matching program with the federal The information collection activities Sharon B. Arnold, Office of Child Support Enforcement for the SNAP reports are authorized by: Deputy Director, AHRQ. (OCSE). The outcomes of the (1) Subsection 453 (j)(10) of the Social [FR Doc. 2015–06450 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] computerized comparisons with Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10)), BILLING CODE 4160–90–P information maintained in the National which allows the Secretary of the U.S. Directory of New Hires (NDNH) provide Department of Health and Human the state SNAP agencies with Services to disclose information DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND information to help administer their maintained in the NDNH to state HUMAN SERVICES programs and in determining an agencies administering SNAP under the individual’s eligibility. State agencies Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended by Administration for Children and must enter into a computer matching the Agriculture Act of 2014; (2) the Families agreement and adhere to its terms and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the conditions, including providing OCSE Computer Matching and Privacy Proposed Information Collection with annual performance outcomes Activity; Comment Request Protection Act of 1988 (5 U.S.C. 552a), attributable to the use of NDNH which sets for the terms and conditions information. Proposed Projects: of a computer matching program; and Title: Supplemental Nutrition The Office of Management and Budget requires OCSE to periodically report (3) the Government Performance and Assistance Program (SNAP) Agency Results Modernization Act of 2010 (Pub. Matching Program Performance performance measurements demonstrating how the use of L. 111–352), which requires agencies to Reporting Tool. report program performance outcomes OMB No.: New Collection. information in the NDNH supports Description: State agencies OCSE’s strategic mission, goals, and to the Office of Management and Budget administering a Supplemental Nutrition objectives. OCSE will provide the and for the reports to be available to the Assistance Program (SNAP) are annual SNAP performance outcomes to public. mandated to participate in a computer the Office of Management and Budget. Respondents: State SNAP agencies.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

SNAP Agency Matching Program Performance Reporting Tool ...... 54 1 1.625 88

In compliance with the requirements other forms of information technology. by May 15th of a given year to be of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Consideration will be given to considered for appointment to begin in Reduction Act of 1995, the comments and suggestions submitted January of the following year. Administration for Children and within 60 days of this publication. Arrangement for Public Inspection Families is soliciting public comment Robert Sargis, on the specific aspects of the Nominations and applications are information collection described above. Reports Clearance Officer. kept on file at the Center for Evidence Copies of the proposed collection of [FR Doc. 2015–06443 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] and Practice Improvement, AHRQ, and information can be obtained and BILLING CODE 4184–01–P are available for review during business comments may be forwarded by writing hours. AHRQ does not reply to to the Administration for Children and individual nominations, but considers Families, Office of Planning, Research DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND all nominations in selecting members. and Evaluation, 370 L’Enfant HUMAN SERVICES Information regarded as private and Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Agency for Healthcare Research and personal, such as a nominee’s social Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Quality security number, home and email Email address: infocollection@ addresses, home telephone and fax acf.hhs.gov. All requests should be Solicitation for Nominations for numbers, or names of family members identified by the title of the information Members of the U.S. Preventive will not be disclosed to the public (in collection. Services Task Force (USPSTF) accord with the Freedom of Information The Department specifically requests Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); 45 CFR 5.67). AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research comments on: (a) Whether the proposed Nomination Submissions collection of information is necessary and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. for the proper performance of the ACTION: Solicits nominations for new Nominations may be submitted in functions of the agency, including members of USPSTF. writing or electronically, but should whether the information shall have include: practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SUMMARY: The Agency for Healthcare 1. The applicant’s current curriculum agency’s estimate of the burden of the Research and Quality (AHRQ) invites vitae and contact information, including proposed collection of information; (c) nominations of individuals qualified to mailing address, email address, and the quality, utility, and clarity of the serve as members of the U.S. Preventive telephone number, and information to be collected; and (d) Services Task Force (USPSTF). 2. A letter explaining how this ways to minimize the burden of the DATES: All nominations submitted in individual meets the qualification collection of information on writing or electronically will be requirements and how he/she would respondents, including through the use considered for appointment to the contribute to the USPSTF. The letter of automated collection techniques or USPSTF. Nominations must be received should also attest to the nominee’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15225

willingness to serve as a member of the substantively to the work products of adults and children, and include USPSTF. the USPSTF. screening tests, counseling services, and AHRQ will later ask persons under ADDRESSES: Submit your responses preventive medications. serious consideration for USPSTF either in writing or electronically to: The USPSTF was first established in membership to provide detailed Lydia Hill, ATTN: USPSTF 1984 under the auspices of the U.S. information that will permit evaluation Nominations, Center for Evidence and Public Health Service. Currently, the of possible significant conflicts of Practice Improvement, Agency for USPSTF is convened by the Director of interest. Such information will concern Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 AHRQ, and AHRQ provides ongoing matters such as financial holdings, Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland scientific, administrative, and consultancies, and research grants or 20850, USPSTFmembernominations@ dissemination support for the USPSTF’s contracts. ahrq.hhs.gov. To obtain a diversity of perspectives, operation. USPSTF members serve four AHRQ particularly encourages Nominee Selection year terms. New members are selected nominations of women, members of Nominated individuals will be each year to replace those members who minority populations, and persons with selected for the USPSTF on the basis of are completing their appointments. disabilities. Interested individuals can their qualifications (in particular, those The USPSTF is charged with self-nominate. Organizations and that address the required qualifications, rigorously evaluating the effectiveness, individuals may nominate one or more as outlined) and the current expertise appropriateness and cost-effectiveness persons qualified for membership on the needs of the USPSTF. It is anticipated of clinical preventive services and USPSTF at any time. Individuals that new members will be invited to formulating or updating nominated prior to May 15, 2014, who serve on the USPSTF beginning in recommendations regarding the continue to have interest in serving on January, 2016. All nominated appropriate provision of preventive the USPSTF, should be re-nominated. individuals will be considered; services. See 42 U.S.C. 299b–4(a)(1). however, strongest consideration will be Qualification Requirements Current USPSTF recommendations and given to individuals with demonstrated associated evidence reviews are To qualify for the USPSTF and training and expertise in the areas of available on the Internet (www.us support its mission, an applicant or Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, nominee should, at a minimum, Nursing and Preventive Medicine. preventiveservicestaskforce.org). demonstrate knowledge, expertise and AHRQ will retain and may consider USPSTF members currently meet national leadership in the following nominations received this year and not three times a year for two days in the areas: selected during this cycle for future Washington, DC area. A significant 1. The critical evaluation of research vacancies. portion of the USPSTF’s work occurs published in peer reviewed literature Some USPSTF members without between meetings during conference and in the methods of evidence review; primary health care clinical experience calls and via email discussions. Member 2. Clinical prevention, health may be selected based on their expertise duties include prioritizing topics, promotion and primary health care; and in methodological issues such as meta- designing research plans, reviewing and 3. Implementation of evidence-based analysis, analytic modeling or clinical commenting on systematic evidence recommendations in clinical practice epidemiology. For individuals with reviews of evidence, discussing and including at the clinician-patient level, clinical expertise in primary health care, making recommendations on preventive practice level, and health system level. additional qualifications in services, reviewing stakeholder Additionally, the Task Force benefits methodology would enhance their comments, drafting final from members with expertise in the candidacy. following areas: recommendation documents, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participating in workgroups on specific D Public health Lydia Hill at USPSTFmember topics and methods. Members can D Health equity and the reduction of [email protected]. expect to receive frequent emails, can health disparities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: D Application of science to health expect to participate in multiple policy Background conference calls each month, and can D Behavioral medicine expect to have periodic interaction with Under Title IX of the Public Health stakeholders. AHRQ estimates that D Communication of scientific findings Service Act, AHRQ is charged with members devote approximately 200 to multiple audiences including health enhancing the quality, appropriateness, hours a year outside of in-person care professionals, policy makers and and effectiveness of health care services the general public. and access to such services 42 U.S.C. meetings to their USPSTF duties. The Candidates with experience and skills 299(b). AHRQ accomplishes these goals members are all volunteers and do not in any of these areas should highlight through scientific research and receive any compensation beyond them in their nomination materials. promotion of improvements in clinical support for travel to in person meetings. Applicants must have no substantial practice, including clinical prevention Dated: March 17, 2015. conflicts of interest, whether financial, of diseases and other health conditions. Sharon B. Arnold, professional, or intellectual, that would See 42 U.S.C. 299(b). Deputy Director, AHRQ. impair the scientific integrity of the The USPSTF, an independent body of work of the USPSTF and must be experts in prevention and evidence- [FR Doc. 2015–06452 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] willing to complete regular conflict of based medicine, works to improve the BILLING CODE P interest disclosures. health of all Americans by making Applicants must have the ability to evidence-based recommendations about work collaboratively with a team of the effectiveness of clinical preventive diverse professionals who support the services and health promotion. The mission of the USPSTF. Applicants recommendations made by the USPSTF must have adequate time to contribute address clinical preventive services for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; Australian Patent Application No. HUMAN SERVICES 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 2011336650 entitled, ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/ Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, human ROR1 antibodies’’ filed National Institutes of Health HHS) November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E–039– Dated: March 17, 2015. 2011/0–AU–03], Canadian Patent National Cancer Institute; Notice of Melanie J. Gray, Application No. 2818992 entitled, Closed Meetings Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Committee Policy. antibodies’’ filed November 30, 2011 Federal Advisory Committee Act, as [FR Doc. 2015–06477 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] [HHS Ref. E–039–2011/0–CA–04], amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is BILLING CODE 4140–01–P European Patent Application No. hereby given of the following meetings. 11791733.6 entitled, ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/ The meetings will be closed to the human ROR1 antibodies’’ filed public in accordance with the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND November 30, 2011 [HHS Ref. E–039– provisions set forth in sections HUMAN SERVICES 2011/0–EP–05] and U.S. Patent 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Application No. 13/990,977 entitled, as amended. The grant applications and National Institutes of Health ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 the discussions could disclose Prospective Grant of Start-up antibodies’’ filed May 31, 2013 [HHS confidential trade secrets or commercial Exclusive Evaluation Option License Ref. E–039–2011/0–US–06] and all property such as patentable material, Agreement: Pre-Clinical Evaluation related continuing and foreign patents/ and personal information concerning and Commercial Development of Anti- patent applications for the technology individuals associated with the grant Tyrosine Kinase-Like Orphan Receptor family to NBE Therapeutics, Ltd. The applications, the disclosure of which 1 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the patent rights in these inventions have would constitute a clearly unwarranted Treatment of Human Cancers been assigned to the Government of the invasion of personal privacy. United States of America. Name of Committee: National Cancer AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, The prospective start-up exclusive Institute Special Emphasis Panel; New HHS. evaluation option license territory may Approaches to Synthetic Lethality for Mutant ACTION: Notice. be worldwide and the field of use may KRas-Dependent Cancers (U01). be limited to pre-clinical evaluation and Date: April 13, 2015. SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordance Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. commercial development of an with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, antibody-drug conjugate comprising an Agenda: To review and evaluate grant that the National Institutes of Health, applications. anti-tyrosine protein kinase Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Department of Health and Human transmembrane receptor (ROR1) Grove; 9609 Medical Center Drive; Room Services, is contemplating the grant of a antibody for the treatment of human 7W032; Rockville, MD 20850; (Telephone start-up exclusive evaluation option ROR1 expressing cancers utilizing Conference Call). license agreement to practice the enzymatic conjugation methods linking Contact Person: Clifford W. Schweinfest, inventions embodied in U.S. Patent a small molecule to a full-length Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Special Application No. 61/172,099 entitled Review Branch; Division of Extramural antibody, wherein the full-length ‘‘Anti-human ROR1 Antibodies’’ filed antibody moiety comprises the anti- Activities; National Cancer Institute, NIH; April 23, 2009 [HHS Ref. E–097–2009/ 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W108; ROR1 antibodies or CDR3s within the Bethesda, MD 20892–9750; 240–276–6343; 0–US–01], PCT Application No. PCT/ scope of the Licensed Patent Rights. For [email protected]. US2010/032208 entitled ‘‘Anti-human avoidance of doubt, this Agreement Name of Committee: National Cancer ROR1 Antibodies’’ filed April 23, 2010 explicitly excludes the following: (a) Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee [HHS Ref. E–097–2009/0–PCT–02], Antibody-drug conjugates utilizing non- A—Cancer Centers. European Patent Application No. enzymatic conjugation linking small Date: May 7, 2015. 10715077.3 entitled, ‘‘Anti-human molecules to said antibodies, (b) Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ROR1 Antibodies’’ filed October 24, immunotoxins comprising anti-ROR1 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E–097–2009/0–EP– antibodies and Pseudomonas exotoxins, applications. 03], U.S. Patent Application No. 13/ and (c) non-full-length bispecific Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda; 265,582 entitled, ‘‘Anti-human ROR1 antibodies. Upon expiration or (Formerly Holiday Inn Select); 8120 Antibodies’’ filed October 21, 2011 Wisconsin Avenue; Bethesda, MD 20814. termination of the start-up exclusive Contact Person: Shamala K. Srinivas, [HHS Ref. No. E–097–2009/0–US–04], evaluation option license, NBE Ph.D.; Associate Director; Office of Referral, Australian Patent Application No. Therapeutics, Ltd. will have the right to Review, and Program Coordination; Division 2010238723 entitled, ‘‘Anti-human execute a start-up exclusive patent of Extramural Activities; National Cancer ROR1 Antibodies’’ filed October 21, commercialization license which will Institute, NIH; 9609 Medical Center Drive, 2011 [HHS Ref. No. E–097–2009/0–AU– supersede and replace the start-up 7W530; Bethesda, MD 20892–9750; 240–276– 04], Canadian Patent Application No. exclusive evaluation option license with 6442; [email protected]. 2,759,733 entitled, ‘‘Anti-human ROR1 no broader territory than granted in the Information is also available on the Antibodies’’ filed October 21, 2011 start-up exclusive evaluation option Institute’s/Center’s home page: http:// [HHS Ref. No. E–097–2009/0–CA–05], license and the field of use will be deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, US Provisional Application No. 61/ commensurate with the commercial where an agenda and any additional 418,550 entitled, ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/ information for the meeting will be posted development plan at the time of when available. human ROR1 antibodies’’ filed conversion. December 1, 2010 [HHS Ref. E–039– (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance DATED: Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 2011/0–US–01], PCT Application No. Only written comments and/or 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention PCT/US2011/062670 entitled, applications for a license which are Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and ‘‘Chimeric rabbit/human ROR1 received by the NIH Office of Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer antibodies’’ filed November 30, 2011 Technology Transfer on or before April Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology [HHS Ref. E–039–2011/0–PCT–02]; 6, 2015 will be considered.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15227

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Dated: March 17, 2015. patent applications, inquiries, HUMAN SERVICES Melanie J. Gray, comments, and other materials relating Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory to the contemplated exclusive National Institutes of Health Committee Policy. evaluation option license should be [FR Doc. 2015–06476 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] National Cancer Institute; Notice of directed to: Jennifer Wong, M.S., Senior BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office Closed Meeting of Technology Transfer, National Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD HUMAN SERVICES amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2); notice 20852–3804; Telephone: (301) 435– is hereby given of the following National Institutes of Health 4633; Facsimile: (301) 402–0220; Email: meeting. [email protected]. The meeting will be closed to the Center for Scientific Review; Notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tyrosine public in accordance with the Closed Meetings kinase-like orphan receptor 1 (ROR1) is provisions set forth in sections Pursuant to section 10(d) of the a signature cell surface antigen for B-cell 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Federal Advisory Committee Act, as malignancies, most notably, B-cell as amended. The purpose of this amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B–CLL) meeting is to evaluate requests for hereby given of the following meetings. and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) cells, preclinical development resources for The meetings will be closed to the two incurable diseases. The potential new therapeutics for the public in accordance with the investigators have developed a portfolio treatment of cancer. The outcome of the provisions set forth in sections of chimeric anti-ROR1 monoclonal evaluation will provide information to 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., antibodies that selectively target ROR1 internal NCI committees that will as amended. The grant applications and malignant B-cells but not normal B- decide whether NCI should support the discussions could disclose cells. These antibodies may be linked to requests and make available contract confidential trade secrets or commercial chemical drugs or biological toxins thus resources for development of the property such as patentable material, providing targeted cytotoxic delivery to potential therapeutic to improve the and personal information concerning malignant B-cells while sparing normal treatment of various forms of cancer. individuals associated with the grant cells. Moreover, as these antibodies The research proposals and the applications, the disclosure of which selectively target ROR1, they can also be discussions could disclose confidential would constitute a clearly unwarranted used to diagnose B-cell malignancies. trade secrets or commercial property invasion of personal privacy. such as patentable material, and The prospective start-up exclusive Name of Committee: Center for Scientific evaluation option license is being personal information concerning Review Special Emphasis Panel; Drug considered under the small business individuals associated with the Discovery. initiative launched on October 1, 2011 proposed research projects, the Date: April 2, 2015. and will comply with the terms and disclosure of which would constitute a Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR clearly unwarranted invasion of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant part 404. The prospective start-up personal privacy. applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 exclusive evaluation option license, and Name of Committee: National Cancer Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, a subsequent start-up exclusive patent Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Feb2015 (Telephone Conference Call). commercialization license, may be Cycle 19 NExT SEP Committee Meeting. Contact Person: Peter B. Guthrie, Ph.D., granted unless within fifteen (15) days Date: April 29, 2015. Scientific Review Officer, Center for from the date of this published notice, Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Scientific Review, National Institutes of the NIH receives written evidence and Agenda: To evaluate the NCI Experimental Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4142, argument that establishes that the grant Therapeutics Program Portfolio. MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 1239, [email protected]. of the license would not be consistent Rockville Pike, Campus Building 31, with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 This notice is being published less than 15 Conference Room 6C10, Bethesda, MD 20892. days prior to the meeting due to the timing and 37 CFR part 404. Contact Persons: Barbara Mroczkowski, limitations imposed by the review and Any additional, properly filed, and Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Discovery funding cycle. complete applications for a license in Experimental Therapeutics Program, Name of Committee: Center for Scientific National Cancer Institute, NIH, 31 Center the field of use filed in response to this Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Drive, Room 3A44, Bethesda, MD 20817, Conflict: Exercise in aging, ischemia imaging. notice will be treated as objections to (301) 496–4291, [email protected]; the grant of the contemplated start-up Date: April 2, 2015. Joseph Tomaszewski, Ph.D., Executive Time: 12:01 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. exclusive evaluation option license. Secretary, Development Experimental Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Comments and objections submitted to Therapeutics Program, National Cancer applications. this notice will not be made available Institute, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 3A44, Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 for public inspection and, to the extent Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 496–6711, Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, permitted by law, will not be released [email protected]. (Telephone Conference Call). under the Freedom of Information Act, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, Ph.D., 5 U.S.C. 552. Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; IRG CHIEF, Center for Scientific Review, 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dated: March 16, 2015. Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD Richard U. Rodriguez, Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 20892, (301) 435–1246, Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology [email protected]. Acting Director, Office of Technology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; Transfer, National Institutes of Health. This notice is being published less than 15 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, days prior to the meeting due to the timing [FR Doc. 2015–06486 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, limitations imposed by the review and BILLING CODE 4140–01–P HHS) funding cycle.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15228 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance proposed collection of information, together cancer biologists and Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; including the validity of the oncologists with scientists from the 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, methodology and assumptions used; (3) fields of physics, mathematics, 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and chemistry, and engineering to address 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) clarity of the information to be some of the major questions and barriers collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the in cancer research. As part of this burden of the collection of information Dated: March 18, 2015. initiative, evaluation plans were on those who are to respond, including developed and consisted of three Michelle Trout, the use of appropriate automated, components, dependent on which year Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory electronic, mechanical, or other the initiative is in: Prospective for Committee Policy. technological collection techniques or beginning, structured for mid-point, and [FR Doc. 2015–06596 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] other forms of information technology. summative/full outcome evaluation for BILLING CODE 4140–01–P To Submit Comments And For a decade after the program started. In Further Information: To obtain a copy of 2015 the PSO Initiative is transitioning the data collection plans and from the beginning to a mid-point DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND instruments, submit comments in HUMAN SERVICES phase, which represents a critical time writing, or request more information on to reflect on the initial outcomes and National Institutes of Health the proposed project, contact: Nicole restructure the process evaluation to Moore, Division of Cancer Biology, 9609 account for changes mid-way through Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Medical Center Drive, Room 6W508, the initiative. This proposed request is Request; Process and Outcomes Bethesda, MD 20892–9714 or call non- to conduct on-line surveys with current Evaluation of NCI Physical Sciences in toll-free number 301–325–7534 or Email and former trainees and NCI grantees Oncology Centers (PS–OC) Initiative your request, including your address to: associated with the program and (NCI) [email protected]. Formal requests comparison groups. Additionally, an for additional plans and instruments assessment of publications generated SUMMARY: In compliance with the must be requested in writing. through the PS–OC program will be requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Comment Due Date: Comments conducted via a virtual expert review the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, regarding this information collection are panel. The evaluation will address for opportunity for public comment on best assured of having their full effect if trainee development and career path proposed data collection projects, the received within 60 days of the date of post program involvement as well as the National Cancer Institute (NCI), this publication. National Institutes of Health (NIH), will impact of the program involvement on publish periodic summaries of proposed Proposed Collection: Process and program outputs. Results from both the projects to be submitted to the Office of Outcomes Evaluation of NCI Physical surveys and the expert peer reviewer Management and Budget (OMB) for Sciences in Oncology Centers (PS–OC) panel will assess research innovation review and approval. Initiative (NCI), 0925–NEW, National from the program and inform the future Written comments and/or suggestions Cancer Institute (NCI), National development of the PSO Initiative. This from the public and affected agencies Institutes of Health (NIH) request is to gain OMB approval for the are invited on one or more of the Need and Use of Information new submission titled, ‘‘Process and following points: (1) Whether the Collection: The NCI launched the Outcomes Evaluation of NCI Physical proposed collection of information is Physical Sciences—Oncology Center Sciences in Oncology Centers (PS–OC) necessary for the proper performance of (PS–OC; http://physics.cancer.gov/) Initiative (NCI)’’ for 1 year. the function of the agency, including program in 2009 as Phase I of the OMB approval is requested for 1 year. whether the information will have Physical Sciences in Oncology (PSO) There are no costs to respondents other practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the Initiative. The PSO Initiative seeks to than their time. The total estimated agency’s estimate of the burden of the establish research projects that bring annualized burden hours are 955.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Average Number of Number of burden per Total annual Instrument Type of respondent respondents responses per response burden hour respondent (in hours)

Survey ...... Current NCI Trainees ...... 210 1 25/60 88 Survey ...... Former NCI Trainees ...... 340 1 25/60 142 Survey ...... NCI Grantees ...... 300 1 25/60 125 Scoring Sheet ...... Expert Reviewers ...... 75 1 8 600

Dated: March 16, 2015. Karla Bailey, NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. 2015–06535 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15229

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUMMARY: This notice announces the The Nursing Home SOPS database HUMAN SERVICES intention of the Agency for Healthcare (OMB NO. 0935–0195, last approved on Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request June 12, 2012) was developed by AHRQ National Institutes of Health that the Office of Management and in 2011 in response to requests from Budget (OMB) approve the proposed nursing homes interested in knowing National Institute of Neurological information collection project: ‘‘Nursing how their patient safety culture survey Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture results compare to those of other Meeting Comparative Database.’’ In accordance nursing homes in their efforts to Pursuant to section 10(d) of the with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 improve patient safety. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the Rationale for the information amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is public to comment on this proposed collection. The Nursing Home SOPS and hereby given of the following meeting. information collection. the Comparative Database support The meeting will be closed to the DATES: Comments on this notice must be AHRQ’s goals of promoting public in accordance with the received by May 22, 2015. improvements in the quality and safety provisions set forth in sections ADDRESSES: Written comments should of health care in nursing home settings. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, The survey, toolkit materials, and as amended. The grant applications and Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by comparative database results are all the discussions could disclose email at [email protected]. made publicly available on AHRQ’s confidential trade secrets or commercial Copies of the proposed collection Web site. Technical assistance is property such as patentable material, plans, data collection instruments, and provided by AHRQ through its and personal information concerning specific details on the estimated burden contractor at no charge to nursing individuals associated with the grant can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports homes to facilitate the use of these applications, the disclosure of which Clearance Officer. materials for nursing home patient would constitute a clearly unwarranted safety and quality improvement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: invasion of personal privacy. The goal of this project is to renew the Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Nursing Home SOPS Comparative Name of Committee: National Institute of Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by Database. This database will: Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special email at [email protected]. Emphasis Panel; Biomarker. (1) Allow nursing homes to compare Date: April 16, 2015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: their patient safety culture survey Time: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Proposed Project results with those of other nursing Agenda: To review and evaluate grant homes, applications. Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety (2) Provide data to nursing homes to Place: National Institutes of Health; Culture Comparative Database Neuroscience Center; 6001 Executive facilitate internal assessment and Boulevard; Rockville, MD 20852; (Telephone Background on the Nursing Home learning in the patient safety Conference Call). Survey on Patient Safety Culture improvement process, and Contact Person: Joel A. Saydoff, Ph.D.; (Nursing Home SOPS). In 1999, the (3) Provide supplemental information Scientific Review Officer; Scientific Review Institute of Medicine called for health to help nursing homes identify their Branch; Division of Extramural Research; care organizations to develop a ‘‘culture strengths and areas with potential for NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center; of safety’’ such that their workforce and improvement in patient safety culture. 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3205, MSC processes focus on improving the 9529; Bethesda, MD 20892–9529; 301–496– This study is being conducted by 9223; [email protected]. reliability and safety of care for patients AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (IOM, 1999; To Err is Human: Building pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory authority Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research a Safer Health System). To respond to to conduct and support research on Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, the need for tools to assess patient safety health care and on systems for the Biological Basis Research in the culture in health care, AHRQ developed delivery of such care, including Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, and pilot tested the Nursing Home activities with respect to: the quality, HHS) SOPS with OMB approval (OMB NO. effectiveness, efficiency, Dated: March 17, 2015. 0935–0132; Approved July 5, 2007). appropriateness and value of health care Carolyn Baum, The survey is designed to enable services; quality measurement and Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory nursing homes to assess provider and improvement; and database Committee Policy. staff opinions about patient safety development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), [FR Doc. 2015–06475 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] issues, medical error, and error and (8). reporting and includes 42 items that BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Method of Collection measure 12 dimensions of patient safety culture. AHRQ made the survey To achieve the goal of this project the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND publicly available along with a Survey following activities and data collections HUMAN SERVICES User’s Guide and other toolkit materials will be implemented: in November 2008 on the AHRQ Web (1) Eligibility and Registration Form— Agency for Healthcare Research and site (located at http://www.ahrq.gov/ The nursing home (or parent Quality professionals/quality-patient-safety/ organization) point of contact (POC) patientsafetyculture/nursing-home/ completes a number of data submission Agency Information Collection index.html). steps and forms, beginning with the Activities: Proposed Collection; The AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS completion of an online eligibility and Comment Request Comparative Database consists of data registration form. The purpose of this AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research from the AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS. form is to determine the eligibility and Quality, HHS. Nursing homes in the U.S. are asked to status and initiate the registration voluntarily submit data from the survey process for nursing homes seeking to ACTION: Notice. to AHRQ through its contractor, Westat. voluntarily submit their Nursing Home

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

SOPS data to the Nursing Home SOPS patientsafetyculture/nursing-home/ • Identify strengths and areas for Comparative Database. 2014/nhsurv14-ptI.pdf for the 2014 patient safety culture improvement. (2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose report); (2) Individual Nursing Home • Examine trends in patient safety of the data use agreement, completed by Survey Feedback Reports that are culture change over time. the nursing home POC, is to state how confidential, customized reports • Evaluate the cultural impact of data submitted by nursing homes will produced for each nursing home that patient safety initiatives and be used and provides confidentiality submits data to the database (the interventions. assurances. number of reports produced is based on • Compare patient safety culture (3) Nursing Home Site Information the number of nursing homes survey results with other nursing homes Form—The purpose of the site submitting in any given calendar year); in their efforts to improve patient safety information form is to obtain basic and (3) Research data sets of individual- and health care quality. information about the characteristics of level and nursing home-level de- Estimated Annual Respondent Burden the nursing homes submitting their identified data to enable researchers to Nursing Home SOPS data to the Nursing conduct analyses. Exhibit 1 shows the estimated Home SOPS Comparative Database (e.g., Nursing homes are asked to annualized burden hours for the bed size, urbanicity, ownership, and voluntarily submit their Nursing Home respondents’ time to participate in the geographic region). The nursing home SOPS survey data to the Comparative database. An estimated 300 POCs, each POC completes the form. Database. The data are then cleaned and representing an average of 5 individual (4) Data Files Submission—The aggregated and used to produce a nursing homes each, will complete the number of submissions to the database Comparative Database Report that database submission steps and forms is likely to vary each year because displays averages, standard deviations, annually. Completing the eligibility and nursing homes do not administer the and percentile scores on the survey’s 42 registration form will take about 3 survey and submit data every year. Data items and 12 patient safety culture minutes. Each POC will complete a data submission is typically handled by one dimensions, as well as displaying these use agreement which takes about 3 POC who is either a corporate level results by nursing home characteristics minutes to complete. The Nursing Home health care manager for a Quality (bed size, urbanicity, ownership, and Site Information Form is completed by Improvement Organization (QIO), a Census Bureau Region, etc.) and all POCs for each of their nursing homes survey vendor who contracts with a respondent characteristics (work area/ (300 x 5 = 1,500 forms in total) and is nursing home to collect their data, or a unit, staff position, and interaction with estimated to take 5 minutes to complete. nursing home Director of Nursing or patients). The POC will submit data for all of the nursing homes he/she represents, which nurse manager. POCs submit data on Data submitted by nursing homes are will take 1 hour on average. The total behalf of 5 nursing homes, on average, also used to give each nursing home its annual burden hours are estimated to be because many nursing homes are part of own customized survey feedback report 455. a QIO or larger nursing home or health that presents the nursing home’s results The 300 respondents/POCs shown in system that includes many nursing compared to the latest comparative Exhibit 1 are based on an estimate of home sites, or the POC is a vendor that database results. If a nursing home nursing homes submitting data in the is submitting data for multiple nursing submits data more than once, its survey coming years, with the following homes. POCs upload their data file(s), feedback report also presents trend data, assumptions: using the nursing home data file comparing its previous and most recent • 105 POCs for QIOs submitting on specifications, to ensure that users data. submit standardized and consistent data behalf of 10 nursing homes each in the way variables are named, coded, Nursing homes use the Nursing Home • 18 POCs for vendors outside of and formatted. SOPS, Comparative Database Reports QIOs submitting on behalf of 10 nursing Survey data from the AHRQ Nursing and Individual Nursing Home Survey homes each Home SOPS are used to produce three Feedback Reports for a number of • 177 independent nursing homes types of products: (1) A Nursing Home purposes, to: submitting on their own behalf SOPS Comparative Database Report that • Raise staff awareness about patient Exhibit 2 shows the estimated is produced periodically and made safety. annualized cost burden based on the publicly available on the AHRQ Web • Diagnose and assess the current respondents’ time to submit their data. site (see http://www.ahrq.gov/ status of patient safety culture in their The cost burden is estimated to be professionals/quality-patient-safety/ nursing home. $20,839 annually.

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Number of Number of Form name respondents/ responses per Hours per Total burden POCs POC response hours

Eligibility/Registration Form ...... 300 1 3/60 15 Data Use Agreement ...... 300 1 3/60 15 Nursing Home Site Information Form ...... 300 5 5/60 125 Data Files Submission ...... 300 1 1 300

Total ...... 1,200 NA NA 455

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15231

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Number of Average Form name respondents/ Total burden hourly wage Total cost POCs hours rate * burden

Eligibility/Registration Forms ...... 300 15 $45.80 $687 Data Use Agreement ...... 300 15 45.80 687 Nursing Home Site Information Form ...... 300 125 45.80 5,725 Data Files Submission ...... 300 300 45.80 13,740

Total ...... 1,200 455 NA 20,839 * The wage rate in Exhibit 2 is based on May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor. Mean hourly wages for nursing home POCs are located at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_623100.htm and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oes/current/naics2_62.htm. The hourly wage of $45.80 is the weighted mean of $47.97 (General and Operations Managers; N = 88), $40.07 (Medical and Health Services Managers; N = 89), $47.10 (General and Operations Managers; N =105) and $55.94 (Computer and Information Systems Managers; N = 18).

Request for Comments OMB No.: New Collection. Fatherhood and Marriage Local In accordance with the Paperwork Background: For decades various Evaluation and Cross-site (FaMLE Cross- Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s organizations and agencies have been site) Project. The purpose of the FaMLE information collection are requested developing and operating programs to Cross-site Project is to support high with regard to any of the following: (a) strengthen families through healthy quality data collection, strengthen local Whether the proposed collection of marriage and relationship education and evaluations, and conduct cross-site information is necessary for the proper responsible fatherhood programming. analysis for the Responsible Fatherhood performance of AHRQ health care The Administration for Children and and Healthy Marriage grantees. The FaMLE Cross-site project will research and health care information Families (ACF), Office of Family answer three main research questions: dissemination functions, including Assistance (OFA), has had (1) What strategies did grantees use to whether the information will have administrative responsibility for federal design well-conceived programs? (2) practical utility; (b) the accuracy of funding of such programs since 2006 through the Healthy Marriage (HM) and What strategies did grantees use to AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including successfully implement well-conceived hours and costs) of the proposed Responsible Fatherhood (RF) Grant Programs. The authorizing legislation programs? (3) What were the reported collection(s) of information; (c) ways to outcomes for participants in the enhance the quality, utility, and clarity for the programs may be found in section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security programs? In order to answer these of the information to be collected; and questions, we are considering a new set (d) ways to minimize the burden of the Act [1]. Responsible Fatherhood grantees provide a comprehensive set of of data collection activities. collection of information upon the Current request: ACF is engaged in a respondents, including the use of services designed to promote responsible fatherhood including learning agenda to increase our automated collection techniques or understanding of Healthy Marriage and other forms of information technology. activities related to promoting economic stability, fostering responsible Responsible Fatherhood programs. This Comments submitted in response to means that we incorporate multiple this notice will be summarized and parenting, and promoting healthy marriage. Grantees receiving funding for opportunities and options for learning included in the Agency’s subsequent throughout a program’s implementation request for OMB approval of the Healthy Marriage offer a broad array of services designed to promote healthy that provide a range of insights and proposed information collection. All perspectives. These opportunities help comments will become a matter of marriage. The federal government currently programming constantly develop and public record. advance. For example, data provide the collects a set of performance measures opportunity to feed information back to Dated: March 17, 2015. from HM and RF grantees. The purpose decision-makers and leaders—both Sharon B. Arnold, of this previously approved information those on the ground and those in Deputy Director, AHRQ. collection is to allow OFA and ACF to management—to inform program [FR Doc. 2015–06451 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] carry out their responsibilities for design, operation, and oversight. BILLING CODE 4160–90–P program accountability. Descriptions of On November 6, 2014, ACF published the information collection may be found a Federal Register Notice (79 FR 65973) at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ requesting public comment on the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201206- HUMAN SERVICES following: 0970-005; all measures may be found at Performance measures. ACF is http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ proposing a new set of performance Administration for Children and PRAICList?ref_nbr=201206-0970-005. Families measures to be collected by all grantees, The Fatherhood and Marriage Local beginning with the next round of HMRF Submission for OMB Review; Evaluation (FaMLE) Cross-Site Project: grants. These measures will collect Comment Request The Offices of Family Assistance (OFA) standardized information in the and Planning, Research and Evaluation following areas: Title: Proposed Healthy Marriage and (OPRE) in the Administration for • Applicant characteristics; Responsible Fatherhood Performance Children and Families (ACF), U.S. • Program operations (including Measures and Additional Data Department of Health and Human program characteristics and service Collection (Part of the Fatherhood and Services (HHS) are proposing new data delivery); and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross- collection activities to replace existing • Participant outcomes (will be site [FaMLE Cross-site] Project). performance measures as part of the measured both at initiation of program

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

services (pre-test) and completion (post- with programs will also be assessed). the data collection instruments are also test)). This sub-set of grantees will be required included in the OMB package and These draft measures were developed to participate in the additional data available upon request. per extensive review of the research collection noted below. The following Respondents: The respondents to the literature and grantees’ past measures. protocols have been developed: data collection instruments include • The next set of grantees will be Staff interview protocol on program Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy required to submit data on a set of design (will be collected from about half Marriage Program grantees (e.g., grantee standardized measures covering these of all grantees); staff) and program participants. In some • areas on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly). Staff interview protocols on cases, grantees will conduct evaluations In addition to the performance measures program implementation (will be that include a control or comparison mention above, ACF seeks comment on collected from about 10 grantees); and • group. In those cases, individuals in the draft instruments for these data Program participant focus group control or comparison group will be submissions: protocol (will be conducted with about • asked to respond to the data collection Quarterly Performance Report 10 grantees). instruments as well. (QPR), and In response to the previous request, • Semi-annual Performance Progress ACF received 57 requests for the Updated Annual Burden Estimates: Report (PPR). proposed measures and 28 emails with The table below is required by law for A new management information comments during the 60-day comment Federal Register notices like this one. system is being developed which will period. Comments were received in The federal government’s Office of improve efficiency and the quality of eight categories: Management and Budget requires data, and make reporting easier. • Literacy levels federal agencies, including ACF, to Standardized measures and reporting • Length estimate how many hours it will take in these areas will enable ACF to track • Appropriateness of questions respondents to complete data collection, programming outputs and outcomes • Youth Survey and to publish these estimates in the across programs, and will allow grantees • Case management expectations Federal Register. The following table to self-monitor progress. • Mode of administration provides our estimates. Additional data collection. As an • Quarterly reporting These estimates are greater than those additional component of the learning • Miscellaneous included in the 60-day Federal Register agenda, the FaMLE Cross-Site contractor A summary of the comments received Notice. We have maintained the same will collect information from a sub-set in these areas and ACF’s responses is number of data collection instruments, of grantees on how they designed and included in the OMB package and is but we have increased the number of implemented their programs available upon request (see contact respondents as priorities and plans have (information on outcomes associated information below). Revised versions of been further developed and refined.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Annual Number of Average Instrument Total number number of responses per burden hours Annual burden of respondents respondents respondent per response hours

DCI (Data collection by contractor)

DCI 1: Topic Guide on Program Design ...... 60 20 1 1 20 DCI 2: Topic Guide on Program Implementation ...... 300 100 1 1 100 DCI 3: Focus Group Protocol ...... 801 267 1 1.50 400

DCS (Data collection by grantees)

DCS 1: Applicant Characteristics: Program applicants ...... 411,375 137,125 1 0.25 34,281 Program staff ...... 1,080 360 381 0.10 13,716 DCS 2: Grantee Program Operations ...... 260 120 1 0.75 90 DCS 3: Service Receipt in MIS ...... 360 120 931 0.50 55,860 DCS 4: Self-administered Questionnaire Pre-Test and Post-Test Program participants (pre-test) ...... 335,025 111,675 1 0.42 46,904 Program participants (post-test) ...... 270,390 90,130 1 0.42 37,855 Program staff (entry from paper) ...... 36 12 1,412 0.30 5,084 DCS 5: Semi-annual Progress Report ...... 360 120 2 3 720 DCS 6: Quarterly Performance Report ...... 360 120 2 1 240

Estimated Total Annual Burden Clearance Officer. All requests should Therefore, a comment is best assured of Hours: 195,270. be identified by the title of the having its full effect if OMB receives it Additional Information: Copies of the information collection. Email address: within 30 days of publication. Written proposed collection may be obtained by [email protected]. comments and recommendations for the writing to the Administration for OMB Comment: OMB is required to proposed information collection should Children and Families, Office of make a decision concerning the be sent directly to the following: Office Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 collection of information between 30 of Management and Budget, Paperwork L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, and 60 days after publication of this Reduction Project, Email: OIRA_ DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports document in the Federal Register. [email protected], Attn:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15233

Desk Officer for the Administration, for available for inspection or copying at related materials. Comments must Children and Families. room W12–140 on the West Building contain the OMB Control Number of the Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue ICR and the docket number of this Karl Koerper, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. request, [USCG–2015–0070], and must OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, be received by May 22, 2015. We will [FR Doc. 2015–06534 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] except Federal holidays. You may also post all comments received, without BILLING CODE 4184–73–P find the docket on the Internet at change, to http://www.regulations.gov. http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal Copies of the ICRs are available information you provide. We have an DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND through the docket on the Internet at agreement with DOT to use their DMF. SECURITY http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph Additionally, copies are available from: below. Coast Guard COMMANDANT (CG–612), ATTN Submitting Comments [USCG–2015–0070; OMB Control Number PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 1625–0006] MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 If you submit a comment, please MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., include the docket number [USCG– Information Collection Requests to STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC 20593– 2015–0070], indicate the specific Office of Management and Budget 7710. section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. each comment. You may submit your Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments and material online (via Information Management, telephone comments. http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, 202–475–3532, or fax 202–475–3929, for mail, or hand delivery, but please use SUMMARY: In compliance with the questions on these documents. Contact only one of these means. If you submit Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, a comment online via U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for www.regulations.gov, it will be Information Collection Requests (ICRs) questions on the docket. considered received by the Coast Guard to the Office of Management and Budget SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: when you successfully transmit the (OMB), Office of Information and comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting Public Participation and Request for Comments mail your comment, it will be approval of a revision to the following considered as having been received by collections of information: 1625–0006, This Notice relies on the authority of the Coast Guard when it is received at Shipping Articles and 1625–0018, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; the DMF. We recommend you include Official Logbook. Our ICRs describe the 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An your name, mailing address, an email information we seek to collect from the ICR is an application to OIRA seeking address, or other contact information in public. Before submitting these ICRs to the approval, extension, or renewal of a the body of your document so that we OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting Coast Guard collection of information can contact you if we have questions comments as described below. (Collection). The ICR contains regarding your submission. DATES: Comments must reach the Coast information describing the Collection’s You may submit your comments and Guard on or before May 22, 2015. purpose, the Collection’s likely burden material by electronic means, mail, fax, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the affected public, an explanation of or delivery to the DMF at the address identified by Coast Guard docket the necessity of the Collections, and under ADDRESSES; but please submit number [USCG–2015–0070] to the other important information describing them by only one means. To submit Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the Collections. There is one ICR for your comment online, go to http:// the U.S. Department of Transportation each Collection. www.regulations.gov, and type ‘‘USCG– (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, The Coast Guard invites comments on 2015–0070’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. If please use only one of the following whether these ICRs should be granted you submit your comments by mail or means: based on the Collections being hand delivery, submit them in an (1) Online: necessary for the proper performance of unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by http://www.regulations.gov. Departmental functions. In particular, 11 inches, suitable for copying and (2) Mail: DMF (M–30), DOT, West the Coast Guard would appreciate electronic filing. If you submit Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, comments addressing: (1) The practical comments by mail and would like to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., utility of the Collections; (2) the know that they reached the Facility, Washington, DC 20590–0001. accuracy of the estimated burden of the please enclose a stamped, self-addressed (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail Collections; (3) ways to enhance the postcard or envelope. We will consider address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 quality, utility, and clarity of all comments and material received p.m., Monday through Friday, except information subject to the Collections; during the comment period and will Federal holidays. The telephone number and (4) ways to minimize the burden of address them accordingly. is 202–366–9329. the Collections on respondents, Viewing comments and documents: (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. To ensure including the use of automated To view comments, as well as your comments are received in a timely collection techniques or other forms of documents mentioned in this Notice as manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk information technology. In response to being available in the docket, go to Officer for the Coast Guard. your comments, we may revise these http://www.regulations.gov, click on the The DMF maintains the public docket ICRs or decide not to seek approval of ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then for this Notice. Comments and material revisions of the Collections. We will become highlighted in blue. In the received from the public, as well as consider all comments and material ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2015– documents mentioned in this Notice as received during the comment period. 0070’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the being available in the docket, will We encourage you to respond to this ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ become part of the docket and will be request by submitting comments and column. You may also visit the DMF in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of of registry, tonnage, names and process for grants and the criteria for the DOT West Building, 1200 New merchant mariner credential numbers of awarding Fire Prevention and Safety Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC the master and crew, the nature of the (FP&S) grants in the fiscal year (FY) 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., voyage, and class of ship. In addition, it 2014 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Monday through Friday, except Federal also contains entries for the vessel’s (AFG) Program year. It explains the holidays. drafts, maintenance of watertight differences, if any, between these integrity of the ship, drills and guidelines and those recommended by Privacy Act inspections, crew list and report of representatives of the Nation’s fire Anyone can search the electronic character, a summary of laws applicable service leadership during the annual form of comments received in dockets to Official Logbooks, and miscellaneous Criteria Development meeting, which by the name of the individual entries. was held October 27–28, 2014. The submitting the comment (or signing the Need: Title 46 United States Code application period for the FY 2014 FP&S comment, if submitted on behalf of an (U.S.C.) 11301, 11302, 11303, and 11304 Grant Program year will be held March association, business, labor union, etc.). require applicable merchant vessels to 16–April 17, 2015, and will be You may review a Privacy Act statement maintain an Official Logbook. The announced on the AFG Web site regarding Coast Guard public dockets in Official Logbook contains information (www.fema.gov/firegrants), the January 17, 2008, issue of the about the vessel, voyage, crew, and www.grants.gov, and U.S. Fire Federal Register (73 FR 3316). watch. Lack of these particulars would Administration Web site Information Collection Requests make it difficult for a seaman to certify (www.usfa.fema.gov). vessel employment and wages, and for Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229. 1. Title: Shipping Articles. the Coast Guard to verify compliance OMB Control Number: 1625–0006. with laws and regulations concerning DATES: Grant applications for the FP&S Summary: Title 46 United States Code vessel operations and safety procedures. Grant Program will be accepted 10302 and 10502 and Title 46 Code of The Official Logbook serves as an electronically at https://portal.fema.gov, Federal Regulations (CFR) 14.201 official record of recordable events from March 16–April 17, 2015. requires applicable owners, charterers, transpiring at sea such as births, deaths, ADDRESSES: Assistance to Firefighters managing operators, masters, or marriages, disciplinary actions, etc. Grants Branch, Stop 3620, DHS/FEMA, individuals in charge to make a Absent the Official Logbook, there 800 K Street NW., Washington, DC shipping agreement in writing with each would be no official civil record of these 20472–3620. seaman before the seaman commences events. The courts accept log entries as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: employment. Additionally, 46 CFR proof that the logged event occurred. If Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance to 14.313 requires shipping companies to this information was not collected, the submit to the Coast Guard Shipping Firefighters Grants Branch, 1–866–274– Coast Guard’s Commercial Vessel Safety 0960. Articles three years after the article was Program would be negatively impacted, generated; or submitted by shipping SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The as there would be no official record of purpose of the AFG Program is to companies that go out of business or U.S. merchant vessel voyages. Similarly, merges with another company; or upon enhance the safety of the public and those seeking to prove that an event firefighters with respect to fire and fire- request by the Coast Guard. Upon required to be logged occurred would receipt and acceptance, Shipping related hazards. The FEMA Grant not have an official record available. Programs Directorate administers the Articles are transferred and archived at Forms: CG–706B. the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Respondents: Shipping companies. FP&S Grant Program as part of the AFG Maryland. Frequency: On occasion. Program. Need: This collection provides Burden Estimate: The estimated FP&S Grants are offered to support verification, identification, location and burden is 1,750 hours a year. projects in two activities: employment information of U.S. 1. Activities designed to reach high- Dated: March 17, 2015. risk target groups and mitigate the merchant mariners to the following: (1) Thomas P. Michelli, Federal, state and local law enforcement incidence of death and injuries caused Chief Information Officer, Acting, U.S. Coast by fire and fire-related hazards (‘‘FP&S agencies for use in criminal or civil law Guard. enforcement purpose, (2) shipping Activity’’). [FR Doc. 2015–06585 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] companies, (3) labor unions, (4) 2. Projects aimed at improving seaman’s authorized representatives, (5) BILLING CODE 9110–04–P firefighter safety, health and wellness seaman’s next of kin, (6) whenever the through research and development that disclosure of such information would be reduces firefighter fatalities and injuries DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (‘‘R&D Activity’’). in the best interest of the seaman or his/ SECURITY her family. The grant program’s authorizing statute requires that each year DHS Forms: CG–705A. Federal Emergency Management publish in the Federal Register the Respondents: Shipping companies. Agency Frequency: On occasion. guidelines that describe the application Burden Estimate: The estimated [Docket ID FEMA–FEMA–2014–0035] process and the criteria for grant burden is 18,000 hours a year. awards. Approximately 1,200 2. Title: Official Logbook. Assistance to Firefighters Grant applications for FP&S Grant Program OMB Control Number: 1625–0018. Program; Fire Prevention and Safety funding are anticipated to be submitted Summary: The Official Logbook Grants electronically, using the application contains information about the voyage, AGENCY: Federal Emergency submission form and process available the vessel’s crew, drills, watches and Management Agency, DHS. at the AFG e-Grant application portal: operations conducted during the ACTION: Notice of guidance. https://portal.fema.gov. Specific voyage. Official Logbook entries identify information about the submission of particulars of the voyage, including the SUMMARY: This Notice provides grant applications can be found in the name of the ship, official number, port guidelines that describe the application ‘‘FY 2014 Fire Prevention and Safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15235

Program Funding Opportunity improvement in firefighter safety, Statutory Limits to Funding Announcement,’’ which will be health, or wellness will be deemed to be Applications and awards are limited available for download at in the ‘‘competitive range’’ and will be to a maximum federal share of $1.5 www.fema.gov/firegrants and at forwarded to the second level of million dollars, regardless of applicant www.regulations.gov under Docket ID application review, which is the type. FEMA–2014–0035. scientific panel review process. This panel will be comprised of scientists Cost Sharing Appropriations and technology experts who have Grantees must share in the costs of the Congress appropriated $340,000,000 expertise pertaining to the subject projects funded under this grant for AFG in FY 2014 pursuant to the matter of the proposal. program as required by 15 U.S.C. Department of Homeland Security The Scientific Technical Evaluation 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with 44 Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law Panel for the R&D Activity will review CFR 13.24 and 2 CFR 215.23, but they 113–76. From this amount, $34,000,000 the application and evaluate it using the are not required to have the cost-share will be made available for FP&S Grant following criteria: at the time of application nor at the time awards, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. • Project purpose(s), goals and of award. However, before a grant is 2229(h)(5), which states that not less objectives, and specific aims awarded, FEMA will contact potential than 10 percent of available grant funds • Literature Review awardees to determine whether the each year are awarded under the FP&S • Project Methods grantee has the funding in hand or if the Grant Program. Funds appropriated for • Project Measurements grantee has a viable plan to obtain the all FY 2014 AFG awards, pursuant to • Project Analysis funding necessary to fulfill the cost- Public Law 113–76, will be available for • Dissemination and Implementation sharing requirement. obligation and award until September • Cost vs. Benefit (additional In general, an eligible applicant 30, 2015. consideration) seeking an FP&S grant to carry out an From the approximately 1,200 • Financial Need (additional activity shall agree to make available applications that will be requesting consideration) non-federal funds to carry out such assistance, FEMA anticipates that it will activity in an amount equal to, and not award approximately 150 FP&S Grants Eligible Applicants less than, five percent of the grant from available grant funding. The following entities are eligible to awarded. Cash match and in-kind Background of the AFG Program apply directly to FEMA under this matches are both allowable in the FP&S DHS awards grants on a competitive solicitation: Grant Program. Cash (hard) matches basis to the applicants that best address 1. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) include non-federal cash spent for the FP&S Grant Program’s priorities and Activity: Eligible applicants for this project-related costs. In-kind (soft) provide the most compelling activity include fire departments, matches include, but are not limited to, justification. Applications that best national, regional, state, local, Native the valuation of in-kind services. In- address the Program’s priorities will be American tribal, and nonprofit kind is the value of something received reviewed by a panel composed of fire organizations that are recognized for or provided that does not have a cost service personnel. their experience and expertise in fire associated with it. For example, where prevention and safety programs and an in-kind match (other than cash Award Criteria activities. Both private and public non- payments) is permitted, then the value All applications for grants will be profit organizations are eligible to apply of donated services could be used to prepared and submitted through the for funding in this activity. For-profit comply with the match requirement. AFG e-Grant application portal organizations, federal agencies, and Also, third party in-kind contributions (https://portal.fema.gov). individuals are not eligible to receive a may count toward satisfying match The FP&S Grant Program panels will FP&S Grant Award under the FP&S requirements provided the grantee review the applications and score them Activity. receiving the contributions expends using the following criteria areas: 2. Firefighter Safety Research and them as allowable costs in compliance • Vulnerability Development (R&D) Activity: Eligible with provisions listed above. • Implementation applicants for this activity include Grantees under this grant program • Evaluation Plan national, state, local, Native American must also agree to a maintenance of • Cost Benefit tribal, and nonprofit organizations, such effort requirement as required by 15 • Sustainability as academic (e.g., universities), public U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a • Financial Need health, occupational health, and injury ‘‘maintenance of expenditure’’ • Funding Priorities prevention institutions. Both private requirement in that statute). Per this • Experience and Expertise and public non-profit organizations are requirement, a grantee shall agree to The applications submitted under the eligible to apply for funding in this maintain during the term of the grant R&D Activity will be reviewed first by activity. the grantee’s aggregate expenditures a panel of fire service members to The aforementioned entities are relating to the activities allowable under identify those applications most encouraged to apply, especially those the FP&S Funding Opportunity relevant to the fire service. The that are recognized for their experience Announcement at not less than 80 following evaluation criteria will be and expertise in firefighter safety, percent (80%) of the average amount of used for this review: health, and wellness research and such expenditures in the two (2) fiscal • Purpose development activities. Fire years preceding the fiscal year in which • Potential Impact departments are not eligible to apply for the grant amounts are received. • Implementation by the fire service funding in the R&D activity. In cases of demonstrated economic • Partners Additionally, for-profit organizations, hardship, and on the application of the • Barriers federal agencies, and individuals are not grantee, the Administrator of FEMA The applications that are determined eligible to receive a grant award under may waive or reduce certain grantees’ most likely to be implemented to enable the R&D Activity. cost share or maintenance of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15236 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

expenditure requirements. This policy • Clinical Studies • Code Enforcement/Awareness— applies to FP&S per § 33 of the Federal • Technology and Product Development projects that focus on first time or Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 • Database System Development reinstatement of code adoption and (Pub. L. 93–498, as amended) (15 U.S.C. • Dissemination and Implementation code enforcement. 2229). For complete requirements Research • Fire & Arson Investigation—projects concerning these waivers, including a • Preliminary Studies that aim to aggressively investigate description of how a grantee may Prior to the start of the FY 2014 FP&S every fire. • demonstrate economic hardship and Grant Program application period, National/State/Regional Programs apply for a waiver, please refer to FEMA FEMA will provide applicants with and Studies—projects that focus on Policy FP 207–088–01, dated April 8, technical assistance tools (available at residential fire issues and/or 2014, at: http://www.fema.gov/media- the AFG Web site: www.fema.gov/ firefighter behavior and decision- library-data/1398109239435- firegrants) and other online information making. ec23997d8351382710896fa77d02bc7d/ to help them prepare quality grant Under the R&D Activity, in order to AFG+Economic+/ applications. AFG will also staff a Help identify and address the most important Hardship+Waiver+Policy.pdf. Per 15 Desk throughout the application period elements of firefighter safety, FEMA U.S.C. 2229(k)(4)(C), FP&S Grantees that to assist applicants with navigation looked to the fire service for its input are not fire departments are not eligible through the automated application as and recommendations. In June 2005, the to receive a waiver of their cost share or well as assistance with any questions National Fallen Firefighters’ Foundation economic hardship requirements. they have. Applicants can reach the (NFFF) hosted a working group to System for Award Management (SAM) AFG Help Desk through a toll-free facilitate the development of an agenda telephone number (1–866–274–0960) or for the nation’s fire service, and in On July 29, 2010, the Central electronic mail ([email protected]). particular for firefighter safety. In May Contractor Registration (CCR) was Applicants are advised to access the 2011, the NFFF again hosted a working moved into the System for Award application electronically at https:// group to update the agenda with current Management (SAM). The Office of portal.fema.gov. The application also priorities. A copy of the research agenda Management and Budget (OMB) issued will be accessible from the grants.gov is available on the NFFF Web site at guidance to federal agencies requiring Web site (http://www.grants.gov). New http://www.everyonegoeshome.com/ all prime recipients of federal grants to applicants are required to register and symposium.html. register in SAM. SAM is the primary establish a username and password for Projects that meet the intent of this vendor database for the Federal secure access to their application. research agenda with respect to Government to collect, validate, store, Applicants that applied to any previous firefighter health and safety, as and disseminate data from a secure AFG or SAFER funding opportunities identified by the NFFF working group, centralized system. SAM consolidated were required to use their previously will be given consideration under the the capabilities found in CCR and other established usernames and passwords. R&D Activity. However, the applicant is federal procurement systems into one In completing an application under not limited to these specific projects. All new system. this funding opportunity, applicants proposed projects, regardless of whether There is no charge to register in they have been identified by this SAM.gov. Registrations must be will be asked to provide relevant information on their organization’s working group, will be evaluated on completed on-line at https:// their relevance to firefighter health and www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. The characteristics and existing capabilities. Those applicants are asked to answer safety, and scientific rigor. applicant organization is responsible for The electronic application process having a valid Dun and Bradstreet questions about their grant request that reflect the funding priorities, described will permit the applicant to enter and (DUNS) number at the time of save the application data. The system registration. Organizations with an below. In addition, each applicant will complete narratives for each project or does not permit the submission of active record in CCR have an active incomplete applications. Except for the record in SAM, but may need to validate grant activity requested. The following are the funding narrative textboxes, the application will their information. For registration, go to use a ‘‘point-and-click’’ selection priorities for each category under the https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/ process or require the entry of data (e.g., FP&S Activity: SAM/. name and address). Applicants will be • General Education/Awareness— Application Process encouraged to read the FP&S Funding Under the General Education/ Opportunity Announcement for more Applicants may only submit one (1) Awareness category there are two details. application, but may submit for up to funding priorities: three (3) projects under each activity Æ The first priority will be given to Criteria Development Process (FP&S and R&D). Any applicant that programs that target high risk Each year, DHS convenes a panel of submits more than one (1) application population to conduct both door-to- fire service professionals to develop the may have all applications for any door smoke alarm installations and funding priorities and other duplicated request(s) deemed ineligible. provide home safety inspections implementation criteria for AFG. The Under the FP&S Activity, applicants (including sprinkler awareness), as Criteria Development Panel is may apply under the following part of a comprehensive home fire comprised of representatives from nine categories: safety campaign. major fire service organizations who are • General Education/Awareness Æ The second priority will be given to charged with making recommendations • Fire & Arson Investigation programs that include sprinkler to FEMA regarding the creation of new • Code Enforcement/Awareness awareness that affect the entire funding priorities, the modification of • National/State/Regional Programs and community, such as educating the existing funding priorities, and the Studies public about residential sprinklers, development of criteria for awarding Under the R&D Activity, applicants promoting residential sprinklers, grants. The nine major fire service may apply under the following and demonstrating working models organizations represented on the panel categories: of residential sprinklers. are:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15237

• Congressional Fire Services Institute Peer Review Process technical feasibility of the project and a (CFSI) programmatic review to assess • Technical Evaluation Process—Fire International Association of Arson Prevention and Safety Activity eligibility and other factors. Investigators (IAAI) After the completion of the technical • International Association of Fire All eligible applications will be reviews, DHS will select a sufficient Chiefs (IAFC) evaluated by a Technical Evaluation number of awardees from this • International Association of Fire Panel (TEP). The TEP is comprised of a application period to obligate all of the Fighters (IAFF) panel of Peer Reviewers. The TEP will available grant funding. It will evaluate • International Society of Fire Service assess each application’s merits with and act on applications within 90 days Instructors (ISFSI) respect to the detail provided in the following the close of the application • National Association of State Fire Narrative Statement on the activity, period. Award announcements will be Marshals (NASFM) including the evaluation elements listed made on a rolling basis until all • National Fire Protection Association in the Evaluation Criteria identified available grant funds have been (NFPA) above. committed. Awards will not be made in • National Volunteer Fire Council The panel of Peer Reviewers will any specified order. DHS will notify (NVFC) independently score each project within unsuccessful applicants as soon as it is • North American Fire Training the application, discuss the merits and/ feasible. Directors (NAFTD) or shortcomings of the application, and document the findings. A consensus is Evaluation Criteria for Projects—Fire The FY 2014 criteria development Prevention and Safety Activity panel meeting occurred January 8–9, not required. The highest ranked 2014. The content of the FY 2014 FP&S applications will receive further Funding decisions will be informed Funding Opportunity Announcement technical review to assess strengths and by an assessment of how well the reflects the implementation of the weaknesses, how readily weaknesses application addresses the criteria and Criteria Development Panel’s may be resolved, and the likely impact considerations listed below. recommendations with respect to the of the proposed activities on the safety Applications will be reviewed by the priorities, direction, and criteria for of the target audience. TEP using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. These scores will awards. All of the funding priorities for Technical Evaluation Process— the FY 2014 FP&S Grant Program are impact the ranking of a project for Research and Development Activity funding. designed to address the following: The relative weight of the evaluation • R&D applications will go through a First responder safety criteria in the determination of the grant • two-phase review process. First, all Enhancing national capabilities applications will be reviewed by a panel award is listed below. • Risk of fire service experts to assess • Vulnerability Statement (20%): The • Interoperability relevance, meaning the likely impact of assessment of fire risk is essential in Changes for FY 2014 the proposed R&D application to enable the development of an effective improvement in firefighter safety, project goal, as well as meeting FY 2014 FP&S Funding Opportunity health, or wellness. They will also FEMA’s goal to reduce risk by Announcement. assess the need for the research results conducting a risk analysis as a basis (1) The ‘‘Guidance and Application and the likelihood that the results for action. Vulnerability is a ‘‘weak Kit’’ has been reformatted to match the would be implemented by the fire link’’ demonstrating high risk DHS Funding Opportunity service in the U.S. Applications that are behavior, living conditions or any Announcement (FOA) template. deemed likely to be implemented to type of high risk situation or behavior. (2) Sprinkler awareness was added as enable improvement in firefighter The Vulnerability Statement should a priority under the General Education/ safety, health, or wellness will then include a description of the steps Awareness category. receive further consideration by a taken to determine the vulnerability (3) The period of performance for science review panel. This panel will be (weak link) and identify the target applicants under the FP&S Activity was comprised of scientists and technology audience. The methodology for extended to up to 24 months. experts who have expertise pertaining to determination of vulnerability (how Applicants will now have the option to the subject matter of the proposal. you found the weak link) should be select either a 12 month period of Reviewers will independently score discussed in-depth in the performance or 24 month period of applications and, if necessary, discuss application’s Narrative Statement. performance, based on the complexity the merits or shortcomings of the Æ The specific vulnerability (weak of the project. application in order to reconcile any link) that will be addressed with the proposed project can be established Application Review Process and major discrepancies identified by the through a formal or informal risk Considerations reviewers. A consensus is not required. With input from these panels, for the assessment. FEMA encourages the The program’s authorizing statute highest ranked applications, FEMA will use of local statistics, rather than requires that each year DHS publish in review each application’s strengths and national statistics, when discussing the Federal Register a description of the weaknesses, how best the strengths fit the vulnerability. grant application process and the the priorities of the FP&S Program, and Æ The applicant should summarize criteria for grant awards. This how readily the weaknesses may be the vulnerability (weakness) the information is provided below. resolved to support likely impact of the project will address in a clear, to- DHS will review and evaluate all project to improve firefighter safety, the-point statement that addresses FP&S applications submitted using the heath, or wellness. who is at risk, what the risks are, funding priorities and evaluation where the risks are, and how the criteria described in this document, Technical Review Process risks can be prevented. which are based on recommendations Projects receiving the highest scores Æ For the purpose of the FY2014 from the AFG Criteria Development then will undergo a technical review by FP&S FOA, formal risk assessments Panel. a subject matter specialist to assess the consist of the use of software

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15238 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

programs or recognized expert project. The costs associated with the Evaluation Criteria for Projects— analysis that assess risk trends. project must also be reasonable for the Firefighter Safety Research and Æ Informal risk assessments could target audience that will be reached, Development Activity include an in-house review of and a description of how the Funding decisions will be informed available data (e.g., National Fire anticipated benefit(s) of their projects by an assessment of how well the Incident Reporting System) to outweighs the cost(s) of the requested application addresses the criteria and determine fire loss, burn injuries or item(s) should be included. Providing considerations listed below. loss of life over a period of time, justification for costs assists the All applications will reviewed by a and the factors that are the cause Technical Evaluation Panel with this fire service expert panel using weighted and origin for each occurrence. review. • Implementation Plan (20%): Projects evaluation criteria, and those • should provide details on the Sustainability (15%): Each project applications deemed to be in the implementation plan which will also be evaluated to determine ‘‘competitive range’’ will then be discusses the proposed project’s whether the overall activity will be reviewed by a scientific peer review goals and objectives. The following sustained (continued) beyond the panel evaluation using weighted information should be included to grant performance period and evaluation criteria to score the project. support the implementation plan: whether it has a greater potential for Scientific evaluations will impact the Æ Goals and objectives. long-term benefits. Examples of ranking of the project for funding. Æ Details regarding the methods and sustainable projects can be shown In addition, other Science Panel specific steps that will be used to through the long-term benefits considerations are indicated in the list achieve the goals and objectives. derived from the delivery of the below: Æ Timelines. project, the number of non-Federal Fire Service Evaluation Criteria Æ Where applicable, examples of partners likely to continue the effort, • marketing efforts to promote the or the demonstrated long-term Purpose (25%): Applicants should project, who will deliver the project commitment of the applicant. clearly identify the benefits of the (e.g., effective partnerships), and proposed research project to improve • Financial Need (10%): Applicants the manner in which materials or firefighter safety, health, or wellness, should provide details on the need for deliverables will be distributed. and identify specific gaps in Æ Requests for props (i.e., tools used financial assistance to carry out the knowledge that will be addressed. in educational or awareness proposed project(s). Included in the • Implementation by Fire Service demonstrations), including specific description might be other (25%): Applicants should discuss goals, measurable results, and unsuccessful attempts to acquire how the outcomes/products of this details on the frequency for which financial assistance or specific research, if successful, are likely to be the prop will be utilized as part of examples of the applicant’s widely/nationally adopted and the implementation plan. operational budget. accepted by the fire service as changes Applicants should include • Funding Priorities (5%): Applicants that enhance firefighter safety, health, information describing the efforts will be evaluated on whether or not or wellness. that will be used to reach the high the proposed project meets the stated • Potential Impact (15%): Applicants risk audience and/or the number of funding priority (listed below) for the should discuss the potential impact of people reached through the applicable category. the research outcome/product on firefighter safety by quantifying the proposed project. Æ General Education/Awareness • possible reduction in the number of Evaluation Plan (20%): Projects Priority: Comprehensive home fire fatal or non-fatal injuries, or on should include an evaluation of safety campaign with door-to-door wellness by significantly improving effectiveness and should identify smoke alarm installations or the overall health of firefighters. measurable goals. Applicants seeking residential sprinkler awareness to carry out awareness and • Barriers (15%): Applicants should projects/activities. educational projects, for example, recognize that all research contains should identify how they intend to Æ Fire/Arson Investigation Priority: some level of risk and that the determine that there has been an Projects that aim to aggressively proposed outcomes may not be increase in knowledge about fire investigate every fire. realized. The applicant needs to hazards, or measure a change in the Æ Code Enforcement/Awareness identify and discuss potential fire safety behaviors of the audience. Priority: Projects that focus on first service and other barriers to Applicants should demonstrate how time or reinstatement of code successfully complete the study on they will measure risk at the outset of adoption and code enforcement. schedule, including contingencies the project in comparison to how and strategies to deal with barriers if Æ National/State/Regional Programs much the risk decreased after the they materialize. This may include and Studies Priority: Projects that project is finished. There are various barriers that could inhibit the focus on residential fire issues, and/ ways to measure the knowledge proposed fire service participation in or firefighter safety projects or gained including the use of surveys, the study or the adoption of strategies that are designed to pre- and post-tests or documented successful results by the fire service measurably change firefighter observations. when the project is completed. • Cost-Benefit (10%): Projects will be behavior and decision-making. • Partners (20%): Applicants should evaluated based on how well the • Experience and Expertise (additional recognize that participation of the fire applicant addresses the fire consideration): Applicants that service as a partner in the research, prevention needs of the department or demonstrate their experience and from development to dissemination, organization in an economic and ability to conduct fire prevention and is regarded as an essential part of all efficient manner. It should show how safety activities, and to execute the projects. Applicants should describe to maximize the level of funding that proposed or similar project(s), will the fire service partners and goes directly into the delivery of the receive additional consideration. contractors that will support the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15239

project to accomplish the objectives of validity, reliability, and sensitivity • Financial Need (additional the study. The specific roles and (where established) of the facilities, consideration): In the Applicant contributions of the partners should equipment, instruments, standards, Information section of the application, be described. Partnerships may be and procedures that will be used to applicants should provide details on formed with local and regional fire carry out the research. The applicant the need for federal financial departments, and also with national should discuss the data to be assistance to carry out the proposed fire-related organizations. Letters of collected to evaluate the performance project(s). Applicants may include a support and letters of commitment to methods, technologies, and products description of unsuccessful attempts actively participate in the project proposed to enhance firefighter safety, to acquire financial assistance. should be included in the appendix of health, or wellness. The applicant Applicants should provide detail the application. Generally, should demonstrate that the about the organization’s operating participants of a diverse population, measurement methods and equipment budget, including a high-level including both career and volunteer selected for use are appropriate and breakdown of the budget; describe the firefighters, are expected to facilitate sufficient to successfully deliver the department’s inability to address acceptance of results nationally. In proposed project objectives. financial needs without federal cases where this is not practical, due • Project Analysis (20%): The applicant assistance; and discuss other actions to the nature of the study or other should indicate the planned approach limitations, these circumstances for analysis of the data obtained from the department has taken to meet should clearly be explained. measurements, questionnaires, or their staffing needs (e.g., state assistance programs, other grant Science Panel Evaluation Criteria computations. The applicant should programs, etc.). • specify within the plan what will be Project goals, objectives, and specific analyzed, the statistical methods that aims (15%): Applicants should Other Selection Information will be used, the sequence of steps, address how the purpose, goals, and interactions as appropriate. It Awards will be made using the results objectives, and aims of the proposal should be clear that the Principal of peer-reviewed applications as the will lead to results that will improve Investigator (PI) and research team firefighter safety, health, or wellness. primary basis for decisions, regardless have the expertise to perform the For multi-year projects, greater detail of activity. However, there are some planned analysis and defend the should be given for the first year. exceptions to strictly using the peer • results in a peer review process. review results. The applicant’s prior Literature Review (10%): Applicants • should provide a literature review Dissemination and Implementation AFG, Staffing for Adequate Fire and that is relevant to the project’s goals, (15%): Applicants should indicate Emergency Response (SAFER), and objectives, and specific aims. The dissemination plans for scientific FP&S grant management performance citations should be placed in the text audiences (such as plans for will also be taken into consideration of the narrative statement, with submissions to specific peer review when making recommendations for references listed at the end of the publications) and for firefighter award. All final funding determinations Narrative Statement (and not in the audiences (such as Web sites, will be made by the Administrator of Appendix) of the application. The magazines, and conferences). Also, FEMA, or the Administrator’s delegate. review should be in sufficient depth assuming positive results, the Fire departments and other eligible to make it clear that the proposed applicant should indicate future steps project is necessary, adds to an that would support dissemination and applicants that have received funding existing body of knowledge, is implementation throughout the fire under the FP&S program in previous different from current and previous service, where applicable. These steps years are eligible to apply for funding in studies, and offers a unique are likely to be beyond the current the current year. However, DHS may contribution. study, so those features of the take into account an applicant’s • Project Methods (20%): Applicants research activity that will facilitate performance on prior grants when should provide a description of how future dissemination and making funding decisions on current the project will be carried out, implementation should be discussed. applications. including demonstration of the All applicants should specify how the Once every application in the results of the project, if successful, overall scientific and technical rigor competitive range has been through the might be disseminated and and merit of the project. This includes technical evaluation phase, the implemented in the fire service to the operations to accomplish the applications will be ranked according to improve firefighter safety, health, or purpose, goals and objectives, and the the average score awarded by the panel. specific aims of the project. Plans to wellness. It is expected that recruit and retain human subjects, successful R&D Activity Projects may The ranking will be summarized in a where applicable, should be give rise to future programs including Technical Report prepared by the AFG described. Where human subjects are FP&S Activity Projects. Program Office. A Grants Management involved in the project, the applicant • Cost vs. Benefit (additional Specialist will contact the applicant to should describe plans for submission consideration): Cost vs. benefit in this discuss and/or negotiate the content of to the Institutional Review Board evaluation element refers to the costs the application and SAM.gov (IRB) (for further guidance and of the grant for the research and registration before making final award requirements, see Appendix A— development project as it relates to decisions. the benefits that are projected for Application Guidelines and Program Dated: March 3, 2015. Priorities, Section IX. Human Subjects firefighters who would have improved Research). safety, health, or wellness. Applicants W. Craig Fugate, • Project Measurements (20%): should demonstrate a high benefit for Administrator, Federal Emergency Applicants should provide evidence the cost incurred, and effective Management Agency. of the technical rigor and merit of the utilization of federal funds for [FR Doc. 2015–06547 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] project, such as data pertaining to research activities. BILLING CODE 9111–12–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15240 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Copies of the ICR(s) are available information you provide. We have an SECURITY through the docket on the Internet at agreement with DOT to use their DMF. http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph Coast Guard Additionally, copies are available from: below. COMMANDANT (CG–612), ATTN [USCG–2015–0099; OMB Control Number Submitting Comments 1625–0069] PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 If you submit a comment, please Information Collection Request to MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE include the docket number [USCG– Office of Management and Budget STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC 20593– 2015–0099], indicate the specific 7710. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. section of the document to which each FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comment applies, providing a reason for Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of comments. each comment. You may submit your Information Management, telephone comments and material online (via SUMMARY: In compliance with the 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the questions on these documents. Contact mail, or hand delivery, but please use U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, only one of these means. If you submit Information Collection Request (ICR) to Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for a comment online via the Office of Management and Budget questions on the docket. www.regulations.gov, it will be (OMB), Office of Information and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: considered received by the Coast Guard Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting Public Participation and Request for when you successfully transmit the approval of an extension of a currently Comments comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or approved collection: 1625–0069, Ballast mail your comment, it will be Water Management for Vessels with This Notice relies on the authority of considered as having been received by Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. Waters. Our the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; the Coast Guard when it is received at ICR describes the information we seek 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An the DMF. We recommend you include to collect from the public. Before ICR is an application to OIRA seeking your name, mailing address, an email submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast the approval, extension, or renewal of a address, or other contact information in Guard is inviting comments as Coast Guard collection of information the body of your document so that we described below. (Collection). The ICR contains can contact you if we have questions DATES: Comments must reach the Coast information describing the Collection’s regarding your submission. Guard on or before May 22, 2015. purpose, the Collection’s likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of You may submit your comments and ADDRESSES: You may submit comments material by electronic means, mail, fax, identified by Coast Guard docket the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing or delivery to the DMF at the address number [USCG–2015–0099] to the under ADDRESSES; but please submit Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. them by only one means. To submit the U.S. Department of Transportation your comment online, go to http:// (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted www.regulations.gov, and type ‘‘USCG– please use only one of the following 2015–0099’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. If you means: based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of submit your comments by mail or hand (1) Online: delivery, submit them in an unbound http://www.regulations.gov. Departmental functions. In particular, format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, (2) Mail: DMF (M–30), DOT, West the Coast Guard would appreciate suitable for copying and electronic Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, comments addressing: (1) The practical filing. If you submit comments by mail 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy and would like to know that they Washington, DC 20590–0001. of the estimated burden of the reached the Facility, please enclose a (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail Collection; (3) ways to enhance the stamped, self-addressed postcard or address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 quality, utility, and clarity of envelope. We will consider all p.m., Monday through Friday, except information subject to the Collection; comments and material received during Federal holidays. The telephone number and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the comment period and will address is 202–366–9329. the Collection on respondents, (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. To ensure including the use of automated them accordingly. your comments are received in a timely collection techniques or other forms of Viewing comments and documents: manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk information technology. In response to To view comments, as well as Officer for the Coast Guard. your comments, we may revise these documents mentioned in this Notice as The DMF maintains the public docket ICRs or decide not to seek approval of being available in the docket, go to for this Notice. Comments and material revisions of the Collection. We will http://www.regulations.gov, click on the received from the public, as well as consider all comments and material ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then documents mentioned in this Notice as received during the comment period. become highlighted in blue. In the being available in the docket, will We encourage you to respond to this ‘‘Search’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2015– become part of the docket and will be request by submitting comments and 0099’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the available for inspection or copying at related materials. Comments must ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ Room W12–140 on the West Building contain the OMB Control Number of the column. You may also visit the DMF in Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue ICR and the docket number of this Room W12–140 on the ground floor of SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. request, [USCG–2015–0099], and must the DOT West Building, 1200 New and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, be received by May 22, 2015. We will Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC except Federal holidays. You may also post all comments received, without 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., find the docket on the Internet at change, to http://www.regulations.gov. Monday through Friday, except Federal http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal holidays.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15241

Privacy Act Implementing Executive Order 11988, Street, Room 627, Arlington, VA 20598– Anyone can search the electronic Floodplain Management.’’ 3030. The Web site is https:// form of comments received in dockets DATES: The public meeting will be held www.fema.gov/federal-flood-risk- by the name of the individual in New York, NY on March 27, 2015, management-standard-ffrms. submitting the comment (or signing the from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On comment, if submitted on behalf of an Daylight Time (EDT). January 30, 2015, the President signed association, business, labor union, etc.). ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be Executive Order 13690, directing FEMA, You may review a Privacy Act statement held in New York, NY, at Columbia Law on behalf of the Mitigation Framework regarding Coast Guard public dockets in School, Room 104, 435 West 116th Leadership Group, to publish for public the January 17, 2008, issue of the Street, New York, NY 10027. comment draft revised Floodplain Federal Register (73 FR 3316). For information on facilities or Management Guidelines to provide services for individuals with disabilities guidance to agencies on the Information Collection Request or to request special assistance at the implementation of Executive Order 1. Title: Ballast Water Management for meeting, please contact the person listed 11988, as amended, consistent with a Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION new Federal Flood Risk Management Waters. CONTACT section by March 24. Standard. These draft revised OMB Control Number: 1625–0069. Due to space constraints of the Guidelines were developed by the Summary: This collection requires the facility, seating will be limited to 180 Mitigation Framework Leadership master of a vessel to provide participants for the meeting. To reserve Group in consultation with the Federal information that details the vessel a seat in advance for this meeting, Interagency Floodplain Management operator’s ballast water management please provide a request via email or Task Force. FEMA is publishing this efforts. mail with the contact information of the Notice on behalf of the Mitigation Need: The information is needed to participant (including name, mailing Framework Leadership Group, which is ensure compliance with 16 U.S.C. 4711 address, and email address), the meeting chaired by FEMA, to solicit and and the requirements in 33 CFR part to be attended, and include the subject/ consider public input on the draft 151, subparts C and D regarding the attention line (or on the envelope if by revised Guidelines at a public meeting. management of ballast water, to prevent mail): Reservation Request for FFRMS Background information about these the introduction and spread of aquatic Meeting. Advance reservations are topics is available on the FFRMS Web nuisance species into U.S. waters. The preferred at least three (3) business days site at https://www.fema.gov/federal- information is also used for research prior to the meeting to ensure flood-risk-management-standard-ffrms and periodic reporting to Congress. processing, but will be accepted until or in the docket for this Notice at Forms: None. capacity is reached. Unregistered www.regulations.gov, Docket ID FEMA– Respondents: Owners and operators participants will be accepted after all 2015–0006. of certain vessels. participants with reservations have been The meeting is exempt from the Frequency: On occasion. accommodated and will be admitted on Federal Advisory Committee Act Burden Estimate: The estimated a first-come, first-serve basis, provided (FACA), as the Mitigation Framework burden remains 60,961 hours a year. the person capacity is not exceeded. To Leadership Group is an Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act submit reservations, please email: intergovernmental committee and falls of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. FEMA–[email protected] or send by under the intergovernmental committee exception to FACA, 41 CFR 102–3.40(g). Dated: March 17, 2015. mail to the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Authority: Executive Order 11988, as Thomas P. Michelli, caption. To facilitate public participation, amended; Executive Order 13690. U.S. Coast Guard, Chief Information Officer, members of the public are invited to Acting. Dated: March 16, 2015. provide written comments on the issues Roy Wright, [FR Doc. 2015–06584 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] to be considered at the public meetings. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Deputy Associate Administrator for Comments may be submitted by one of Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management the following methods: Agency. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND [FR Doc. 2015–06551 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov. Follow the SECURITY BILLING CODE 9111–47–P instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Emergency Management Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Agency DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket ID: FEMA–2015–0006] 20472–3100. Instructions: All submissions received [Docket No. FR–5838–N–02] Notice of Public Meeting on the must include the docket ID FEMA– Proposed Revised Guidelines for 2015–0006. Comments received will be 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Implementing Executive Order 11988, posted without alteration at http:// Collection: Public Housing Agency Floodplain Management, As Revised www.regulations.gov, including any Executive Compensation Information Through the Federal Flood Risk personal information provided. Management Standard AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Docket: For access to the docket to Secretary for Public and Indian AGENCY: Federal Emergency read comments received, go to http:// Housing, PIH, HUD. www.regulations.gov, and search for the Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. Docket ID FEMA–2015–0006. ACTION: Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from SUMMARY: This notice is to announce a Bradley Garner, 202–646–3901 or the Office of Management and Budget public meeting to solicit public input on FEMA–[email protected]. Mailing (OMB) for the information collection the proposed ‘‘Revised Guidelines for Address: FFRMS, 1800 South Bell described below. In accordance with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15242 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is significant direct federal funds HUD has DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR requesting comment from all interested been collecting compensation parties on the proposed collection of information to enhance regulatory Fish and Wildlife Service information. The purpose of this notice oversight by HUD, as well as state and [FWS–R2–ES–2015–N037; is to allow for 60 days of public local authorities. HUD provides the FXES11130200000–156–FF02ENEH00] comment. information collected to the public. The DATES: Comments Due Date: May 22, compensation data collected includes Endangered and Threatened Species 2015. base salary and bonus, and incentive Permit Applications ADDRESSES: Interested persons are and other compensation, and the extent AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, invited to submit comments regarding to which these payments are made with Interior. this proposal. Comments should refer to federal funds. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications; the proposal by name and/or OMB Respondents: Public Housing request for public comment. Control Number and should be sent to: Agencies. Colette Pollard, Reports Management SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing Estimated Number of Respondents: Wildlife Service, invite the public to and Urban Development, 451 7th Street Approximately 4,000. comment on the following applications SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC Estimated Number of Responses: to conduct certain activities with 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 Approximately 4,000. endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (this is not a toll-free number) or email Frequency of Response: Annual. at [email protected] for a copy of amended (Act), prohibits activities with the proposed forms or other available Average Hours per Response: 30 endangered and threatened species information. Persons with hearing or minutes unless a Federal permit allows such speech impairments may access this Total Estimated Burdens: The total activities. Both the Act and the National number through TTY by calling the toll- burden hours is estimated to be 2,000 Environmental Policy Act require that we invite public comment before free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– hours annually. The total burden cost is issuing these permits. 8339. estimated to be $44,740. DATES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: : To ensure consideration, written Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, B. Solicitation of Public Comment comments must be received on or before April 22, 2015. Programs and Legislative Initiatives, This notice is soliciting comments ADDRESSES: Susan Jacobsen, Chief, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban from members of the public and affected Development, 451 7th Street SW., Division of Classification and parties concerning the collection of Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of (L’Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), information described in Section A on Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202– Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish the following: 402–4109, (this is not a toll-free and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, number). Persons with hearing or (1) Whether the proposed collection Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by speech impairments may access this of information is necessary for the telephone at 505–248–6920. Please refer number via TTY by calling the Federal proper performance of the functions of to the respective permit number for each Information Relay Service at (800) 877– the agency, including whether the application when submitting comments. 8339. Copies of available documents information will have practical utility; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of submitted to OMB may be obtained (2) The accuracy of the agency’s from Ms. Mussington. Classification and Restoration, by U.S. estimate of the burden of the proposed mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information; notice informs the public that HUD is NM 87103; or by telephone at 505–248– (3) Ways to enhance the quality, seeking approval from OMB for the 6920. information collection described in utility, and clarity of the information to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act Section A. be collected; and (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits (4) Ways to minimize the burden of activities with endangered and A. Overview of Information Collection the collection of information on those threatened species unless a Federal Title of Proposal: Public Housing who are to respond; including through permit allows such activities. Along Agency Executive Compensation the use of appropriate automated with our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Information. collection techniques or other forms of 50 CFR 17, the Act provides for permits, OMB Approval Number: 2577–0272. information technology, e.g., permitting Type of Request: Reinstatement, with and requires that we invite public changes, of a previously approved electronic submission of responses. comment before issuing these permits. collection. HUD encourages interested parties to A permit granted by us under section Form Number: Form HUD–52725. submit comment in response to these 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes Description of the need for the questions. applicants to conduct activities with information and proposed use: Pursuant U.S. endangered or threatened species Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork to PIH Notice 2014–01, HUD collects for scientific purposes, enhancement of Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. information on the compensation survival or propagation, or interstate provided by public housing agencies Dated: March 17, 2015. commerce. Our regulations regarding (PHAs) to the top management official, Merrie Nichols-Dixon, implementation of section 10(a)(1)(A) top financial official, and highest Deputy Director, Office of Policy, Programs permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for compensated employee, similar to the and Legislative Initiatives. endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR information that non-profit [FR Doc. 2015–06545 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 organizations receiving federal tax CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, BILLING CODE 4210–67–P exemptions are required to report to the and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant IRS annually. Because PHAs receive species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15243

Applications Available for Review and • Southwestern willow flycatcher • Spikedace (Meda fulgida) Comment (Empidonax traillii extimus) • Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) • Yaqui beautiful shiner (Cyprinella We invite local, State, Tribal, and Permit TE–797127 Federal agencies and the public to formosa) Applicant: U.S. Army Corps of • Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) comment on the following applications. • Please refer to the appropriate permit Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yaqui tominnow (Poeciliopsis number (e.g., Permit No. TE–123456) Applicant requests a renewal to a occidentalis sonoriensis) current permit for research and recovery when requesting application documents Permit TE–064085 and when submitting comments. purposes to conduct presence/absence Documents and other information the surveys for the following species in New Applicant: Iris Rodden, Tucson, applicants have submitted with these Mexico: Arizona. applications are available for review, • Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) Applicant requests a renewal to a subject to the requirements of the • Jemez Mountain salamander current permit for research and recovery Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and (Plethedon neomexicanus) purposes to conduct presence/absence Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. • Northern aplomado falcon (Falco surveys for the following species in 552). femoralis) Arizona: • Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) • Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) Permit TE–830213 • Rio Grande silvery minnow • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris Applicant: EcoPlan Associates, Inc., (Hybognathus amarus) yerbabuenae) Mesa, Arizona. • Whooping crane (Grus americana) • Northern aplomado falcon (Falco Applicant requests a renewal to a • Holy Ghost ipomopsis (Ipomopsis femoralis) current permit for research and recovery sancti-spiritus) • Southwestern willow flycatcher purposes to conduct presence/absence • Knowlton cactus (Pediocactus (Empidonax traillii extimus) surveys of the following species within knowltonii) Permit TE–053104 Arizona: • Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus • Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri) Applicant: ACI Group Consulting, • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus • Mancos milk-vetch (Astragalus Austin, Texas. lucius) humillimus) Applicant requests a renewal to a • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis • Sacramento prickly poppy (Argemone current permit for research and recovery occidentalis) pleiacantha spp. pinnatisecta) purposes to conduct presence/absence • Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus • Sneed pincushion cactus surveys of the following species in mexicanus hualpaiensis) (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii) Texas: • Jaguar (Panthera onca) • Todsen’s pennyroyal (Hedeoma • Austin blind salamander (Eurycea • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris todsenii) waterlooensis) yerbabuenae) • Gypsum wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum • • Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea Mount Graham red squirrel gypsophilum) sosorum) (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus • Lee pincushion cactus (Coryphantha • Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella grahamensis) sneedii var. leei) • reddelli) Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen • Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus • Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) texanus) mesae-verdae) • Bone Cave harvestman (Texella • Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra • Pecos sunflower (Helianthus reyesi) americana sonoriensis) paradoxus) • Braken Bat Cave meshweaver • Sonoran tiger salamander • Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cicurina venii) (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) (Cirsium vinaceum) • • Southwestern willow flycatcher Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes • Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) texanus) (Empidonax traillii extimus) • • Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda) Permit TE–42739A Cokendolpher Cave harvestman • Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) (Texella cokendolpheri) Applicant: Sea Life Arizona, Tempe, • • Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica Arizona. yumanensis) chrysoparia) Applicant requests a renewal to a • Government Canyon Bat Cave Permit TE–829761 current permit for research and recovery meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) Applicant: U.S. Bureau of Land purposes to conduct husbandry and • Government Canyon Bat Cave spider Management—Phoenix District Office, holding of the following species at the (Neoleptoneta microps) Phoenix, Arizona. facility in Arizona: • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine Applicant requests a renewal to a • Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) exilis) current permit for research and recovery • Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) • Ground beetle (Unnamed) (Rhadine purposes to conduct presence/absence • Humpback chub (Gila cypha) infernalis) surveys of the following species within • Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen • Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes Arizona: texanus) venyivi) • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis • Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) macularius) occidentalis) • Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle • Gila chub (Gila intermedia) • Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae gilae) (Texamaurops reddelli) • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus • Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina occidentalis) lucius) madla) • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris • Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache) • Robber Baron Cave meshweaver yerbabuenae) • Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon (Cicurina baronia) • Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra macularius) • Southwestern willow flycatcher americana sonoriensis) • Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (Empidonax traillii extimus)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15244 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

• Texas blind salamander (Eurycea • Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea • Louisiana black bear (Ursus rathbuni) sosorum) americanus luteolus) • Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine • Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) • Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus persephone) • Fountain darter (Etheostoma baileyi) • Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion fonticola) • Mexican long-nosed bat (Tartarocreagris texana) • Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica (Leptonycteris nivalis) • Tooth Cave spider (Neoleptoneta chrysoparia) • Mount Graham red squirrel (=Leptoneta) myopica) • Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus • Northern aplomado falcon (Falco grahamensis) Permit TE–48847A femoralis) • New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Applicant: Texas A&M University Sea • Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) (Zapus husonius lutueus) Life Center, Galveston, Texas. • Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) • Ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) Applicant requests a renewal to a • Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides • Ozark big-eared bat (Plecotus current permit for research and recovery borealis) townsendii ingens) purposes to conduct presence/absence • San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia • Red wolf (Canis rufus) surveys, stranding activities, holding, georgei) • Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra and rehabilitation for Kemp’s ridley americana sonoriensis) Permit TE–58226B (Lepidochelys kempii) and hawksbill • Attwater’s greater prairie-chicken (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles Applicant: James Hall, Austin, Texas. (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) within Texas. Applicant requests a new permit for • Black-capped vireo (Vireo research and recovery purposes to atricapillus) Permit TE–043399 conduct presence/absence surveys for • California condor (Gymnogyps Applicant: Eagle Environmental golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica californianus) Consulting, Inc., Vinita, Oklahoma. chrysoparia) within Texas. • Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis) Applicant requests a renewal to a • Permit TE–58243B Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica current permit for research and recovery chrysoparia) purposes to conduct presence/absence Applicant: Austin Hill, Richardson, • Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) surveys for interior least tern (Sterna Texas. • Ivory-billed woodpecker antillarum) within Oklahoma and Applicant requests a new permit for (Campephilus principalis) American burying beetle (Nicrophorus research and recovery purposes to • Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus americanus) within Arkansas, Kansas, conduct presence/absence surveys for pallidicinctus) Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. American burying beetle (Nicrophorus • Masked bobwhite quail (Colinus americanus) within Texas, Oklahoma, Permit TE–829995 virginianus ridgwayi) Kansas, and Arkansas. • Mexican spotted owl (Strix Applicant: Dallas Zoo and Aquarium, Permit TE–195191 occidentalis lucida) Dallas, Texas. • Northern aplomado falcon (Falco Applicant requests a renewal to a Applicant: Baer Engineering and femoralis septentrionalis) current permit for research and recovery Environmental Consulting, Austin, • Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) purposes to conduct husbandry and Texas. • Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides holding for the following species at the Applicant requests a new permit for borealis) zoo in Texas: research and recovery purposes to • Southwestern willow flycatcher • Austin blind salamander (Eurycea conduct presence/absence surveys for (Expidonax traillii extimus) waterlooensis) black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) • Western yellow-billed cuckoo • Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea and golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica (Coccyzus americanus) sosorum) chrysoparia) within Texas. • Whooping crane (Grus americana) • • Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys Permit TE–676811 Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris imbricata) yumanensis) • Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife • Desert tortoise (Gopherus Service—Region 2, Albuquerque, New (=Xerobates, =Scaptochelys) agassizii) Permit TE–051819 Mexico. • Narrowheaded gartersnake Applicant: Fort Worth Zoo, Fort Applicant requests an amendment to (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) Worth, Texas. a current permit for research and • New Mexican ridge-nosed rattlesnake Applicant requests an amendment to recovery purposes to conduct presence/ (Crotalus willardi obscurus) a current permit for research and absence surveys of and regular • Northern Mexico gartersnake recovery purposes to conduct management duties associated with the (Thamnophis eques megalops) husbandry and holding of Austin blind following species within the southwest • Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys salamanders (Eurycea waterlooensis) at region: kempii) the zoo in Texas. • Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) • Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) • • Permit TE–066229 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) • Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) • Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys Applicant: Whitenton Group, San • Gray wolf (Canis lupus) imbricata) Marcos, Texas. • Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus • Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys Applicant requests a renewal to a mexicanus hualapaiensis) coriacea) current permit for research and recovery • Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) • Austin blind salamander (Eurycea purposes to conduct presence/absence • Jaguar (Panthera onca) waterlooensis) surveys of the following species in • Jaguarundi (Herpailurus (=Felis) • Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea Texas: yagouaroundi) sosorum) • Austin blind salamander (Eurycea • Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris • Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana waterlooensis) curasoae yerbabuenae) chiricahuensis)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15245

• Georgetown salamander (Eurycea • Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) • Madla’s cave meshweaver (Cicurina naufragia) • Yaqui catfish (lctalurus pricei) madla) • Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) • Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) • Bracken Bat Cave meshweaver • Jemez Mountains salamander • Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis (Cicurina venii) (Plethodon neomexicanus) occidentalis sonoriensis) • Government Canyon Bat Cave • Jollyville Plateau salamander • Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) (Eurycea tonkawae) discobolus yarrowi) • Government Canyon Bat Cave spider • Salado salamander (Eurycea • Neosho mucket (Lampsilis (Neoleptoneta microps) chisholmensis) rafinesqueana) • Diminutive amphipod (Gammarus • San Marcos salamander (Eurycea • Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia hyalleloides) nana) wheeleri) • Peck’s Cave amphipod (Stygobromus • • Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica (=Stygonectes) pecki) tigrinum stebbinsi) cylindrica) • Pecos amphipod (Gammarus pecos) • • Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge Scaleshell (mussel) (Leptodea • Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma rathbuni) leptodon) thermophilus) • • Apache (=Arizona) trout Winged mapleleaf (mussel) (Quadrula • Noel’s amphipod (Gammarus fragosa) desperatus) (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) apache) • • Arkansas River shiner (Notropis Alamosa springsnail (Tryonia • Acun˜ a cactus (Echinomastus alamosae) erectocentrus var. acunensis) girardi) • • Beautiful shiner (Cyprinella Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis • Arizona hedgehog cactus chupaderae) (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. (=Notropis) formosa) • • Big Bend gambusia (Gambusia gaigei) Diamond tryonia (Pseudotryonia arizonicus (=E. arizonicus)) • adamantine) • Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) • Arizona cliffrose (Purshia (=Cowania) • Chihuahua chub (Gila nigrescens) Gonzales tryonia (Tryonia subintegra) • circumstriata) • Clear Creek gambusia (Gambusia • Ashy dogwood (Thymophyla heterochir) Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni (=Dyssodia) tephroleuca) • kanabensis) • Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus • Black lace cactus (Echinocereus lucius) Koster’s springsnail (Juturnia kosteri) reichenbachii var. albertii (=E. • Pecos assiminea (Assiminea pecos) • Comanche Springs pupfish melanocentrus)) • Phantom springsnail (Pyrgulopsis (Cyprinodon elegans) • Brady pincushion cactus (Pediocactus • texana) (=Toumeya) bradyi) Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon • Phantom tryonia (Tryonia cheatumi) • Bunched cory cactus (Coryphantha macularius) • Roswell springsnail (Pyrgulopsis • ramillosa) Devil’s Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon roswellensis) • Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses diabolis) • San Bernadino springsnail • (Spiranthes delitescens) Devil’s River minnow (Dionda (Pyrgulopsis bernardina) diaboli) • • Chisos Mountain hedgehog cactus • Socorro springsnail (Pyrgulopsis Fountain darter (Etheostoma neomexicana) (Echinocereus chisosensis var. fonticola) • Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis chisosensis) • Gila chub (Gila intermedia) • Cochise pincushion cactus • trivialis) Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis • American burying beetle (Coryphantha (=Cochiseia, Escobaria) occidentalis) (Nicrophorus americanus) robbinsorum) • • Gila trout (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) • Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes Davis’ green pitaya (Echinocereus gilae) texanus) viridiflorus var. Davisii (=E. Davisii)) • • Humpback chub (Gila cypha) • Comal Springs dryopid beetle Eastern prairie fringed orchid • Leon Springs pupfish (Cyprinodon (Platanthera leucophaea) (Stygoparnus comalensis) • bovinus) • Comal Springs riffle beetle Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus • Leopard darter (Percina pantherina) (Heterelmis comalensis) peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae) • • Little Colorado spinedace • Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea (Lepidomeda vittata) (Texamaurops reddelli) gierischii) • Loach minnow (Rhinichthys • Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine • Gypsum wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum (=Tiaroga) cobitis) persephone) gypsophilum) • Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) • Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella • Hinckley’s oak (Quercus hinckleyi) • Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) reddelli) • Holmgren milk-vetch (Astragalus • Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis • Bone Cave harvestman (Texella holmgreniorum) simus pecosensis) reyesi) • Holy Ghost ipomopsis (Ipomopsis • Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis) • Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion sancti-spiritus) • Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen (Tartarocreagris texana) • Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis texanus) • Tooth Cave spider (Neoleptoneta schaffneriana var. recurva) • Rio Grande silvery minnow myopica) • Johnston’s frankenia (Frankenia (Hybognathus amarus) • ground beetle, no common name johnstonii) • San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia (Rhadine exilis) • Jones cycadenia (Cycadenia humilis georgei) • ground beetle, no common name var. jonesii) • Sharpnose shiner (Notropis (Rhadine infernalis) • Kearney’s blue-star (Amsonia oxyrhynchus) • Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes kearneyana) • Smalleye shiner (Notropic buccula) venyivi) • Knowlton cactus (Pediocactus • Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) • Cokendolpher cave harvestman (=Toumeya) knowltonii) (=P. Bradyi • Spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Texella cokendolpheri) var. k.) • Virgin River chub (Gila robusta • Robber Baron cave meshweaver • Kuenzler hedgehog cactus semidnuda) (Cicurina baronia) (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15246 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

• Large-fruited sand verbena (Abronia • Texas prairie dawn (=Texas personal identifying information—may macrocarpa) bitterweed) (Hymenoxys texana) be made publicly available at any time. • Lee pincushion cactus (Coryphantha • Texas poppy-mallow (Callirhoe While you can ask us in your comment (=Escobaria, =Mammillaria) sneedii scabriuscula) to withhold your personal identifying var. leei) • Texas trailling phlox (Phlox nivalis information from public review, we • Little Aguja pondweed (Potamogeton ssp. texensis) cannot guarantee that we will be able to clystocarpus) • Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana) do so. • Lloyd’s mariposa cactus • Texas snowbells (Styrax texana) (Echinomastus (=Echinocactus, • Tobusch fishhook cactus Authority =Sclerocactus, =Neolloydia (Ancistrocactus (=Echinocactus, We provide this notice under section mariposensis)) =Mammillaria) tobuschii) 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) • • Todsen’s pennyroyal (Hedeoma Mancos milk-vetch (Astragalus Dated: March 11, 2015. humillimus) todsenii) • Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus • Walker’s manioc (Manihot walkerae) Stephen Robertson, • (=Coloradoa, =Echinocactus, Welsh’s milkweed (Asclepias welshii) Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, • =Pediocactus) mesae- verdae) Western prairie fringed orchid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola) (Platanthera praeclara) [FR Doc. 2015–06573 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] • • Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes White bladderpod (Lesquerella BILLING CODE 4310–55–P parksii) pallida) • • Neches River rose-mallow (Hibiscus Zapata bladderpod (Lesquerella dasycalyx) thanmnophila) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • • Nellie cory cactus (Coryphantha Zuni (=Rhizome) fleabane (Erigeron Fish and Wildlife Service (=Escobaria, =Mammillaria) minima rhizomatus) (=nellieae)) Permit TE–5878A • Nichol’s Turk’s head cactus [FWS–R6–ES–2015–N010; FXES11130600000–156–FF06E00000] (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. Applicant: University of Arizona, nicholii) Tucson, Arizona. • Applicant requests a renewal to a Endangered and Threatened Species; Pecos (=puzzle) sunflower Permits (Helianthus paradoxus) current permit for research and recovery • Peebles Navajo cactus (Pediocactus purposes to conduct presence/absence AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (=Echinocactus, =Navajoa, = surveys and research activities for ocelot Interior. (Leopardus pardalis) and jaguar Toumeya, =Utahia) peeblesianus var. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits. peeblesianus) (Panthera onca) within Arizona. • Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha National Environmental Policy Act SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and scheeri var. robustispina) (NEPA) Wildlife Service, have issued the • Sacramento prickly-poppy (Argemone following permits to conduct certain pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta) In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. activities with endangered species • Sacramento Mountains thistle 4321 et seq.), we have made an initial under the authority of the Endangered (Cirsium vinaceum) determination that the proposed Species Act, as amended (Act). • San Francisco Peaks groundsel activities in these permits are categorically excluded from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Senecio franciscanus) Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permit • Sentry milk-vetch (Astragalus requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) cremnophylax var. cremnophylax) 628–2670 (phone); permitsR6ES@ • Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus environmental impact statement (516 fws.gov (email). (=Echinocactus, =Utahia) sileri) DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)). • SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have Slender rush-pea (Hoffmannseggia Public Availability of Comments tenella) issued the following permits in response • Sneed pincushion cactus All comments and materials we to recovery permit applications we (Coryphantha (=Escobaria, receive in response to this request will received under the authority of section =Mammillaria) sneedii var. sneedii) be available for public inspection, by 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). • South Texas ambrosia (Ambrosia appointment, during normal business Issuance of each permit occurred only cheiranthifolia) hours at the address listed in the after we determined that it was applied • Star cactus (Astrophytum asterias) ADDRESSES section of this notice. for in good faith, that granting the • Terlingua Creek cat’s eye (Cryptantha Before including your address, phone permit would not be to the disadvantage crassipes) number, email address, or other of the listed species, and that the terms • Texas ayenia (Ayenia limitaris) personal identifying information in your and conditions of the permit were • Texas golden gladecress comment, you should be aware that consistent with purposes and policy set (Leavenworthia texana) your entire comment—including your forth in the Act.

Applicant name Permit No. Date issued Date expired

BIO–LOGIC INC...... 36792A 12/1/2014 12/31/2019 BLAHA RANCH, INC...... 40466B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 BOROFF LAND & LIVESTOCK ...... 40464B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 BOUSMAN LIVESTOCK, INC...... 32286B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS DEPARTMENT ...... 42721B 10/21/2014 9/30/2019 DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ...... 40145B 12/1/2014 12/31/2019 G&E LIVESTOCK, INC...... 32288B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 HIP INVESTMENTS LLC ...... 40463B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 LAWRENCE, CINDY ...... 27300B 7/11/2014 6/30/2019

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:12 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15247

Applicant name Permit No. Date issued Date expired

LONGREACH BUFFALO CO, LLC ...... 42567B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 MARETTE, BRANDON B...... 25496B 12/15/2014 12/31/2019 MERLIN RANCH, INC...... 40602B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ...... 191853 8/20/2014 7/1/2019 PAPE RANCHES, INC...... 40467B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 PETERSON, JOHN F...... 34900B 12/5/2014 12/31/2019 ROGERS, DONALD W...... 40478B 10/10/2014 10/7/2034 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ...... 121914 7/25/2014 5/31/2019 UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES ...... 39634B 6/23/2014 6/16/2050

Availability of Documents one of the following methods to request and other information the applicants Documents and other information hard copies or a CD–ROM of the have submitted with their applications submitted with these applications are documents. Please specify the permit are available for review, subject to the available for review, subject to the you are interested in by number (e.g., requirements of the Privacy Act (5 requirements of the Privacy Act and Permit No. TE–XXXXXX). U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of • Email: [email protected]. Freedom of Information Act, by any Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Please refer to the respective permit party who submits a written requires for number (e.g., Permit No. TE–XXXXXX) Permit Application Number TE704930 a copy of such documents to Kathy in the subject line of the message. Applicants: Michael Thabault and Konishi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION • U.S. Mail: Ecological Services, U.S. Nicole Alt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife CONTACT). Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box Service, Region 6, Ecological Services, Authority 25486–DFC, Denver, CO 80225. Denver, CO. • In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or The applicants request an amendment We provide this notice under section Pickup: Call (719) 628–2670 to make an to add New Mexico meadow jumping 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). appointment during regular business mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus), red Michael G. Thabault, hours at 134 Union Blvd., Suite 645, knot (Calidris canutus rufa), Gunnison Assistant Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Lakewood, CO 80228. sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus), Region. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus [FR Doc. 2015–06519 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits americanus), Eskimo curlew (Numenius BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) borealis), lesser prairie-chicken 628–2670 (phone); permitsR6ES@ (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), white fws.gov (email). sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii), Leedy’s roseroot (Rhodiola Fish and Wildlife Service Background integrifolia ssp. leeydi), Higgins eye [FWS–R6–ES–2014–N252; The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis higginsii), FXES11130600000–156–FF06E00000] prohibits activities with endangered and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica threatened species unless a Federal cylindrica), Dakota skipper (Hesperia Endangered and Threatened Wildlife permit allows such activity. Along with dacotae), and Poweshiek skipperling and Plants; Recovery Permit our implementing regulations at 50 CFR (Oarisma poweshiek) to an existing Applications 17, the Act provides for permits and permit to purposefully take (display, requires that we invite public comment photograph, harass by survey, capture, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, before issuing these permits. handle, weigh, measure, mark, obtain Interior. A permit granted by us under section biological samples, breed in captivity, ACTION: Notice of availability; request 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the reintroduce, relocate, remove from the for comments. permittees to conduct activities with wild, and kill) in conjunction with U.S. endangered or threatened species surveys and population monitoring for SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and for scientific purposes, enhancement of the purpose of enhancing the species’ Wildlife Service, invite the public to propagation or survival, or interstate survival. This permit will allow Fish comment on the following applications commerce (the latter only in the event and Wildlife Service (Service) to conduct certain activities with that it facilitates scientific purposes or employees, agents of the Service, and endangered or threatened species. With enhancement of propagation or Service volunteers to lawfully conduct some exceptions, the Endangered survival). Our regulations implementing threatened and endangered species Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are activities, in conjunction with recovery prohibits activities with endangered and found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered activities throughout the species’ range, threatened species unless a Federal wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for as outlined in Fish and Wildlife Service permit allows such activity. The Act threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR employees’ and volunteers’ position requires that we invite public comment 17.62 for endangered plant species, and descriptions. before issuing these permits. 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant Permit Application Number TE232905 DATES: To ensure consideration, please species. send your written comments by April Applicant: City of Saint Paul, Como 20, 2015. Applications Available for Review and Zoo, Saint Paul, MN. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Comment The applicant requests a permit to or requests for copies or more We invite local, State, and Federal propagate Wyoming toads (Anaxyrus information by any of the following agencies and the public to comment on baxteri) to preserve genetic diversity methods. Alternatively, you may use the following applications. Documents and provide individuals for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15248 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

reintroduction into suitable sites Authority Background identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife We provide this notice under section The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Service for the purpose of enhancing the 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). prohibits certain activities with species’ survival. endangered and threatened species Michael G. Thabault, Permit Application Number TE207946 unless authorized by a Federal permit. Assistant Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Along with our implementing Region. Applicant: Bureau of Reclamation, regulations at 50 CFR 17, the Act Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO. [FR Doc. 2015–06520 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] provides for permits and requires that BILLING CODE 4310–55–P we invite public comment before The applicant requests a permit to issuing these permits. conduct presence/absence surveys for A permit granted by us under section the New Mexico meadow jumping DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) in New Fish and Wildlife Service permittees to conduct activities with Mexico to identify and avoid occupied U.S. endangered or threatened species habitat during reclamation activities for [FWS–R6–ES–2015–N029]; for scientific purposes, enhancement of the purpose of enhancing the species’ [FXES11130600000–156–FF06E00000] propagation or survival, or interstate survival. commerce (the latter only in the event Endangered and Threatened Wildlife that it facilitates scientific purposes or Permit Application Number TE227446 and Plants; Recovery Permit enhancement of propagation or Applications Applicant: Clifton Sanitation District, survival). Our regulations implementing 3217 D Road, Clifton, CO. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are Interior. found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered The applicant requests the renewal of ACTION: Notice of availability; request wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for a permit for educational display and for comments. threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR propagation of bonytail (Gila elegans), 17.62 for endangered plant species, and Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), Wildlife Service, invite the public to species. and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen comment on four applications to Applications Available for Review and texanus) at the Clifton Sanitation conduct activities intended enhance the Comment District facility for the purpose of survival of target endangered or enhancing the species’ survival. threatened species. The Endangered We invite local, State, and Federal Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), agencies and the public to comment on National Environmental Policy Act prohibits certain activities with the following applications. Documents and other information the applicants In compliance with the National endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. have submitted with their applications Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. are available for review, subject to the 4321 et seq.), we have made an initial The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. requirements of the Privacy Act (5 determination that the proposed U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of DATES: To ensure consideration, please activities in these permits are Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). categorically excluded from the send your written comments by April requirement to prepare an 22, 2015. Permit Application Number TE43046A environmental assessment or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Applicant: Kirk Mammoliti, Greenwood, environmental impact statement (516 or requests for copies or more MO. DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)). information by any of the following The applicant requests a permit to methods. Alternatively, you may use conduct presence/absence surveys for Public Availability of Comments one of the following methods to request Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) in hard copies or a CD–ROM of the All comments and materials we Kansas to identify and avoid occupied documents. Please specify the permit habitat during reclamation activities for receive in response to these requests you are interested in by number (e.g., will be available for public inspection, the purpose of enhancing the species’ Permit No. TE–XXXXXX). survival. by appointment, during normal business • Email: [email protected]. hours at the address listed in the Please refer to the respective permit Permit Application Number TE060668 ADDRESSES section of this notice. number (e.g., Permit No. TE–XXXXXX) Applicants: Bellini Environmental Before including your address, phone in the subject line of the message. Consulting, Midway, UT. • number, email address, or other U.S. Mail: Ecological Services, U.S. The applicants request an amendment personal identifying information in your Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box to expand the geographic survey area for comment, you should be aware that 25486–DFC, Denver, CO 80225. • Southwestern willow flycatcher your entire comment—including your In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or (Empidonax traillii extimus) from Utah personal identifying information—may Pickup: Call (719) 628–2670 to make an to range-wide authorization for the be made publicly available at any time. appointment during regular business purpose of enhancing the species’ While you can ask us in your comment hours at 134 Union Blvd., Suite 645, survival. Lakewood, CO 80228. to withhold your personal identifying Permit Application Number TE207946 information from public review, we FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: cannot guarantee that we will be able to Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Applicant: Bureau of Reclamation, do so. Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) Denver, CO. 628–2670 (phone); permitsR6ES@ The applicant requests a permit to fws.gov (email). conduct presence/absence surveys for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Mexico meadow jumping mouse

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15249

(Zapus hudsonius luteus) in Colorado to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Federal Register (78 FR 3909) on identify and avoid occupied habitat January 17, 2013. For more about the during land reclamation activities for Fish and Wildlife Service initial process and the history of this the purpose of enhancing the species’ [FWS–R3–R–2015–N032; FXRS1265030000– Refuge, see that notice. survival. 156–FF03R06000] Background Permit Application Number TE56902B Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife The National Wildlife Refuge System Refuge, Bayfield County, Wisconsin; Applicant: Bureau of Reclamation, Administration Act of 1966, as amended Draft Comprehensive Conservation by the National Wildlife Refuge System Denver, CO. Plan and Environmental Assessment Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. The applicant requests a permit to 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), AGENCY: conduct presence/absence surveys for Fish and Wildlife Service, requires us to develop a CCP for each Interior. pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) national wildlife refuge. The purpose in in the Yellowstone River of Montana to ACTION: Notice of availability; request developing a CCP is to provide refuge develop a baseline analysis of occupied for comments. managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and habitat. These data will assist in the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and contributing toward the mission of the evaluation of the effectiveness of a Wildlife Service (Service), announce the National Wildlife Refuge System proposed fish bypass structure. The availability of a draft comprehensive (NWRS), consistent with sound proposed structure will provide passage conservation plan (CCP) and principles of fish and wildlife of pallid sturgeon and other native environmental assessment (EA) for the management, conservation, legal fishes around current impediments Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife mandates, and Service policies. In constructed in 1907 for the purpose of Refuge (Refuge, NWR) for public review addition to outlining broad management enhancing the species’ survival. and comment. In this draft CCP/EA we direction on conserving wildlife and describe how we propose to manage the National Environmental Policy Act their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife- Refuge for the next 15 years. dependent recreational opportunities In compliance with the National DATES: To ensure consideration, we available to the public, including Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. must receive your written comments by opportunities for hunting, fishing, 4321 et seq.), we have made an initial April 22, 2015. We will hold an open wildlife observation and photography, determination that the proposed house-style meeting during the and environmental education and activities in these permits are comment period to receive comments interpretation. We will review and categorically excluded from the and provide information on the draft update the CCP at least every 15 years requirement to prepare an plan. In addition, we will use special in accordance with the Administration environmental assessment or mailings, newspaper articles, Internet Act. environmental impact statement (516 postings, and other media Each unit of the NWRS was DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)). announcements to inform people of established for specific purposes. We opportunities for input. use these purposes as the foundation for Public Availability of Comments ADDRESSES: Send your comments or developing and prioritizing the requests for more information by any of All comments and materials we management goals and objectives for the following methods: each refuge within the NWRS mission, receive in response to these requests • Email: [email protected]. Include and to determine how the public can will be available for public inspection, ‘‘Whittlesey Creek Draft CCP/EA’’ in the by appointment, during normal business use each refuge. The planning process is subject line of the message. a way for us and the public to evaluate hours at the address listed in the • Fax: Attention: Refuge Manager, management goals and objectives that ADDRESSES section of this notice. Whittlesey Creek NWR, 715–685–2680. will ensure the best possible approach • Before including your address, phone U.S. Mail: Attention: Refuge to wildlife, plant, and habitat number, email address, or other Manager, Whittlesey Creek NWR, conservation, while providing for personal identifying information in your Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, wildlife-dependent recreation comment, you should be aware that 29270 County Highway G, Ashland, WI opportunities that are compatible with your entire comment—including your 54806. each refuge’s establishing purposes and • personal identifying information—may In-Person Drop Off: You may drop the mission of the NWRS. off comments during regular business be made publicly available at any time. Additional Information While you can ask us in your comment hours at the above addresses. to withhold your personal identifying You will find the draft CCP/EA, as The draft CCP/EA may be found at information from public review, we well as information about the planning http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/ process and a summary of the CCP, on cannot guarantee that we will be able to whittleseycreek/index.html. That the planning Web site at http:// do so. document incorporates an EA, prepared www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/ in accordance with the National Authority whittleseycreek/index.html. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The draft CCP/EA We provide this notice under section Kerr, 715–246–7784. includes detailed information about the 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: planning process, refuge, issues, and management alternatives considered Michael G. Thabault, Introduction Assistant Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie and proposed. The EA includes Region. With this notice, we continue the CCP discussions of four alternative refuge [FR Doc. 2015–06521 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] process for Whittlesey Creek National management options. The Service’s Wildlife Refuge, which we began by preferred alternative is reflected in the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P publishing a notice of intent in the draft CCP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

The alternatives analyzed in detail Public Availability of Comments to contact the above individual during include: Before including your address, phone normal business hours. The FIRS is • Alternative A: Current Management number, email address, or other available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, (No Action)—This alternative reflects personal identifying information in your to leave a message or question with the the current management direction of comment, you should be aware that above individual. You will receive a Whittlesey Creek NWR. It provides the your entire comment—including your reply during normal business hours. baseline against which to compare other personal identifying information—may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wild alternatives. For NEPA purposes, this is be made publicly available at any time. Horse and Burro Advisory Board referred to as the ‘‘No Action’’ While you can ask us in your comment advises the Secretary of the Interior, the alternative. to withhold your personal identifying BLM Director, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest • Alternative B: Refuge and information from public review, we Service on matters pertaining to the Watershed Restoration; Maintain Visitor cannot guarantee that we will be able to management and protection of wild, Center Partnership (Preferred do so. free-roaming horses and burros on the Alternative)—Under this alternative, Charles M. Wooley, Nation’s public lands. The Wild Horse prioritized focus areas for habitat Acting Regional Director. and Burro Advisory Board operates restoration would be developed for the [FR Doc. 2015–06577 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] under the authority of 43 CFR 1784. The watershed and the Refuge using data BILLING CODE 4310–55–P tentative agenda for the meeting is: from sediment and hydrology models. The quantity and quality of habitat for I. Advisory Board Public Meeting native brook trout and migratory DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wednesday, April 22, 2015 (8:00 a.m.– waterfowl and shorebirds would 5:00 p.m.) increase. Stream and floodplain Bureau of Land Management hydrology would better emulate natural 8:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, and [LLWO260000.L10600000.PC0000. Agenda Review seasonal and long-term variability. LXSIADVSBD00] Current Service participation in the 8:50 a.m. Approval of August 2014 Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center Notice of Wild Horse and Burro Minutes (NGLVC) would continue; Refuge staff Advisory Board Meeting 9:10 a.m. BLM Response to Advisory would participate in NGLVC programs Board Recommendations that align with the NWRS mission and AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 9:30 a.m. Wild Horse and Burro Refuge purposes. Interior. Program Update • Alternative C: Watershed ACTION: Notice. 12:00 p.m. Lunch Restoration; Expand Visitor Center SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 1:15 p.m. Program Update continued Partnership—Under this alternative, Management (BLM) announces that the 3:00 p.m. Public Comment Period habitat restoration would focus on Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Begins reducing sedimentation and flood peaks will conduct a meeting on matters 4:30 p.m. Public Comment Period in the Whittlesey Creek watershed. The pertaining to management and Ends quantity and quality of habitat for native protection of wild, free-roaming horses 5:00 p.m. Adjourn brook trout would increase and stream and burros on the Nation’s public lands. hydrology would better emulate natural Thursday, April 23, 2015 (8:00 a.m.– DATES: The Advisory Board will meet on 5:00 p.m.) seasonal and long-term variability. Wednesday April 22, 2015, from 8 a.m. Service participation in the NGLVC to 5 p.m. Eastern Time and Thursday 8:00 a.m. Program Update continued would increase, and Refuge visitor April 23, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 12:00 p.m. Lunch services activities would focus on p.m. Eastern Time. This will be a two 1:15 p.m. Working Group Reports NGLVC programs and special events. day meeting. 2:45 p.m. Advisory Board Discussion • Alternative D: Refuge Restoration; ADDRESSES: This Advisory Board and Recommendations to the BLM Reduce Visitor Center Partnership— meeting will take place in Columbus, 5:00 p.m. Adjourn Under this alternative, habitat Ohio at the Hyatt Regency Columbus, The meeting site is accessible to restoration would focus on floodplain 350 North High Street, Columbus, OH individuals with disabilities. An forest, wetlands, and streams within the 43215, telephone 614–463–1234. individual with a disability needing an Refuge boundary. The quality of habitat Written comments pertaining to the auxiliary aid or service to participate in for waterfowl and shorebirds would April 22–23, 2015, Advisory Board the meeting, such as an interpreting improve and floodplain hydrology meeting can be mailed to National Wild service, assistive listening device, or would better emulate seasonal and long- Horse and Burro Program,WO–260, materials in an alternate format, must term variability. Service participation in Attention: Ramona DeLorme, 1340 notify Ms. DeLorme two weeks before the NGLVC would decrease; Refuge staff Financial Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502– the scheduled meeting date. Although and visitor services activities would 7147, or sent electronically to the BLM will attempt to meet a request move off site. [email protected]. Please include received after that date, the requested Public Involvement ‘‘Advisory Board Comment’’ in the auxiliary aid or service may not be subject line of the email. available because of insufficient time to We will give the public an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: arrange for it. opportunity to provide input at a public Ramona DeLorme, Wild Horse and The Federal Advisory Committee meeting. You can obtain the schedule Burro Administrative Assistant, at 775– Management Regulations at 41 CFR from the address or Web site listed in 861–6583. Persons who use a 101–6.1015(b), requires BLM to publish this notice (see ADDRESSES). You may telecommunications device for the deaf in the Federal Register notice of a also submit comments anytime during (TDD) may call the Federal Information public meeting 15 days prior to the the comment period. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 meeting date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15251

II. Public Comment Procedures INTERNATIONAL TRADE Commission’s statement on adequacy, COMMISSION and any individual Commissioner’s On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:00 statements are available from the Office p.m. members of the public will have [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–753–754 and of the Secretary and at the 756 (Third Review)] the opportunity to make comments to Commission’s Web site. the Advisory Board on the Wild Horse Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Participation in the reviews and and Burro Program. Persons wishing to China, Russia, and Ukraine; public service list.—Persons, including make comments during the meeting Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews industrial users of the subject should register in person with the BLM merchandise and, if the merchandise is by 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 2015, at the AGENCY: United States International sold at the retail level, representative meeting location. Depending on the Trade Commission. consumer organizations, wishing to number of commenters, the Advisory ACTION: Notice. participate in these reviews as parties Board may limit the length of must file an entry of appearance with SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives the Secretary to the Commission, as comments. At previous meetings, notice of the scheduling of full reviews comments have been limited to three provided in section 201.11 of the pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Commission’s rules, by 45 days after minutes in length; however, this time Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. publication of this notice. A party that may vary. Commenters should address § 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine filed a notice of appearance following the specific wild horse and burro- whether revocation of the antidumping publication of the Commission’s notice related topics listed on the agenda. duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel of institution of the reviews need not Speakers are requested to submit a plate from China and/or the suspension file an additional notice of appearance. written copy of their statement to the agreements on cut-to-length carbon steel The Secretary will maintain a public address listed in the ADDRESSES section plate from Russia and Ukraine would be service list containing the names and above or bring a written copy to the likely to lead to continuation or addresses of all persons, or their meeting. There may be a Webcam recurrence of material injury to an representatives, who are parties to the present during the entire meeting and industry in the United States within a review. individual comments may be recorded. reasonably foreseeable time. The Limited disclosure of business Participation in the Advisory Board Commission has determined to exercise proprietary information (BPI) under an meeting is not a prerequisite for its authority to extend the review period administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to submission of written comments. The by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(B). For further information section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s BLM invites written comments from all concerning the conduct of these reviews rules, the Secretary will make BPI interested parties. Your written and rules of general application, consult gathered in these reviews available to comments should be specific and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and authorized applicants under the APO explain the reason for any Procedure, part 201, subparts A through issued in the reviews, provided that the recommendation. The BLM appreciates E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, application is made by 45 days after any and all comments. The BLM subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part publication of this notice. Authorized considers comments that are either 207). applicants must represent interested supported by quantitative information parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2015. or studies or those that include citations § 1677(9), who are parties to the to and analysis of applicable laws and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reviews. A party granted access to BPI regulations to be the most useful and Michael Haberstroh (202–205–3390), following publication of the likely to influence BLM’s decisions on Office of Investigations, U.S. Commission’s notice of institution of International Trade Commission, 500 E the management and protection of wild the reviews need not reapply for such Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. horses and burros. access. A separate service list will be Hearing-impaired persons can obtain maintained by the Secretary for those Before including your address, phone information on this matter by contacting parties authorized to receive BPI under number, email address, or other the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– the APO. personal identifying information in your 205–1810. Persons with mobility Staff report.—The prehearing staff comment, you should be aware that impairments who will need special report in the reviews will be placed in your entire comment—including your assistance in gaining access to the the nonpublic record on September 3, personal identifying information—may Commission should contact the Office 2015, and a public version will be be made publicly available at any time. of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. issued thereafter, pursuant to section While you can ask us in your comment General information concerning the 207.64 of the Commission’s rules. to withhold your personal identifying Commission may also be obtained by Hearing.—The Commission will hold information from public review, we accessing its Internet server (http:// a hearing in connection with the cannot guarantee that we will be able to www.usitc.gov). The public record for reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on do so. these reviews may be viewed on the September 29, 2015, at the U.S. Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) International Trade Commission Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4–1. at http://edis.usitc.gov. Building. Requests to appear at the Shelley J. Smith, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hearing should be filed in writing with Deputy Assistant Director (Acting), Resources Background.—On January 5, 2015, the the Secretary to the Commission on or and Planning. Commission determined that responses before September 22, 2015. A nonparty [FR Doc. 2015–06517 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] to its notice of institution of the subject who has testimony that may aid the five-year reviews were such that full Commission’s deliberations may request BILLING CODE 4310–84–P reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of permission to present a short statement the Act should proceed (80 FR 2443, at the hearing. All parties and January 16, 2015). A record of the nonparties desiring to appear at the Commissioners’ votes, the hearing and make oral presentations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

should participate in a prehearing a certificate of service must be timely your comments by only one method. All conference to be held on September 28, filed. The Secretary will not accept a submissions received must include the 2015 (if deemed necessary). Oral document for filing without a certificate agency name and OMB Control Number testimony and written materials to be of service. identified above for this information submitted at the public hearing are Authority: These reviews are being collection. Because we continue to governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), conducted under authority of title VII of the experience delays in receiving mail in 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published the Washington, DC area, commenters Commission’s rules. Parties must submit pursuant to section 207.62 of the are strongly encouraged to transmit their any request to present a portion of their Commission’s rules. comments electronically via email or to hearing testimony in camera no later By order of the Commission. submit them by mail early. Comments, than 7 business days prior to the date of Issued: March 17, 2015. including any personal information the hearing. Lisa R. Barton, provided, become a matter of public Written submissions.—Each party to record. They will also be summarized Secretary to the Commission. the reviews may submit a prehearing and/or included in the request for OMB brief to the Commission. Prehearing [FR Doc. 2015–06439 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] approval of the information collection briefs must conform with the provisions BILLING CODE 7020–02–P request. of section 207.65 of the Commission’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rules; the deadline for filing is September 17, 2015. Parties may also DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Christina Yancey by email at file written testimony in connection [email protected]. with their presentation at the hearing, as Office of the Secretary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provided in section 207.24 of the I. Background Commission’s rules, and posthearing Agency Information Collection briefs, which must conform with the Activities; Submission for OMB The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job provisions of section 207.67 of the Review; Comment Request; Creation Act of 2012 was signed into Commission’s rules. The deadline for Demonstration and Evaluation of the law on February 22, 2012. Subtitle D of filing posthearing briefs is October 8, Short-Time Compensation (STC) Title II of the Act contains several 2015. In addition, any person who has Program (STC) Grants Program provisions concerning the STC program, including Section 2166 requiring the not entered an appearance as a party to AGENCY: Office of the Assistant the reviews may submit a written Secretary of Labor to submit a final Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation report to Congress on the statement of information pertinent to Office, Department of Labor. the subject of the reviews on or before implementation of the provisions of ACTION: Notice. October 8, 2015. On October 29, 2015, Subtitle D no later than four years after the date of enactment. the Commission will make available to SUMMARY: The Department of Labor parties all information on which they The STC program is an option within (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) have not had an opportunity to reduce paperwork and respondent comment. Parties may submit final system that allows employers to reduce burden, conducts a preclearance the hours of workers, while permitting comments on this information on or consultation program to provide the before November 2, 2015, but such final workers to receive partial UI benefits for general public and Federal agencies the non-worked hours. The objective of comments must not contain new factual with an opportunity to comment on information and must otherwise comply STC is to avoid layoffs during periods proposed and/or continuing collections of reduced labor demand and thereby with section 207.68 of the Commission’s of information in accordance with the rules. All written submissions must allow businesses to maintain their Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 operations, retain valued employees, conform with the provisions of section (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any and prevent company morale from program helps to ensure that required deteriorating. The program was first submissions that contain BPI must also data can be provided in the desired conform with the requirements of initiated California in 1978 and a format, reporting burden (time and temporary national STC program was sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the financial resources) is minimized, Commission’s rules. The Commission’s adopted in 1982 under the Tax Equity collection instruments are clearly and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, Handbook on E-Filing, available on the understood, and the impact of collection Commission’s Web site at http:// P.L. 97–248). The STC program became requirements on respondents can be permanent in Federal law in 1992, when edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the properly assessed. A copy of the Commission’s rules with respect to states were permitted to adopt their own proposed Information Collection STC programs as part of State UI laws. electronic filing. Request can be obtained by contacting Additional written submissions to the Under Section 303(a)(5) of the Social the office listed below in the addressee Commission, including requests Security Act and Section 3304(a)(4) of section of this notice. pursuant to section 201.12 of the the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, the Commission’s rules, shall not be DATES: Written comments must be Unemployment Trust Fund can pay for accepted unless good cause is shown for submitted to the office listed in the STC. Each state has an account within accepting such submissions, or unless addressee section below on or before the Fund from which its pays UI the submission is pursuant to a specific May 22, 2015. benefits. request by a Commissioner or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments The Employment and Training Commission staff. by either one of the following methods: Administration’s Office of In accordance with sections 201.16(c) Email: [email protected]; Unemployment Insurance has oversight and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, Mail or Courier: Christina Yancey, Chief responsibility for the STC program. The each document filed by a party to the Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Chief Evaluation Office of the reviews must be served on all other Labor, Room S–2312, 200 Constitution Department of Labor (DOL) is parties to the reviews (as identified by Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. conducting a rigorous demonstration either the public or BPI service list), and Instructions: Please submit one copy of and impact evaluation of the STC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15253

programs in two states, Iowa and short-term compensation program. collection techniques or other forms of Oregon, to better understand the reasons Comments are requested to: information technology, e.g., permitting for low take-up of STC and to evaluate * Evaluate whether the proposed electronic submissions of responses. the effectiveness of strategies to increase collection of information is necessary III. Current Actions employer use. DOL is requesting for the proper performance of the clearance for two aspects of information functions of the agency, including At this time, the Department of Labor collection: (1) To conduct in-depth whether the information will have is requesting clearance for data interviews with state agency officials practical utility; collection for the demonstration and and employers, and (2) to survey * evaluate the accuracy of the evaluation of the short-term employers on STC program awareness agency’s estimate of the burden of the compensation program via collection of and participation. These data proposed collection of information, post-implementation data elements and collections are essential elements of the including the validity of the fieldwork efforts. implementation study and the rigorous methodology and assumptions used; Type of review: New information impact evaluation of the demonstration * enhance the quality, utility, and collection request. of the STC program. clarity of the information to be OMB Control Number: 1205–0NEW. collected; and Affected Public: Private Sector II. Desired Focus of Comments * minimize the burden of the Employers eligible for enrollment Currently, the Department of Labor is information collection on those who are within the Short-Time Compensation soliciting comments concerning the to respond, including the use of Program; and Public Sector State above data collection for the appropriate automated, electronic, Agency Personnel engaged in the Short- demonstration and evaluation of the mechanical, or other technological Time Compensation Program.

ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS

Estimated Average time Estimated Form/activity total Frequency Total per response total burden respondents responses (hours) hours

State Agency Personnel interviews ...... 30 Once ...... 30 .67 20 Employer interviews ...... 28 Once ...... 28 .83 23.3 Employer Short-form survey ...... 2,000 Once ...... 2,000 .034 67.7 Employer Long-form survey ...... 800 Once ...... 800 .2 160

Totals ...... 2,858 ...... 2,858 ...... 271

Comments submitted in response to DATES: You must submit (postmarked, Instructions: Your submissions and this request will be summarized and/or sent, transmitted, or received) your supporting materials must include the included in the request for Office of nominations by May 15, 2015. agency name and docket number for this Management and Budget approval; they ADDRESSES: You may submit Federal Register notice. Due to security- will also become a matter of public nominations and supporting materials related procedures, submissions by record. using one of the following methods: regular mail may experience significant delays. Please contact the OSHA Docket Mary Beth Maxwell, Electronically: You may submit Office for information about special Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for nominations, including attachments, security procedures for submitting Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. electronically at http:// materials by mail, express delivery, [FR Doc. 2015–06494 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov, the federal hand delivery, and messenger or courier BILLING CODE 4510–23–P eRulemaking portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting nominations; service. For additional information on submitting nominations and supporting DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Facsimile: If your nominations and materials, see the Supplementary supporting materials and attachments Information section of this notice. do not exceed 10 pages, you may FAX Occupational Safety and Health OSHA will post all submissions, them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) Administration including any personal information you 693–1648; provide, without change on http:// [Docket No. OSHA–2015–0005] Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA messenger or courier service: You may cautions you about submitting personal Federal Advisory Council on send nominations and supporting information such as Social Security Occupational Safety and Health materials to the OSHA Docket Office, numbers and birthdates. (FACOSH) Docket No. OSHA–2015–0005, Room N– 2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 To read or download submissions in AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, response to this Federal Register notice, Administration (OSHA), Labor. DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2350 go to Docket No. OSHA–2015–0005, at ACTION: Request for nominations. (TTY number (877) 889–5627). http://www.regulations.gov. All Deliveries by hand, express mail, documents in the docket are listed in SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of messenger, and courier service are the index of that Web site; however, Labor for Occupational Safety and accepted during the Department of some documents (e.g., copyrighted Health invites interested individuals to Labor’s and OSHA Docket Office’s materials) are not publicly available to submit nominations for membership on normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.–4:45 read or download there. All FACOSH. p.m., ET. submissions, including copyrighted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

materials, are available for inspection at 1. The nominee’s name, contact 2016. In addition, OSHA will consider the OSHA Docket Office. information and current employment; the nominations received by May 1, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. The nominee’s resume or 2015, for any vacancy that may occur For press inquiries: Mr. Francis curriculum vitae, including prior during 2015 and for member positions Meilinger, OSHA, Office of membership on FACOSH and other that open January 1, 2017, provided the Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. relevant organizations, associations and information the nominee submitted Department of Labor, 200 Constitution committees; continues to remain current and Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 3. Category of membership accurate. OSHA believes that rolling telephone (202) 693–1999; email (management, labor) that the nominee is over nominations for future [email protected]. qualified to represent; consideration will make it easier for For general information: Mr. Francis 4. A summary of the nominee’s interested individuals to be considered Yebesi, OSHA, Office of Federal Agency background, experience and for membership on FACOSH. This Programs, Directorate of Enforcement qualifications that address the process also will provide OSHA with a Programs, Room N–3622, U.S. nominee’s suitability to serve on broad base of nominations for ensuring Department of Labor, 200 Constitution FACOSH; that FACOSH membership is fairly Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 5. Articles or other documents the balanced as the Federal Advisory telephone (202) 693–2122; email nominee has authored that indicate the Committee Act requires (5 U.S.C. App.2, [email protected]. nominee’s knowledge, experience and Section (5)(b)(2); 41 CFR 102–3.30(c)). expertise in occupational safety and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OSHA will continue to request health, particularly as it pertains to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA invites nominations as vacancies occur, but federal workforce; nominees whose information is current interested individuals to submit 6. A statement that the nominee is nominations for membership on and accurate will not need to resubmit aware of the nomination, is willing to a nomination. FACOSH. regularly attend and participate in Background. FACOSH is authorized FACOSH meetings, and has no apparent Public Participation to advise the Secretary of Labor conflicts of interest that would preclude (Secretary) on all matters relating to the Instructions for submitting membership on FACOSH; and nominations. Interested individuals may occupational safety and health of federal 7. A self-certification statement that in employees (5 U.S.C. 7902; 29 U.S.C. submit nominations and supplemental the past 10 years, the nominee has not 668, Executive Order 12196, as materials using one of the methods been convicted of a felony, or been amended). This includes providing listed in the ADDRESSES section. All imprisoned, been on probation, or been advice on how to reduce and keep to a nominations, attachments and other on parole, for a felony; or is not minimum the number of injuries and materials must identify the agency/labor currently under charges for a felony. organization name and the docket illnesses in the federal workforce, and Member selection. The Secretary how to encourage the establishment and number for this Federal Register notice. appoints FACOSH members based upon You may supplement electronic maintenance of effective occupational criteria that include the nominee’s level safety and health programs in each nominations by uploading document of responsibility for occupational safety federal agency. files electronically. If, instead, you wish and health matters involving the federal FACOSH membership. FACOSH is to submit additional materials in comprised of 16 members, 8 workforce; experience and competence reference to an electronic or FAX management representatives and 8 in occupational safety and health; and submission, you must submit them to representatives of labor organizations willingness and ability to regularly and the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES representing federal employees, whom fully participate in FACOSH meetings. section). The additional material must the Secretary appoints to staggered Federal agency management nominees clearly identify your electronic or FAX terms of up to three years. The number who serve as their agency’s Designated submission by name and docket number of members the Secretary will appoint Agency Safety and Health Official so that the materials can be attached to to three-year terms beginning January 1, (DASHO), or at an equivalent level of your submission. 2016, includes: responsibility within their respective Because of security-related • Two management representatives; federal agencies, are preferred as procedures, the use of regular mail may and management members. Labor nominees cause a significant delay in the receipt • Three labor representatives. who have responsibilities for federal of nominations. For information about FACOSH members serve at the employee occupational safety and security procedures concerning the pleasure of the Secretary and may be health matters within their respective submission of materials by mail, hand, appointed to successive terms. FACOSH labor organizations are preferred as express delivery, messenger or courier meets at least twice a year. labor members. service, please contact the OSHA Docket The Department of Labor is The information received through the Office (see ADDRESSES section). committed to equal opportunity in the nomination process, along with other All submissions in response to this workplace and seeks broad-based and relevant sources of information, will Federal Register notice are posted diverse FACOSH membership. Any assist the Secretary in making without change at http:// interested federal agency, labor appointments to FACOSH. In selecting www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA organization representing federal FACOSH members, the Secretary will cautions interested parties about workers, or individual(s) may nominate consider individuals nominated in submitting personal information, such one or more qualified persons for response to this Federal Register notice, as Social Security numbers and membership on FACOSH. Interested as well as other qualified individuals. birthdates. Guidance on submitting individuals also are invited and OSHA will publish a list of the new nominations and materials in response encouraged to submit statements in FACOSH members in the Federal to this Federal Register notice is support of particular nominees. Register. available at http://www.regulations.gov Nomination requirements. OSHA will consider any nomination and from the OSHA Docket Office. Submission of nominations must submitted in response to this notice for Access to docket and other materials. include the following information: the vacancies that occur on January 1, To read or download nominations and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15255

additional materials submitted in is necessary for the performance of the Estimated Average Annual response to this Federal Register notice, functions of the agency, including Respondents: 500 applicants. go to Docket No. OSHA–2015–0005 at whether the information has practical Total Annual Hours Burden: 4,063 http://www.regulations.gov. All utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s hours (8 hours × 500 applicants). submissions are listed in the index of estimate of the time spent completing Estimated Cost per Student: The that docket; however, some documents the application (‘‘burden of the Udall Foundation has determined to (e.g., copyrighted materials) are not proposed collection of information’’); (3) utilize the federal minimum wage of publicly available to read or download ways to enhance the quality, utility, and $10.10/hour as set by Executive Order through that Web page. All submissions, clarity of the information collected; (4) 13658, February 12, 2014. The including copyrighted materials, are ways to minimize the burden of the Foundation estimates that completing available for inspection at the OSHA collection of information on those who the on-line application takes Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket are to respond, including through the approximately eight (8) hours per Office for information about materials use of technology. student. not available through http:// DATES: Comments must be submitted on Annual Cost Burden: $40,400 annual www.regulations.gov, and for assistance or before May 28, 2015. cost burden for all 500 students. in using the internet to locate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT submissions. Affected Public: (2) University faculty COMMENTS, CONTACT: Jane Curlin, Electronic copies of this Federal representatives nominating students on Register notice are available at http:// Director of Education Programs, Udall behalf of their college or university. www.regulations.gov. This document, as Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Frequency of Response: One time per well as news releases and other relevant Tucson, Arizona 85701, Fax: 520–670– applicant for each faculty information, also is available at OSHA’s 5530, Phone: 520–901–8565, Email: representative. Web page at http://www.osha.gov. [email protected]. When submitting Estimated Average Annual comments, reference this Federal Respondents: 250 faculty Authority and Signature Register Notice. representatives. David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Total Annual Hours Burden: 62.5 Assistant Secretary of Labor for Abstract: The Udall Foundation is an hours (.25 hours × 250 Faculty Occupational Safety and Health, independent federal agency that was Representatives). established by Congress in 1992 to directed the preparation of this notice Estimated Cost per Faculty provide federally funded scholarships under the authority granted by 5 U.S.C. Representative per Application: $24/ and internships for college and/or 7902, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 29 U.S.C. 668, hour based upon annual average salary graduate students intending to pursue Executive Order 12196 as amended, 41 of $50,000 per faculty representative. careers related to the environment, as CFR part 102–3, and Secretary of The Foundation estimates that each well as to American Indian students Labor’s Order 1–2012 (77 FR 3912 faculty representative needs pursuing tribal public policy or health (1/25/2012)). approximately 15 minutes to endorse care careers. Scholarships are awarded and forward each application. David Michaels, to college sophomores and juniors Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational demonstrating leadership, public Annual Cost Burden: $1,500 for all Safety and Health. service, and commitment to issues faculty representatives. [FR Doc. 2015–06549 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] related to American Indian nations or to Total Annual Hours Burden: 4,125.5 × BILLING CODE 4510–26–P the environment. Internships provide hours (8 hours 500 applicants plus .25 × American Indian and Alaska Native hours 250 Faculty Representatives). university, graduate and law students Total Annual Cost Burden: $41,900 MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. with the opportunity to gain practical including $40,400 annual cost burden UDALL FOUNDATION experience with the federal legislative for all 500 students and $1,500 for all process in order to understand first- faculty representatives. Agency Information Collection hand the government-to-government Burden Statement: Native American Activities: Proposed Collection; New relationship between tribes and the Internship. Information Requests; Comment federal government. Affected Public: University, graduate, Request; Morris K. Udall and Stewart The proposed collections are and law students applying for the L. Udall Foundation Application for necessary to accomplish the mandate of Native American Internship. Udall Scholarship; Application for the the Statute that the Udall Foundation Frequency of Response: One time for Udall Internship should (1) conduct an annual selection each applicant. AGENCY: Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. process for the Udall Scholarship Estimated Average Annual Udall Foundation. program to select scholars and Respondents: 45 applicants. ACTION: Notice. honorable mentions (presently 50 for Total Annual Hours Burden: each); and (2) conduct an annual Applicants: 360 hours (8 hours × 45 SUMMARY: In compliance with the selection process for the Udall applicants). Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Internship program to select 12 interns. Estimated Cost per Student: The 3501 et seq.), this document announces The applications are available from the Udall Foundation has determined to that the Udall Foundation will submit Udall Foundation’s Web site at http:// utilize the federal minimum wage of for Office of Management and Budget www.udall.gov/News/ $10.10/hour as set by Executive Order (OMB) review a request for approval of NewsAndEvents.aspx?Item=139. 13658, February 12, 2014. The Udall two new information collection Burden Statement: Udall Scholarship. Foundation estimates that it takes each requests: Application for the Udall Affected Public: (1) University applicant approximately eight (8) hours Scholarship and Application for the students applying for the Udall to complete the on-line application. Udall Native American Internship. Scholarship. Comments are invited on (1) whether Frequency of Response: One time for Annual Cost Burden: $3,636. the proposed collection of information each applicant. Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601–5609.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Dated: March 16, 2015. presentation of a valid picture ID before comment was received. NSF is Philip J. Lemanski, receiving access to NASA Headquarters. forwarding the proposed renewal Executive Director, Udall Foundation. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109– submission to the Office of Management [FR Doc. 2015–06604 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 13, any attendees with drivers licenses and Budget (OMB) for clearance BILLING CODE 6820–FN–P issued from non-compliant states/ simultaneously with the publication of territories must present a second form of this second notice. The full submission ID [Federal employee badge; passport; may be found at: http:// NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND active military identification card; www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. SPACE ADMINISTRATION enhanced driver’s license; U.S. Coast Comments: Comments regarding (a) Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native whether the collection of information is [Notice: (15–017)] American tribal document; school necessary for the proper performance of identification accompanied by an item the functions of the NSF, including NASA Advisory Council; Meeting from LIST C (documents that establish whether the information will have AGENCY: National Aeronautics and employment authorization) from the practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Space Administration. ‘‘List of the Acceptable Documents’’ on NSF’s estimate of the burden of the Form I–9]. Non-compliant states/ proposed collection of information; (c) ACTION: Notice of meeting. territories are: American Samoa, ways to enhance the quality, utility and SUMMARY: In accordance with the Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, clarity of the information to be Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New collected, including through the use of Law 92–463, as amended, the National York. Foreign nationals attending this automated collection techniques or Aeronautics and Space Administration meeting will be required to provide a other forms of information technology; announces a meeting of the NASA copy of their passport and visa in (d) ways to minimize the burden of the Advisory Council (NAC). addition to providing the following collection of information on those who information no less than 10 working DATES: Thursday, April 9, 2015, 9:00 are to respond, including through the days prior to the meeting: Full name; a.m.–6:00 p.m., Local Time; and Friday, use of appropriate automated or other gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; forms of information technology should April 10, 2015, 9:00 a.m.–12:00 noon, visa information (number, type, Local Time. be addressed to: Office of Information expiration date); passport information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Room (number, country, telephone); Attention: Desk Officer for National 9H40, Program Review Center (PRC), employer/affiliation information (name Science Foundation, 725 7th Street 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC of institution, address, country, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20546. telephone); title/position of attendee. To 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. expedite admittance, U.S. citizens and Reports Clearance Officer, National Marla King, NAC Administrative Permanent Residents (green card Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Officer, NASA Headquarters, holders) can provide full name and Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1148. citizenship status 3 working days in Virginia 22230 or send email to advance by contacting Ms. Marla King, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The via email at [email protected]. It is DATES: Comments regarding these meeting will be open to the public up imperative that the meeting be held on information collections are best assured to the seating capacity of the room. This this date to accommodate the of having their full effect if received meeting is also available telephonically scheduling priorities of the key and by WebEx. You must use a touch participants. within 30 days of this notification. tone phone to participate in this Copies of the submission may be meeting. Any interested person may dial Patricia D. Rausch, obtained by calling 703–292–7556. NSF the USA toll free access number 1–844– Advisory Committee Management Officer, may not conduct or sponsor a collection 467–6272 or USA local toll access National Aeronautics and Space of information unless the collection of number 1–720–259–6462, and then the Administration. information displays a currently valid numeric participant passcode: 758485 [FR Doc. 2015–06546 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] OMB control number and the agency followed by the # sign. To join via BILLING CODE 7510–13–P informs potential persons who are to WebEx, the link is https:// respond to the collection of information nasa.webex.com/, the meeting number that such persons are not required to on April 9 is 993 793 736, and the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION respond to the collection of information password is NAC0409! ; the meeting unless it displays a currently valid OMB number on April 10 is 991 870 158, and Agency Information Collection control number. the password is NAC0410!. (Password is Activities: Comment Request SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: case sensitive.) NOTE: If dialing in, AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Title of Collection: 2015 National please ‘‘mute’’ your telephone. ACTION: Submission for OMB review; Survey of College Graduates. The agenda for the meeting will comment request. OMB Approval Number: 3145–0141. include the following: Type of Request: Intent to seek —Aeronautics Committee Report SUMMARY: The National Science approval to renew an information —Human Exploration and Operations Foundation (NSF) has submitted the collection for three years. Committee Report following information collection 1. Abstract. The National Survey of —Institutional Committee Report requirement to OMB for review and College Graduates (NSCG) has been —Science Committee Report clearance under the Paperwork conducted biennially since the 1970s. —Technology, Innovation and Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– The 2015 NSCG sample will be selected Engineering Committee Report 13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is the from the 2013 American Community Attendees will be requested to sign a second notice for public comment; the Survey (ACS) and the 2013 NSCG. By register and to comply with NASA first was published in the Federal selecting sample from these two security requirements, including the Register at 79 FR 42056, and no sources, the 2015 NSCG will provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15257

coverage of the college graduate Dated: March 17, 2015. Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, population residing in the United Suzanne H. Plimpton, please contact the NRC’s Public States. The purpose of this longitudinal Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Document Room (PDR) reference staff at panel survey is to collect data that will Foundation. 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by be used to provide national estimates on [FR Doc. 2015–06518 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] email to [email protected]. The the science and engineering workforce BILLING CODE 7555–01–P ADAMS accession number for each and changes in their employment, document referenced (if it’s available in education and demographic ADAMS) is provided the first time that characteristics. NUCLEAR REGULATORY a document is referenced. • COMMISSION NRC’s PDR: You may examine and The National Science Foundation Act purchase copies of public documents at of 1950, as subsequently amended, [Docket No. 40–0299, NRC–2015–0066] the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One includes a statutory charge to ‘‘. . . White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Umetco Minerals Corporation; Gas provide a central clearinghouse for the Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. collection, interpretation, and analysis Hills East Site FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of data on scientific and engineering AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Dominick Orlando, Office of Nuclear resources, and to provide a source of Commission. Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. information for policy formulation by ACTION: License amendment application; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, other agencies of the Federal opportunity to request a hearing and to Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: Government.’’ The NSCG is designed to petition for leave to intervene. 301–415–6749, email: comply with these mandates by [email protected]. providing information on the supply SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and utilization of the nation’s scientists Commission (NRC) has received an and engineers. application from Umetco Minerals I. Introduction The NSF uses the information from Corporation for amendment of Materials The NRC has received, by letter dated the NSCG to prepare congressionally License No. SUA–648 to modify the January 22, 2015, an application from mandated reports such as Women, ground water monitoring program at Umetco Minerals Corporation to amend Minorities and Persons with Disabilities Umetco’s Gas Hills East site in Fremont Materials License No. SUA–648 in Science and Engineering and Science and Natrona counties, Wyoming. The (ADAMS Accession No. ML15027A095). amendment would increase the number and Engineering Indicators. A public This license authorizes the possession of wells in the ground water monitoring release file of collected data, designed to of natural uranium and uranium waste program, change the sampling period protect respondent confidentiality, will tailings at the Gas Hills East site in and parameters, change the reporting Natrona and Fremont counties, be made available to researchers on the period for ground water monitoring Internet. Wyoming, which ceased uranium reports and establish the ground water milling operations in 1984. The license The U.S. Census Bureau, as in the monitoring program as a stand-alone currently requires that Umetco Minerals past, will conduct the NSCG for NSF. document, rather than an appendix in Corporation implement a ground water The survey data collection will begin in Umetco’s Alternate Concentration Limit compliance monitoring program at the April 2015 using Web and mail application. site. If approved, the amendment would questionnaires. Nonrespondents to the DATES: A request for a hearing or modify this ground water monitoring Web or mail questionnaire will be petition for leave to intervene must be program by increasing the number of followed up by computer-assisted filed by May 22, 2015. wells in the ground water monitoring telephone interviewing. The survey will ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID program, changing the sampling period be collected in conformance with the NRC–2015–0066 when contacting the and parameters, changing the reporting Confidential Information Protection and NRC about the availability of period for ground water monitoring Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, and information regarding this document. reports, and establishing the ground the individual’s response to the survey You may obtain publicly-available water monitoring program as a stand- is voluntary. NSF will ensure that all information related to this document alone document, rather than an information collected will be kept using any of the following methods: appendix in Umetco’s Alternate strictly confidential and will be used • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Concentration Limit application. only for statistical purposes. http://www.regulations.gov and search Prior to approving the license 2. Expected Respondents. A statistical for Docket ID NRC–2015–0066. Address amendment application, the NRC will sample of approximately 135,000 questions about NRC dockets to Carol need to make the findings required by persons will be contacted in 2015 Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as including 42,000 new sample cases and email: [email protected]. For amended (the Act), and the NRC’s 93,000 returning sample cases. NSF technical questions, contact the regulations. The NRC’s findings will be individual listed in the FOR FURTHER estimates the response rate to be 70 documented in a technical evaluation INFORMATION CONTACT section of this percent for the new sample cases and 80 report. document. percent for the returning sample cases. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents II. Opportunity to Request a Hearing 3. Estimate of Burden. The amount of Access and Management System and Petition for Leave to Intervene time to complete the questionnaire may (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- Within 60 days after the date of vary depending on an individual’s available documents online in the publication of this notice, any person(s) circumstances; however, on average it ADAMS Public Documents collection at whose interest may be affected by this will take approximately 30 minutes. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ action may file a request for a hearing NSF estimates that the total burden for adams.html. To begin the search, select and a petition to intervene with respect the 2015 NSCG will be no more than ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then to issuance of the amendment to 51,900 hours. select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Materials License No. SUA–648.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

Requests for a hearing and a petition for genuine dispute exists with the written statement of position on the leave to intervene shall be filed in applicant on a material issue of law or issues, but may not otherwise accordance with the Commission’s fact. Contentions shall be limited to participate in the proceeding. A limited ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and matters within the scope of the appearance may be made at any session Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested amendment under consideration. The of the hearing or at any prehearing person(s) should consult a current copy contention must be one which, if conference, subject to the limits and of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at proven, would entitle the requestor/ conditions as may be imposed by the the NRC’s PDR, located in One White petitioner to relief. A requestor/ presiding officer. Persons desiring to Flint North, Room O1–F21 (first floor), petitioner who fails to satisfy these make a limited appearance are 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, requirements with respect to at least one requested to inform the Secretary of the Maryland 20852. The NRC’s regulations contention will not be permitted to Commission by May 22, 2015. are accessible electronically from the participate as a party. III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at Those permitted to intervene become http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- parties to the proceeding, subject to any All documents filed in NRC collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing limitations in the order granting leave to adjudicatory proceedings, including a or petition for leave to intervene is filed intervene, and have the opportunity to request for hearing, a petition for leave within 60 days, the Commission or a participate fully in the conduct of the to intervene, any motion or other presiding officer designated by the hearing with respect to resolution of document filed in the proceeding prior Commission or by the Chief that person’s admitted contentions, to the submission of a request for Administrative Judge of the Atomic including the opportunity to present hearing or petition to intervene, and Safety and Licensing Board Panel will evidence and to submit a cross- documents filed by interested rule on the request and/or petition. The examination plan for cross-examination governmental entities participating Secretary or the Chief Administrative of witnesses, consistent with NRC under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in Judge of the Atomic Safety and regulations, policies, and procedures. accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule Licensing Board will issue a notice of The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- hearing or an appropriate order. will set the time and place for any Filing process requires participants to As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a prehearing conferences and evidentiary submit and serve all adjudicatory petition for leave to intervene shall set hearings, and the appropriate notices documents over the Internet, or in some forth, with particularity, the interest of will be provided. cases to mail copies on electronic the petitioner in the proceeding and Petitions for leave to intervene must storage media. Participants may not how that interest may be affected by the be filed no later than 60 days from the submit paper copies of their filings results of the proceeding. The petition date of publication of this notice. unless they seek an exemption in should specifically explain the reasons Requests for hearing, petitions for leave accordance with the procedures why intervention should be permitted, to intervene, and motions for leave to described below. with particular reference to the file new or amended contentions that To comply with the procedural following general requirements: (1) The are filed after the 60-day deadline will requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 name, address, and telephone number of not be entertained absent a days prior to the filing deadline, the the requestor or petitioner; (2) the determination by the presiding officer participant should contact the Office of nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s that the filing demonstrates good cause the Secretary by email at right under the Act to be made a party by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR [email protected], or by telephone to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s A State, local governmental body, identification (ID) certificate, which property, financial, or other interest in Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or allows the participant (or its counsel or the proceeding; and (4) the possible agency thereof, may submit a petition to representative) to digitally sign effect of any decision or order which the Commission to participate as a party documents and access the E-Submittal may be entered in the proceeding on the under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition server for any proceeding in which it is requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The should state the nature and extent of the participating; and (2) advise the petition must also set forth the specific petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. Secretary that the participant will be contentions which the requestor/ The petition should be submitted to the submitting a request or petition for petitioner seeks to have litigated at the Commission by May 22, 2015. The hearing (even in instances in which the proceeding. petition must be filed in accordance participant, or its counsel or Each contention must consist of a with the filing instructions in the representative, already holds an NRC- specific statement of the issue of law or ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ issued digital ID certificate). Based upon fact to be raised or controverted. In section of this document, and should this information, the Secretary will addition, the requestor/petitioner shall meet the requirements for petitions for establish an electronic docket for the provide a brief explanation of the bases leave to intervene set forth in this hearing in this proceeding if the for the contention and a concise section. A State, local governmental Secretary has not already established an statement of the alleged facts or expert body, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, electronic docket. opinion that support the contention and or agency thereof may also have the Information about applying for a on which the requestor/petitioner opportunity to participate under 10 CFR digital ID certificate is available on the intends to rely in proving the contention 2.315(c). NRC’s public Web site at http:// at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner If a hearing is granted, any person www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ must also provide references to those who does not wish, or is not qualified, getting-started.html. System specific sources and documents of to become a party to the proceeding requirements for accessing the E- which the petitioner is aware and on may, in the discretion of the presiding Submittal server are detailed in the which the requestor/petitioner intends officer, be permitted to make a limited NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic to rely to establish those facts or expert appearance pursuant to the provisions Submission,’’ which is available on the opinion. The petition must include of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a agency’s public Web site at http:// sufficient information to show that a limited appearance may make an oral or www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15259

submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available Andrew Persinko, on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Deputy Director, Division of Uranium NRC’s E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday, Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding government holidays. Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they [FR Doc. 2015–06614 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting BILLING CODE 7590–01–P software. documents electronically must file an If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES participant must file the document filing requesting authorization to OVERSIGHT BOARD using the NRC’s online, Web-based continue to submit documents in paper submission form. In order to serve format. Such filings must be submitted [Notice–PCLOB–2015–01; Docket No. 2015– documents through the Electronic by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 0001; Sequence No. 1] Office of the Secretary of the Information Exchange System, users Request for Public Comment on will be required to install a Web Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Activities Under Executive Order 12333 browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555– site. Further information on the Web- 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and AGENCY: Privacy and Civil Liberties based submission form, including the Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, Oversight Board. express mail, or expedited delivery installation of the Web browser plug-in, ACTION: service to the Office of the Secretary, Notice; Request for public is available on the NRC’s public Web comment. site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, submittals.html. 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, SUMMARY: As announced at the Privacy Once a participant has obtained a Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s digital ID certificate and a docket has and Adjudications Staff. Participants (PCLOB) public meeting on July 23, been created, the participant can then filing a document in this manner are 2014, the PCLOB is examining submit a request for hearing or petition responsible for serving the document on counterterrorism activities conducted for leave to intervene. Submissions all other participants. Filing is under the Executive Order pertaining to should be in Portable Document Format considered complete by first-class mail the United States Intelligence Activities (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance as of the time of deposit in the mail, or and their implications for privacy and available on the NRC’s public Web site by courier, express mail, or expedited civil liberties. As such, the PCLOB seeks at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- delivery service upon depositing the public input to inform the Board’s submittals.html. A filing is considered document with the provider of the examination of activities conducted complete at the time the documents are service. A presiding officer, having under the Executive Order. submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing granted an exemption request from DATES: Written comments may be system. To be timely, an electronic using E-Filing, may require a participant submitted at any time prior to the filing must be submitted to the E-Filing or party to use E-Filing if the presiding closing of the comment period at 11:59 system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern officer subsequently determines that the p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Time on the due date. Upon receipt of reason for granting the exemption from June 16, 2015. a transmission, the E-Filing system use of E-Filing no longer exists. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments time-stamps the document and sends Documents submitted in adjudicatory the submitter an email notice with the notice number PCLOB–2015– proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 01 by the following methods: confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is E-Filing system also distributes an email • Regulations.gov: http:// available to the public at http:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded document to the NRC’s Office of the via the Federal eRulemaking portal by pursuant to an order of the Commission, searching for ‘‘Notice PCLOB–2015–01’’. General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are have advised the Office of the Secretary Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that requested not to include personal that they wish to participate in the corresponds with ‘‘Notice PCLOB– privacy information, such as social proceeding, so that the filer need not 2015–01’’. Follow the instructions security numbers, home addresses, or serve the documents on those provided at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ home phone numbers in their filings, participants separately. Therefore, screen. Please include your name, unless an NRC regulation or other law applicants and other participants (or company name (if any), and ‘‘Notice requires submission of such their counsel or representative) must PCLOB–2015–01’’ on your attached information. However, a request to apply for and receive a digital ID document. intervene will require including certificate before a hearing request/ • Mail: General Services information on local residence in order petition to intervene is filed so that they Administration, Regulatory Secretariat can obtain access to the document via to demonstrate a proximity assertion of Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Hada the E-Filing system. interest in the proceeding. With respect Flowers, 1800 F Street N.W., 2nd floor, A person filing electronically using to copyrighted works, except for limited Washington, DC 20405. the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system excerpts that serve the purpose of the • Instructions: Please submit may seek assistance by contacting the adjudicatory filings and would comments only and cite ‘‘Notice NRC Meta System Help Desk through constitute a Fair Use application, PCLOB–2015–01’’ in all correspondence the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the participants are requested not to include related to this case. All comments NRC’s public Web site at http:// copyrighted materials in their received will be posted without change www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- submission. to http://www.regulations.gov, including submittals.html, by email to Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day any personal and/or business [email protected], or by a toll- of March 2015. confidential information provided.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D Send an email message to rules- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive [email protected]. Please include File COMMISSION Director, 202–331–1986. No. 265–28 on the subject line; or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paper Statements [Release No. 34–74518; File No. SR– PCLOB seeks public input to inform the NASDAQ–2015–022] Board’s examination of activities D Send paper statements to Brent J. conducted under Executive Order (E.O.) Fields, Secretary, Securities and Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 12333—United States Intelligence Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Activities. Although the Board Washington, DC 20549–1090. Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of recognizes that much information about All submissions should refer to File No. Proposed Rule Change to Rule activities under E.O. 12333 is classified 265–28. This file number should be 4751(h)(5) Relating to Market Hours and/or not publicly available, the Board included on the subject line if email is IOC Orders seeks comments regarding any concerns used. To help us process and review about counterterrorism activities your statement more efficiently, please March 17, 2015. conducted under E.O. 12333 based on use only one method. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Statements also will be available for the information that is currently Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Web site viewing and printing in the unclassified and publicly available, as (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 well as suggestions for questions the Commission’s Public Reference Room, notice is hereby given that on March 6, PCLOB should ask as part of its inquiry. 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Dated: March 16, 2015. Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of (‘‘NASDAQ’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with Lynn Parker Dupree, 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements the Securities and Exchange Acting General Counsel, Privacy and Civil received will be posted without change; Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) Liberties Oversight Board. we do not edit personal identifying the proposed rule change as described [FR Doc. 2015–06537 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] information from submissions. You in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items BILLING CODE 6820–B3–P should submit only information that have been prepared by the Exchange. you wish to make available publicly. The Commission is publishing this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: notice to solicit comments on the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Marc Sharma, Senior Special Counsel, proposed rule change from interested COMMISSION Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) persons. [Release Nos. 33–9739; 34–74523; File No. 551–3302, Securities and Exchange I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 265–28] Commission, 100 F Street NE., Statement of the Terms of Substance of Washington, DC 20549. the Proposed Rule Change Investor Advisory Committee Meeting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public, The Exchange proposes to simplify AGENCY: Securities and Exchange except during portions of the meeting Commission. processing of Market Hours IOC orders reserved for meetings of the and to make clarifying changes to the ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Securities Committee’s subcommittees. Persons rule text of Rule 4751(h)(5). and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank needing special accommodations to take The text of the proposed rule change Investor Advisory Committee. part because of a disability should is available on the Exchange’s Web site notify the contact person listed in FOR SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Commission Investor Advisory the principal office of the Exchange, and Committee, established pursuant to The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; at the Commission’s Public Reference section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Room. Street Reform and Consumer Protection nomination of candidates for officer Act of 2010, is providing notice that it positions and election of officers; a II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s will hold a public meeting. The public discussion of the Commodity Futures Statement of the Purpose of, and is invited to submit written statements Trading Commission’s investor behavior Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule to the Committee. survey results; a discussion of Change background checks as a means to DATES: The meeting will be held on address elder financial abuse (which In its filing with the Commission, the Thursday, April 9, 2015 from 9:30 a.m. may include a recommendation); a Exchange included statements until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements discussion of proxy access and staff concerning the purpose of and basis for should be received on or before April 9, review of Rule 14a–8(i)(9) under the 2015. the proposed rule change and discussed Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which any comments it received on the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in may include a recommendation); an proposed rule change. The text of these Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the update on the SEC proxy voting statements may be examined at the Commission’s headquarters, 100 F roundtable; an update on the places specified in Item IV below. The Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The recommendations of the SEC Advisory meeting will be webcast on the Exchange has prepared summaries, set Committee on Small and Emerging forth in sections A, B, and C below, of Commission’s Web site at www.sec.gov. Companies; and nonpublic the most significant aspects of such Written statements may be submitted by subcommittee meetings. any of the following methods: statements. Dated: March 18, 2015. Electronic Statements Jill M. Peterson, D Use the Commission’s Internet Assistant Secretary. submission form (http://www.sec.gov/ [FR Doc. 2015–06533 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). rules/other.shtml); or BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15261

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Session trading begins in an individual reenter such orders. By preventing Statement of the Purpose of, and System Security at the completion of its MIOC order entry during this time, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule opening cross. As a consequence of the NASDAQ is making the processing of Change proposed change, NASDAQ will not orders designated as MIOC consistent hold MIOC orders entered from 4:00 with the logic of immediate or cancel 1. Purpose a.m. up to the completion of the functionality, namely to execute The Exchange is proposing to modify NASDAQ Opening Cross, but rather will immediately or be cancelled back in the time that Market Hours IOC not accept the order for execution and whole or in part. Moreover, NASDAQ is (‘‘MIOC’’) orders are available for entry return it to the member firm. NASDAQ adding language to the rule to make it into the System.3 MIOC is a Time in is not proposing to change how the clear when MIOC orders are available Force 4 characteristic of an order that MIOC order operates, but only the time for both entry and potential execution. will cause it (or unexecuted portion during which a MIOC order may be As discussed above, completion of the thereof) to be canceled if, after entry entered. NASDAQ Opening Cross in a security into the System the order (or NASDAQ is accordingly deleting text marks the beginning of Regular Market unexecuted portion thereof) becomes from Rule 4751(h) that discusses MIOC Hours trading. Accordingly, the changes non-marketable during the Regular order entry beginning at 4:00 a.m. proposed herein both simplify the Market Session, 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 Eastern Time and that NASDAQ will processing of MIOC orders and clarify 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Pursuant to Rule hold MIOC orders entered prior to 9:30 the rule text, consistent with the 4751(h)(5), MIOC Orders are available a.m. Eastern Time until 9:30 a.m. objectives of the Act. for entry from 4:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. NASDAQ is also consolidating existing Eastern Time; however, a MIOC order B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s rule text and adding new text under the Statement on Burden on Competition entered between 4:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. rule to make it clear that MIOC orders Eastern Time is held by the System until may be entered and potentially executed The Exchange does not believe that 9:30 a.m. at which time the System shall beginning after the completion of the the proposed rule changes will result in determine whether the order is NASDAQ Opening Cross. any burden on competition that is not marketable and either execute or be necessary or appropriate in furtherance canceled. 2. Statutory Basis of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ is proposing to simplify the The Exchange believes that the Specifically, the changes are designed to processing of MIOC orders to make it proposed rule changes are consistent promote consistency in the handling of consistent with the meaning of a Time 9 immediate or cancel-designated orders 6 with Section 6 of the Act, in general, in Force of immediate or cancel and is and further the objectives of Section and to provide clarity on when such adding clarifying rule text concerning 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that orders are available for both entry and when such orders are available for entry they are designed to prevent fraudulent potential execution. Such changes do and potential execution. Specifically, and manipulative acts and practices, to not place a burden on competition the Exchange is proposing to only promote just and equitable principles of between market participants as the accept MIOC orders after completion of trade, to foster cooperation and changes are applied consistently to all the NASDAQ Opening Cross.7 The coordination with persons engaged in participants. Moreover, the proposed Opening Cross is NASDAQ’s process for regulating, clearing, settling, processing changes do not impose a burden on matching orders at the launch of the competition among exchanges as they information with respect to, and regular trading hours, and is open to all are done in the interest of providing facilitating transactions in securities, to NASDAQ listed securities and NMS clarity and consistency in its rules, and remove impediments to and perfect the securities listed on other national are therefore irrelevant to competition. mechanism of a free and open market securities exchanges (collectively, and a national market system, and, in C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s ‘‘System Securities’’).8 Regular Market general, to protect investors and the Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From 3 As defined by Rule 47151(a). All times noted public interest; and are not designed to herein are in Eastern Time, unless otherwise noted. permit unfair discrimination between Members, Participants or Others 4 Time in Force is the period of time that the customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. No written comments were either System will hold an order for potential execution. Specifically, the proposed changes solicited or received. See Rule 4751(h). promote just and equitable principles of 5 As defined by Rule 4120(b)(4)(D). trade and perfect the mechanisms of a III. Date of Effectiveness of the 6 An order designated as ‘‘immediate or cancel’’ Proposed Rule Change and Timing for represents the entering member firm’s desire for the free and open market and the national order to either execute immediately after the market system by simplifying Commission Action System determines whether the order is marketable processing of orders that are designated Because the foregoing proposed rule or be canceled. to immediately execute or be canceled change does not: (i) Significantly affect 7 See Rule 4752. Beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the System will execute crosses in each during the Regular Market Session. the protection of investors or the public individual security traded on NASDAQ one by one. Under the current rule, NASDAQ must interest; (ii) impose any significant The order in which each security is processed is hold MIOC orders entered from 4:00 burden on competition; and (iii) become random and differs day by day. Upon completion a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, during operative for 30 days from the date on of an individual security’s cross, Regular Market Session trading begins. The Opening Cross process which member firms may cancel and which it was filed, or such shorter time is normally completed in less than one second. as the Commission may designate, it has 8 NASDAQ notes that it initiates an Opening occurs, NASDAQ executes a ‘‘null cross’’ instead, become effective pursuant to Section Cross in all System Securities for which there are whereby no securities are matched yet the System 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act 11 and orders that will execute against contra-side orders receives the necessary precondition to regular hours trading that a ‘‘cross’’ in the security has occurred. subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 at 9:30 a.m., at which time the opening book and 12 the NASDAQ continuous book are brought together After completion of the null cross, regular hours thereunder. At any time within 60 to create single NASDAQ opening prices for System trading begins by integrating Market Hours Orders Securities. In certain cases, a System Security will into the book in time priority and executing in 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic]. not have any contra-side interest for execution in accordance with market hours rules. 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– the Opening Cross, or any orders whatsoever, when 9 15 U.S.C. 78f. 4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Opening Cross process is initiated. When this 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

days of the filing of the proposed rule inspection and copying at the principal January 2, 2015.6 On December 31, change, the Commission summarily may office of the Exchange. All comments 2014, the Commission instituted temporarily suspend such rule change if received will be posted without change; proceedings to determine whether to it appears to the Commission that such the Commission does not edit personal approve or disapprove the proposed action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in identifying information from rule change.7 On March 9, 2015, the the public interest; (ii) for the protection submissions. You should submit only Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the of investors; or (iii) otherwise in information that you wish to make proposed rule change.8 This order furtherance of the purposes of the Act. available publicly. All submissions approves the proposed rule change, as If the Commission takes such action, the should refer to File Number SR– modified by Amendment No. 1. Commission shall institute proceedings NASDAQ–2015–022 and should be II. Description of the Proposal to determine whether the proposed rule submitted on or before April 13, 2015. should be approved or disapproved. The Exchange proposes to amend ISE For the Commission, by the Division of Rules 810 (Limitations on Dealings) and IV. Solicitation of Comments Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13 717 (Limitations on Orders) governing Interested persons are invited to information barriers. Specifically, the Jill M. Peterson, submit written data, views and Exchange proposes to amend Rule 810 arguments concerning the foregoing, Assistant Secretary. to permit information to flow to a including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. 2015–06513 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] member’s EAM unit, which handles the change is consistent with the Act. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P customer/agency side of the business, Comments may be submitted by any of from its affiliated Primary Market Maker the following methods: (‘‘PMM’’) and/or Competitive Market SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Maker (‘‘CMM’’) (jointly, ‘‘market Electronic Comments COMMISSION makers’’) unit. As amended, ISE Rule • Use the Commission’s Internet 810 will allow EAMs to know where, comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ [Release No. 34–74521; File No. SR–ISE– and at what price, their affiliated market rules/sro.shtml); or 2014–43] makers are either quoting or have orders • Send an email to rule-comments@ on the order book 9 and to use that sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– Self-Regulatory Organizations; information to influence routing NASDAQ–2015–022 on the subject line. International Securities Exchange, decisions. The Exchange represents that LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule it currently provides guidance to its Paper Comments Change, as Modified by Amendment • members that ISE Rule 810 is to be Send paper comments in triplicate No. 1, Amending its Information Barrier interpreted as a two-way information to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Rules barrier between the EAM unit and its Commission, 100 F Street NE., 10 March 17, 2015. affiliated market maker unit. Washington, DC 20549–1090. The Exchange also proposes to amend All submissions should refer to File I. Introduction ISE Rule 717, Supplementary Material Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–022. This .06 to specify that the orders of a EAM file number should be included on the On September 15, 2014, International Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ subject line if email is used. To help the 6 or ‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73614 Commission process and review your (November 17, 2014), 79 FR 69547 (November 21, comments more efficiently, please use Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), 2014). 7 only one method. The Commission will pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73973 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (December 31, 2014), 80 FR 583 (January 6, 2015). post all comments on the Commission’s 8 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a In Amendment No. 1 the Exchange clarifies that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ an Electronic Access Member (‘‘EAM’’) would only rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the proposed rule change amending its have access to the publicly available orders and submission, all subsequent information barrier rules. The proposed quotes of its affiliated market maker. In addition, the Exchange clarifies that the proposed rule change amendments, all written statements rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 6, would not permit a member’s EAM unit to access any non-public order or quote information of its with respect to the proposed rule 3 change that are filed with the 2014. The Commission received one affiliated market maker, including any hidden or comment letter regarding the proposed undisplayed size or price information. The Commission, and all written 4 Exchange also clarifies that market makers are not communications relating to the rule change and one response letter from ISE.5 On November 17, 2014, the allowed to post hidden or undisplayed orders and proposed rule change between the quotes on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange Commission and any person, other than Commission extended the time period clarifies that its members would not expect to in which to either approve the proposed receive any additional order or quote information those that may be withheld from the as a result of this proposed rule change. public in accordance with the rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be comment because it is a technical amendment that available for Web site viewing and determine whether to approve or does not materially alter the substance of the disapprove the proposed rule change to proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory printing in the Commission’s Public issues. Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Amendment No. 1 has been placed in the public 13 Washington, DC 20549, on official 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). comment file for SR–ISE–2014–43 at http:// 1 business days between the hours of 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ise-2014–43/ 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. ise201443.shtml (see letter from Michael J. Simon, 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73261 Secretary and General Counsel, International filing also will be available for (September 30, 2014), 79 FR 60226 (‘‘Notice’’). Securities Exchange, LLC, to Secretary, 4 See Letter from John Kinahan, Chief Executive Commission, dated March 9, 2015) and also is the Commission written notice of its intent to file Officer, Group One Trading, L.P., dated October 27, available at the Exchange’s Web site at the proposed rule change at least five business days 2014 (‘‘Group One Letter’’). www.ise.com. prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 5 See Letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and 9 According to ISE Rule 805(b)(1)(ii), market change, or such shorter time as designated by the General Counsel, International Securities Exchange, makers may only have orders on the order book in Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this LLC, dated November 14, 2014 (‘‘ISE Response option classes to which they are not appointed. requirement. Letter’’). 10 See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR 60226, 60226.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15263

unit and its affiliated PMM and/or CMM admit’’ that numerous factors are built IV. Discussion and Commission unit may interact within one second into routing decisions that are primarily Findings without violating the ISE Rule 717(d) beneficial to broker-dealers.17 The After careful consideration, the and (e) order exposure requirements commenter also notes that there are Commission finds that the proposed when the firm can demonstrate that: (1) litigation and academic studies that rule change, as modified by Amendment The customer order was marketable suggest that routing decisions are No. 1, is consistent with the when routed; (2) the EAM was not negatively impacted by conflicts of requirements of the Act and the rules handling the affiliated market maker interest. The commenter believes that and regulations thereunder applicable to quote/order; and (3) the affiliated the erosion of information barriers a national securities exchange.27 The market maker quote/order was in would increase the likelihood that Commission believes that the proposed existence at the time the customer customer orders are routed based on the rule change, as modified by Amendment order(s) were entered into the ISE firm’s best interest as opposed to duty No. 1, is consistent with Section system. In combination, the proposed of best execution owed to the 6(b)(5) 28 in particular, in that it is amendments to ISE Rules 810 and 717 customer.18 The commenter concludes designed to prevent fraudulent and will make it possible for an EAM to that two-way information barriers are manipulative acts and practices, to route a customer order to the ISE to the ‘‘only way to truly guard customer promote just and equitable principles of immediately interact with the quote or interests and protect against the misuse trade, to foster cooperation and an order of an affiliated market maker, of material non-public information,’’ coordination with persons engaged in but only subject to the conditions stated and a shift to a one-way information facilitating transactions in securities, to above. barrier would not provide any benefits remove impediments to and perfect the III. Comment Letter and ISE’s Response EAM customers.19 The commenter also mechanism of a free and open market believes that exchange rules should be and a national market system, and, in As noted above, the Commission written and interpreted in a way that general, to protect investors and the received one comment letter 11 opposing prevents conflicts of interest from ever public interest. the proposed rule change.12 The arising, and a two-way information Amended ISE Rule 810 permits a less commenter asserts that the proposed barrier takes the potential conflict of restrictive, one-way information barrier one-way information barrier would interest out of the equation.20 between market makers and other introduce a conflict of interest which business units, as opposed to the prior The ISE responds that the commenter could result in EAMs routing orders rule that required a prescriptive, two- did not raise any new issues and its based on self-interest as opposed to the way information barrier. Nonetheless, 13 concerns were addressed in the customer’s interest. The commenter the Commission notes that Exchange Notice.21 The ISE states that nothing in disagrees with the Exchange’s premise members are still required to have the proposed rule change would relieve that the proposed rule change would not policies and procedures that are members of their best execution compromise market integrity or cause reasonably designed to prevent the 14 obligation to obtain the most favorable customer harm. The commenter also misuse of material, non-public terms reasonably available for customer indicates that although other exchanges information consistent with Section orders.22 The Exchange notes that, as a may interpret their rules to permit the 15(g) of the Act 29 and ISE Rule 408.30 national securities exchange, it has a sharing of information between the The Commission notes that the EAM various units of a firm, such sharing comprehensive surveillance program to unit of a member would not, pursuant only weakens a customer’s chance of monitor member compliance with to the proposed rule change, have access best execution. applicable securities and regulations, 23 to any non-public quote or order The commenter believes there are two including best execution. ISE also information, including hidden or specific scenarios where a costumer represents that it would continue to undisplayed price or size information, may be harmed under this proposed monitor for abnormalities in interaction of an affiliated market maker.31 The rule change. First, the commenter states rates between members, and investigate Commission also notes that the that EAMs could route customer orders and take appropriate regulatory action Exchange has represented that its to an affiliated market maker’s quote at against members that fail to comply ongoing surveillance for manipulative an exchange’s best bid or offer rather 24 with their best execution obligations. conduct and the Financial Industry than to an exchange with a better fill ISE believes that its surveillance tools Regulatory Authority’s exam program rate or price improvement will allow it to fulfill its regulatory that reviews for member compliance mechanism.15 25 Second, the commenter responsibilities. ISE also suggests that with such policies and procedures argues that an EAM holding a large the filing is a competitive imperative as should provide a regulatory framework customer order that could influence the other options exchanges currently price in the underlying could opt to interpret their information barrier rules 27 In approving this rule change, the Commission route away from the quote of its to be one way barriers that permit notes that it has considered the proposed rule’s affiliated market maker to avoid the members to make routing decisions impact on efficiency, competition, and capital potential risk of the trade and deprive based on the quotes and orders of formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). the customer of a fill they were 26 affiliated business units. 29 16 See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g). Section 15(g) of the Act otherwise entitled to. requires every broker or dealer to ‘‘establish, The commenter indicates that these 17 Id. maintain, and enforce written policies and routing scenarios are not ‘‘mere 18 Id. procedures reasonably designed, taking into conjecture’’ as broker-dealers ‘‘openly 19 Id. consideration the nature of such broker’s or dealer’s business, to prevent the misuse. . .of material, 20 Id. nonpublic information by such broker or dealer or 11 21 See Group One Letter, supra note 5. See ISE Response Letter at 1, supra note 6. any person associated with such broker or dealer.’’ 12 22 See ISE Response Letter, supra note 6. Id. 30 Further, Exchange members will continue to be 13 See Group One Letter at 1, supra note 4. 23 Id. subject to ISE Rules 400 (Just and Equitable 14 Id. 24 Id. Principles of Trade), 401 (Adherence to Law), and 15 Id. 25 Id. 405 (Manipulation). 16 Id. at 2. 26 Id. at 2. 31 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

that guards customer interests and 43), as modified by Amendment No. 1, programmed response to Request for protects against the misuse of material be, and it hereby is, approved. Responses based on information 32 non-public information. For the Commission, by the Division of regarding the particular Agency Order Finally, as noted above, the Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated or solicited order. commenter expressed concern that this authority.37 * * * * * proposed rule change would introduce Jill M. Peterson, a conflict of interest that would erode Rule 6.74B. Solicitation Auction Assistant Secretary. the duty of best execution and harm Mechanism customers. The Exchange believes, and [FR Doc. 2015–06515 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P * * * * * the Commission agrees, that this . . . Interpretations and Policies: proposed rule change, as modified by * * * * * Amendment No. 1, does not alter a SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE .03 Under Rule 6.74B, Trading Permit broker-dealer’s duty of best execution.33 COMMISSION Holders may enter contra orders that are Although the proposed rule change, as solicited. The Auction provides a modified by Amendment No. 1, will [Release No. 34–74519; File No. SR–CBOE– facility for Trading Permit Holders that 2015–026] permit EAMs to know and consider the locate liquidity for their customer quotes of its affiliated market makers orders. Trading Permit Holders may not when making routing decisions, the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, use the Auction to circumvent Rules Commission continues to expect that 6.45A.01, 6.45B.01 or 6.74A limiting routing decisions related to the duty of Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a principal transactions. This may best execution will be premised solely Proposed Rule Change Relating to include, but is not limited to, Trading on customer considerations such as the Rules 6.74A and 6.74B Permit Holders entering contra orders likelihood of execution, the opportunity March 17, 2015. that are solicited from (a) affiliated to obtain price improvement, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the broker-dealers, or (b) broker-dealers availability of best price and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the with which the Trading Permit Holder minimization of market impact.34 The ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 has an arrangement that allows the Commission emphasizes that a broker- notice is hereby given that, on March 6, Trading Permit Holder to realize similar dealer’s duty of best execution exists 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, economic benefits from the solicited whether an EAM determines to route Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or transaction as it would achieve by customer order flow toward its affiliated ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and market maker or away from its affiliated executing the customer order in whole Exchange Commission (the market maker. Further, the Commission or in part as principal. Additionally, ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule notes that in response to the [solicited contra orders entered by change as described in Items I, II, and commenter’s concern that the proposed Trading Permit Holders to trade against III below, which Items have been rule change would negatively impact Agency Orders may not be for the prepared by the Exchange. The best execution considerations, ISE account of a CBOE Market-Maker Commission is publishing this notice to stated that it would ‘‘continue to assigned to the options class.] a Market- solicit comments on the proposed rule monitor for abnormalities in interaction Maker submitting a solicited order to change from interested persons. rates between members, and will execute against a particular Agency investigate and take appropriate I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Order may not modify its pre- regulatory action against members that Statement of the Terms of Substance of programmed response to Request for fail to comply with their best execution the Proposed Rule Change Responses based on information obligations . . . [and that] these regarding the particular Agency Order The Exchange seeks to amend CBOE or solicited order. surveillance tools will allow ISE to Rules 6.74A and 6.74B. The text of the * * * * * comply with its regulatory proposed rule change is provided below responsibilities, consistent with The text of the proposed rule change (additions are italicized; deletions are is also available on the Exchange’s Web treatment across competitor options [bracketed]). exchanges.’’ 35 Among other things, the site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/ Commission’s oversight of the ISE * * * * * CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at program is designed to evaluate the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, ISE’s performance in regard to that Incorporated Rules and at the Commission’s Public representation. Reference Room. Rule 6.74A. Automated Improvement V. Conclusion Mechanism (‘‘AIM’’) II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Statement of the Purpose of, and * * * * * Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 36 that the . . . Interpretations and Policies: Change proposed rule change (SR–ISE–2014– * * * * * .04 [Any solicited orders submitted In its filing with the Commission, the 32 See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR 60226, 60227. by the Initiating Trading Permit Holder Exchange included statements 33 See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR 60226, 60227; to trade against the Agency Order may concerning the purpose of and basis for ISE Response Letter at 1, supra note 6. the proposed rule change and discussed 34 See e.g., FINRA Rule 5310 (Best Execution and not be for the account of a Market-Maker Interpositioning); see also Securities Exchange Act assigned to the option class.] A Market- any comments it received on the Release No. 34–51808, 70 FR 37496, 37537–8 (Jun. Maker submitting a solicited order to proposed rule change. The text of these 29, 2005) (File No. S7–10–04) (Regulation NMS execute against a particular Agency statements may be examined at the Final Rules); Securities Exchange Act Release No. places specified in Item IV below. The 37619A, 61 FR 48290, 48322–3 (Sep. 12, 1996) (File Order may not modify its pre- No. S7–30–95) (Order Execution Obligations Final Exchange has prepared summaries, set Rules). 37 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 35 See ISE Response Letter at 1, supra note 6. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). the most significant aspects of such 36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. statements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15265

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s being solicited by TPHs to trade against Order in a class in which the Market- Statement of the Purpose of, and nearly all Agency Orders. Because a Maker is appointed.5 As such, the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule TPH initiating an auction using AIM or Exchange merely proposes to put Change SAM can thusly not solicit contra orders Market-Makers at CBOE on a similar from these Market-Making firms, the competitive footing vis-a`-vis the 1. Purpose TPH is unable to access the greater directed orders on BOX. The Exchange proposes to amend its liquidity that these firms can provide. Furthermore, the Exchange does not rules regarding the ability of a Market- The Market-Makers, TPHs, and believe there is a meaningful regulatory Maker assigned to an options class to be customers are harmed by this rule purpose behind the prohibition against solicited as the contra party to an language, and the Exchange therefore Market-Makers being solicited to trade Agency Order in that class on the proposes to delete it.4 The Exchange against an Agency Order in a class in Exchange’s Automated Improvement believes this is a reasonable which the Market-Maker is appointed Mechanism (‘‘AIM’’) and Solicitation modification designed to provide because for the firms with appointments Auction Mechanism 3 (‘‘SAM’’ and, additional flexibility for the Exchange’s on multiple exchanges, the solicited together with AIM, the ‘‘Auctions’’). TPHs to obtain executions on behalf of order can simply come from a Market- Currently, Interpretation and Policy .04 their customers and to provide CBOE Maker on a different exchange. More to Rule 6.74A (AIM) states that ‘‘Any Market-Makers assigned to a given importantly, a Market-Maker that is solicited orders submitted by the option class with the same opportunity solicited to trade against an Agency Initiating Trading Permit Holder to trade as other solicited parties to participate Order in a class in which the Market- against the Agency Order may not be for in the auction process through means of Maker is appointed would still be the account of a Market-Maker assigned solicited orders submitted by the required to abide by Exchange Rules 4.1 to the option class.’’ Similarly, the last Initiating TPH. Absent this rule change, (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade), sentence of Interpretation and Policy .03 CBOE Market-Makers assigned to a 4.18 (Prevention of the Misuse of to Rule 6.74B (SAM) states that given option class are not able to Material, Nonpublic Information), and ‘‘Additionally, solicited contra orders achieve solicited contra order priority 6.9 (Solicited Transactions) (as well as entered by Trading Permit Holders to status when trading against Agency all other Exchange rules, of course). As trade against Agency Orders may not be Orders executed through AIM/SAM such, a Market-Maker would still be for the account of a CBOE Market-Maker while all other parties solicited by the prohibited from, for example, learning assigned to the options class.’’ This rule Initiating TPH may have such priority (via solicitation) that a large order is language acts to limit a Trading Permit status. Additionally, the Exchange does being sent to the Exchange and therefore Holder (‘‘TPH’’) initiating Auctions from not believe the rule change will deplete widening its quotes. Moreover, because access to liquidity that should otherwise the liquidity available through upon entry, an AIM/SAM order is be available. Auctions; rather, the Exchange believes ‘‘stopped’’ for its full quantity at the On the Exchange, there are a number that by allowing more individuals to contra order’s price, if a Market-Maker of large, global Market-Making firms participate in the Auction process were to widen his quotes, it would not that have market-making and liquidity will increase. impact the price of the trade. Also, proprietary operations. In addition, It is important to note that the rule because many classes on the Exchange there are small market-making firms that language that the Exchange proposes to have a number of Market-Makers only have market-making operations. delete applies only to AIM and SAM appointed, the widening of quotes by The current rule neither prohibits the transactions. As such, a Market-Maker one Market-Maker would likely have proprietary arm of a global firm from assigned to an options class can limited impact on the NBBO (and submitting a contra order in these currently be solicited to trade against an indeed, it is possible that the solicited Auctions nor prohibits the global firm’s Agency Order in that class for non-AIM/ Market-Maker that is widening quotes market-making operation from SAM transactions. Therefore, because would not be on the NBBO in the first responding to an Auction in which the Market-Makers only face this place). Regardless, the Exchange notes proprietary desk has submitted a contra prohibition for AIM and SAM that it does not believe the changes order. More importantly, if two Market- transactions, the rules for whether a contemplated in this filing will have an Makers are nominees of the same firm— Market-Maker assigned to an options adverse effect on Market-Maker quoting one appointed to a class on CBOE and class can currently be solicited to trade because the Exchange believes Market- against an Agency Order in that class Makers will continue to seek access to the other appointed in the same class on differ depending on the execution order flow that comes into the Exchange another exchange (PHLX for example)— mechanism. The proposed change outside of the auction process. In order the current rule allows the PHLX would eliminate this difference. to access that order flow, Market-Makers Market-Maker to be solicited to In addition, the Boston Options will need to continue to quote participate on an AIM order and the Exchange LLC (‘‘BOX’’) rules include a aggressively.6 The same is true for CBOE Market-Maker to respond to the ‘‘Directed Order’’ process that is Auctions in that the solicited Market- AIM auction. The rule does, however, functionally equivalent to the Maker will still need to price effectively prohibit the small market- solicitation of orders, and also does not aggressively in order to trade with an making firms from providing liquidity prevent Market-Makers from being Agency Order because Auctions are in the form of contra orders. In solicited to trade against an Agency preventing a Market-Maker assigned to 5 See BOX Options Exchange LLC Rule 7150— an options class from being solicited by 4 The Exchange proposes to delete all of the Price Improvement Period (‘‘PIP Auction’’). The PIP TPHs to trade against Agency Orders in language currently in Interpretation and Policy .04 Auction’s Directed Order process allows broker- that class, the small Market-Making to Rule 6.74A and replace it with the word dealers to route orders to BOX Market-Makers for ‘‘Reserved.’’ The Exchange also proposes to delete possible PIP Auction execution. The Market-Maker firms are effectively prohibited from the last sentence of Interpretation and Policy .03 to that receives the Directed Order has three seconds Rule 6.74B, which states that ‘‘Additionally, to initiate a PIP Auction or decline. 3 The Exchange notes that the SAM Auction is solicited contra orders entered by Trading Permit 6 The Exchange notes that Market-Makers that currently deactivated. See CBOE Regulatory Holders to trade against Agency Orders may not be make markets on multiple exchanges will also have Circular RG14–076—Deactivation of the Solicitation for the account of a CBOE Market-Maker assigned to continue to quote aggressively to access order Auction Mechanism (SAM) (May 16, 2014). to the options class.’’ flow on those other exchanges.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

competitive with other Market-Makers proposed rule change is consistent with The proposed rule change also actively responding. the Section 6(b)(5) 9 requirement that removes impediments to and perfects The Exchange is also proposing to add the rules of an exchange not be designed the mechanism of a free and open language that explicitly states that ‘‘a to permit unfair discrimination between market and a national market system, Market-Maker submitting a solicited customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. and prevents unfair discrimination, order to execute against a particular The Exchange believes that the because a Market-Maker assigned to an Agency Order may not modify its pre- proposed change will provide TPHs options class can currently be solicited programmed response to Request for initiating auctions via AIM and SAM to trade against an Agency Order in that Responses based on information with the ability to access more liquidity class for non-AIM/SAM transactions. regarding the particular Agency Order by allowing them to solicit Market- Therefore, because Market-Makers only or solicited order.’’ This language Makers assigned to the relevant options currently face this prohibition for AIM prohibits a Market-Maker from using class. This will also let Market-Makers and SAM transactions, the rules for any information regarding a particular assigned to a class benefit from being whether a Market-Maker assigned to an Agency Order or the Market-Maker’s able to be solicited for trades in that options class can currently be solicited solicited order for purposes of class. As such, the proposed rule change to trade against an Agency Order in that modifying the Market-Maker’s Request both provides greater access to liquidity class differ depending on the execution for Responses. However, this language and increases the market participants mechanism. The proposed change also recognizes that a Market-Maker’s that can participate in a trade (thereby would eliminate this difference. quotes may change for many reasons preventing discrimination against The proposed rule change also other than an Agency order or the Market-Makers assigned to a class). In removes impediments to and perfects Market-Maker’s solicited order (e.g., a these ways, the proposed change the mechanism of a free and open non-exclusive list of reasons that a removes impediments to and perfects market and a national market system, Market-Maker may choose to adjust the the mechanism of a free and open and prevents unfair discrimination, size and/or price of quotes, irrespective market and a national market system. because BOX rules include a ‘‘Directed of an Agency Order or a Market-Maker’s The Exchange believes that the Order’’ process that allows for the solicited order, is a change in the price proposed change is reasonable and solicitation of orders and does not of the underlying, the Market-Maker’s should promote price competition by include a prohibition that prevents inventory, or interest rates) and those providing CBOE Market-Makers with a Market-Makers from being solicited to unrelated changes are not prohibited. more reasonable opportunity to compete trade against an Agency Order in a class Furthermore, this language is not for proposed crosses along with other in which the Market-Maker is intended to prohibit a Market-Maker market participants. By providing CBOE appointed. As such, the Exchange from providing multiple responses to Market-Makers with the opportunity to merely proposes to put Market-Makers Request for Responses. Finally, the be solicited on AIM/SAM Agency at CBOE on a similar competitive CBOE Department of Market Regulation Orders in classes in which the Market- footing vis-a`-vis these solicited orders. already surveils for market participants Makers are appointed, the proposed The Exchange notes that the proposed seeking to take advantage of non-public change prevents discrimination by rule change would not impact a Market- information by attempting to terminate providing such Market-Makers with the Maker’s requirements to abide by Auctions early in an effort to limit the same opportunity to participate in the Exchange Rules 4.1 (Just and Equitable number of Auction Reponses in order to transaction (via solicitation) with which Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of ensure a larger allocation amount. other market participants are provided. the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Furthermore, the Exchange does not Information), and 6.9 (Solicited 2. Statutory Basis believe the proposed rule change will Transactions). As such, a Market-Maker The Exchange believes the proposed alter Market-Maker incentives to would still be prohibited from, for rule change is consistent with the respond to AIM/SAM Auctions. Market- example, learning (via solicitation) that Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Makers responding to Auctions are a large order is being sent to the ‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations seeking to execute as many contracts as Exchange and therefore widening its thereunder applicable to the Exchange possible with the Agency order. The quotes. Indeed, while this could and, in particular, the requirements of best way to accomplish that goal— theoretically occur regarding non-AIM/ Section 6(b) of the Act.7 Specifically, currently and after the proposed rule SAM solicitation orders, the Exchange the Exchange believes the proposed rule change—is to aggressively respond to currently prohibits this activity. change is consistent with the Section Auctions, regardless of who else may be Moreover, because upon entry, an AIM/ 6(b)(5) 8 requirements that the rules of responding or whether the contra-order SAM order is ‘‘stopped’’ for its full an exchange be designed to prevent is a solicited Market-Maker. An Auction quantity at the contra order’s price, if a fraudulent and manipulative acts and with a solicited Market-Maker as contra Market-Maker were to widen his quotes, practices, to promote just and equitable should have no bearing on whether a it would not impact the price of the principles of trade, to foster cooperation competitive and interested responder trade. Also, because many classes on the and coordination with persons engaged will respond, nor should it have any Exchange have a number of Market- in regulating, clearing, settling, bearing on which price that interested Makers appointed, the widening of processing information with respect to, Market-Maker would place on his quotes by one Market-Maker would and facilitating transactions in response. In addition, the Exchange likely have limited impact on the NBBO securities, to remove impediments to does not believe this proposal will have (and indeed, it is possible that the and perfect the mechanism of a free and an adverse effect on quoting because, as solicited Market-Maker that is widening open market and a national market previously noted, in order to execute quotes would not on the NBBO in the system, and, in general, to protect against order flow outside of Auctions first place). As previously noted, investors and the public interest. or on other exchanges Market-Makers however, the Exchange does not believe Additionally, the Exchange believes the will have to continue to quote the changes in this proposal will aggressively. adversely effect Market-Maker quoting. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). Finally, in addition to the above 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 Id. general prohibitions, the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15267

prohibition against a Market-Maker C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be modifying its pre-programmed Statement on Comments on the available for Web site viewing and responses to Request for Responses Proposed Rule Change Received From printing in the Commission’s Public based on information regarding a Members, Participants, or Others Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., particular Agency Order or solicited The Exchange neither solicited nor Washington, DC 20549 on official order serves to protect investors and the received comments on the proposed business days between the hours of public interest. rule change. 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s III. Date of Effectiveness of the inspection and copying at the principal Statement on Burden on Competition Proposed Rule Change and Timing for office of the Exchange. All comments Commission Action received will be posted without change; CBOE does not believe that the the Commission does not edit personal proposed rule change will impose any Within 45 days of the date of identifying information from burden on competition that is not publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period submissions. You should submit only necessary or appropriate in furtherance information that you wish to make of the purposes of the Act. up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period available publicly. All submissions CBOE does not believe that the to be appropriate and publishes its should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– proposed rule change will impose any reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 2015–026, and should be submitted on burden on intramarket competition that the Exchange consents, the Commission or before April 13, 2015. is not necessary or appropriate in will: For the Commission, by the Division of furtherance of the purposes of the Act A. By order approve or disapprove Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated because it actually provides the such proposed rule change, or authority.10 opportunity for a market participant to B. institute proceedings to determine Jill M. Peterson, be solicited on an order when such whether the proposed rule change Assistant Secretary. market participant currently does not should be disapproved. [FR Doc. 2015–06514 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] have that opportunity (the Market- BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Maker assigned to that option class). IV. Solicitation of Comments Furthermore, the Exchange does not Interested persons are invited to believe soliciting Market-Makers will submit written data, views, and negatively impact auction responses. As arguments concerning the foregoing, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION noted above, the Exchange believes that including whether the proposed rule Federal Aviation Administration an Auction with a solicited Market- change is consistent with the Act. Maker as contra should have no bearing Comments may be submitted by any of 40th Meeting: RTCA Special on whether a competitive and interested the following methods: Committee 206, Aeronautical responder will respond, nor should it Electronic comments Information and Meteorological Data have any bearing on which price that Link Services interested Market-Maker would place on • Use the Commission’s Internet his response. The Exchange also comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ AGENCY: Federal Aviation believes that exposure to an electronic rules/sro.shtml); or Administration (FAA), U.S. Department • auction following a solicitation Send an email to rule-comments@ of Transportation (DOT). encourages competition; thus, sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special expanding the pool of available solicited CBOE–2015–026 on the subject line. Committee 206, Aeronautical parties prior to the initiation of an Paper comments Information and Meteorological Data Auction further exposes orders to Link Services. • Send paper comments in triplicate competitive Auctions and results in a to Secretary, Securities and Exchange higher level of potential execution SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice Commission, 100 F Street NE., quality for customers. to advise the public of the fortieth Washington, DC 20549–1090. meeting of the RTCA Special Committee CBOE does not believe that the All submissions should refer to File 206, Aeronautical Information and proposed rule change will impose any Number SR–CBOE–2015–026. This file Meteorological Data Link Services. burden on intermarket competition that number should be included on the DATES: The meeting will be held April is not necessary or appropriate in subject line if email is used. To help the 13–17, 2015, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. on Monday furtherance of the purposes of the Act Commission process and review your (EST), 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m. Tuesday to because the proposed change applies comments more efficiently, please use Thursday and 8:30 a.m.–11 a.m. on only to trading on CBOE. However, the only one method. The Commission will Friday. opportunity for a Market-Maker to be post all comments on the Commission’s ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held solicited on an order in a class to which Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ National Institute of Aerospace (NIA), he is assigned may make CBOE a more rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 100 Exploration Way Hampton, VA attractive marketplace by giving more submission, all subsequent 23666. trading opportunities to Market-Makers amendments, all written statements as well as providing greater volume and with respect to the proposed rule FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The liquidity, thereby enhancing change that are filed with the RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., competition. As such, to the extent that Commission, and all written Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by the proposed change makes CBOE a communications relating to the telephone at (202) 330–0652/(202) 833– more attractive marketplace to market proposed rule change between the 9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site participants on other exchanges, such Commission and any person, other than at http://www.rtca.org. market participants may elect to become those that may be withheld from the CBOE market participants. public in accordance with the 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15268 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Review summary of January to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal meeting (18th Plenary) will be Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Federal Aviation Administration accomplished by email prior to this 463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby joint meeting. given for a meeting of Special Nineteenth Meeting: RTCA Special • Discussion of joint SC–222/WG–82 Committee 206. The agenda will include Committee 222, AMS(R)S work program. Participants should read the following: AGENCY: Federal Aviation the information posted on the SC–222 Administration (FAA), Department of Workspace prior to the meeting. April 13th—Monday • Transportation (DOT). Because WG–82 is the host • organization, we will largely follow the Opening Plenary and Sub-Groups ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special WG–82 agenda, which will be posted to meetings Committee 222, AMS(R)S. • the workspace. Opening remarks: DFO, RTCA, • Chairman, and Hosts SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice Schedule and venue for 20th Plenary. • Review and approval of meeting to advise the public of the nineteenth • Adjourn agenda meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 222, AMS(R)S. Per RTCA PMC changes Attendance is open to the interested • Approval of previous meeting to the SC–222 Terms of Reference, this public but limited to space availability. minutes (Washington, DC) With the approval of the chairman, • meeting will be a joint meeting with Industry presentations and Eurocae WG–82. The SC–222 purpose members of the public may present oral coordination with other committees will be to develop a joint work plan statements at the meeting. Persons Æ FAA AAtS Status toward the revised Terms of Reference, wishing to present statements or obtain Æ Relevant NASA Research (two and harmonize differences in information should contact the person presentations) deliverable items and schedule with listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION • Review of revised TOR WG–82. CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the Æ Start of SG4 MOPS for Eddy DATES: The meeting will be held April committee at any time. Dissipation Rate (EDR) 14, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.–Noon (EDT). Æ Start of SG7 Guidance for Data ADDRESS: This meeting will be held at Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2015. Linking Forecast and Real-Time Eurocontrol Brussels. This meeting is Wind Information to Aircraft expected to be largely virtual, Mohannad Dawoud, • MASPS (SG1/6) status and week’s conducted over Webex with a telephone Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration, Federal plan bridge. Dr. LaBerge and Mr. Robinson will be present at RTCA. Those who Aviation Administration. April 14th–16th—Tuesday–Thursday plan to attend in person at the [FR Doc. 2015–06496 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P • Sub-Group meetings Eurocontrol offices should notify should notify the Chair of WG–82, Mr. Armin April 15th—Wednesday Schlereth at least seven days in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • FAA AAtS Workshop advance. Please contact Armin Schlereth, DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Complementary Positioning, April 16th—Thursday GmbH, SIS/DM, Am DFS Campus 7 Navigation, and Timing Capability; 63225 Langen. Phone: +49 6103 707 • NASA Tour/Lunch (NASA cafeteria) Notice; Request for Public Comments 2433. Mobile: +49 172 5209 369. Fax: April 17th—Friday +49 6103 707 2490. AGENCY: Office of the Assistant • Remote instructions: https://rtca. Secretary for Research and Technology, Closing Plenary webex.com/rtca/j.php?MTID=mbfc03 • Department of Transportation. Sub-Groups’ reports c2b8dfea13ebe14cbaf2bcb7cd9. • ACTION: Notice; request for public SC–206 Action item review Meeting number: 273 405 827. comments. • Future meeting plans and dates Meeting password: April 14. • Other business and adjourn Audio connection: 1–877–668–4493 SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada). to seek comment from the public and Attendance is open to the interested Access code: 273 405 827. industry regarding potential plans by public but limited to space availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the United States Government to With the approval of the chairman, Jennifer Iversen may be contacted implement an enhanced Long Range members of the public may present oral directly at email: [email protected] or by Navigation (eLoran) system as a statements at the meeting. Persons The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street complementary positioning, navigation, wishing to present statements or obtain NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, and timing (PNT) capability to the information should contact the person or by telephone at (202) 330–0662/(202) Global Positioning System (GPS). The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION listed in the 833–9339, fax (202) 833–9434, or Web positioning, navigation, and timing CONTACT section. Members of the public site at http://www.rtca.org. performance of eLoran will vary widely may present a written statement to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: depending on the number of committee at any time. Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal transmitters and monitor sites for Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– corrections that are implemented. 2015. 463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby The Department of Transportation Mohannad Dawoud, given for a meeting of Special seeks input on: (a) A brief description of Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Committee 222. The agenda will include your application(s) of positioning, Oversight and Administration, Federal the following: navigation, and timing services; (b) the Aviation Administration. positioning, navigation, and/or timing [FR Doc. 2015–06504 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] April 14th performance required for a BILLING CODE 4910–13–P • Greetings & Attendance complementary PNT capability to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices 15269

support operations during a disruption dot.gov. If you have questions on material online or by fax, mail or hand of GPS that could last for longer than a viewing or submitting material to the delivery, but please use only one of day, (c) availability and coverage area docket, call Barbara Hairston, Docket these means. We recommend that you required for a complementary PNT Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. include your name and a mailing capability, (d) willingness to equip with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: address, an email address, or a an eLoran receiver to reduce or prevent Background and Purpose telephone number in the body of your operational and/or economic document so that we can contact you if consequences from a GPS disruption, (e) The United States Space-Based we have questions regarding your current and planned availability of e- Positioning, Navigation, and Timing submission. Loran capable user equipment, (f) other policy requires that the Department of non-eLoran PNT technologies or Transportation in coordination with the To submit your comment online, go to operational procedures, currently Department of Homeland Security, http://www.regulations.gov and use available or planned, that could be used develop, acquire, operate, and maintain ‘‘DOT–OST–2015–0053’’ as your search during a disruption of GPS for longer backup positioning, navigation, and term. Locate this notice in the results than a day. timing capabilities that can support and click the corresponding ‘‘Comment DATES: Submit comments on or before critical transportation, homeland Now’’ box to submit your comment. If May 22, 2015. security, and other critical civil and you submit your comments by mail or commercial infrastructure applications ADDRESSES: You may submit comments hand delivery, submit them in an within the United States, in the event of 1 identified by docket number [DOT– unbound format, no larger than 8 ⁄2 by a disruption of the Global Positioning OST–2015–0053] using any one of the 11 inches, suitable for copying and System or other space-based following methods: electronic filing. If you submit positioning, navigation, and timing (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: comments by mail and would like to services. The United States Government http://www.regulations.gov. know that they reached the docket, is currently investigating (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. please enclose a stamped, self-addressed implementation of an eLoran system to (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility postcard or envelope. serve as a complementary PNT (M–30), U.S. Department of capability to GPS. The positioning, We will consider all comments and Transportation, West Building Ground navigation, and timing performance of material received during the comment Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey eLoran will vary widely depending on period. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– the number of transmitters and monitor 0001. Viewing the comments: To view sites for corrections that are (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail comments, as well as documents implemented. mentioned in this notice as being address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 The Department of Transportation available in the docket, go to http:// p.m., Monday through Friday, except seeks input on: (a) A brief description of www.regulations.gov and use ‘‘DOT– Federal holidays. The telephone number your application(s) of positioning, is 202–366–9329. navigation, and timing services; (b) the OST–2015–0053’’ as your search term. To avoid duplication, please use only positioning, navigation, and/or timing Use the filters on the left side of the one of these four methods. See the performance required for a page to highlight ‘‘Public Submissions’’ ‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the complementary PNT capability during a or other document types. If you do not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section disruption of GPS that could last for have access to the Internet, you may below for instructions on submitting longer than a day, (c) availability and view the docket online by visiting the comments. coverage area required for a Docket Management Facility in Room Confidential Business Information: If complementary PNT capability, (d) W12–140 on the ground floor of the you wish to submit any information willingness to equip with an eLoran Department of Transportation West under a claim of confidentiality, you receiver to reduce or prevent Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., should submit three copies of your operational and/or economic Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. complete submission, including the consequences from a GPS disruption, (e) and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, information you claim to be confidential current and planned availability of e- except Federal holidays. business information, to the address Loran capable user equipment,(f) other FOR FURTHER Privacy Act: Anyone can search the given below under non-eLoran PNT technologies or INFORMATION CONTACT electronic form of comments received . In addition, you operational procedures, currently into any of our dockets by the name of should submit a copy from which you available or planned, that could be used have deleted the claimed confidential during a disruption of GPS for longer the individual submitting the comment business information to the docket. than a day. (or signing the comment, if submitted When you send a comment containing on behalf of an association, business, information identified as confidential Public Participation labor union, etc.). You may review a business information, you should You may submit comments and Privacy Act system of records notice include a cover letter setting forth the related material regarding this notice. regarding our public dockets in the reasons you believe the information All comments received will be posted, January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal qualifies as ‘‘confidential business without change, to http:// Register (73 FR 3316). information’’. (49 CFR 7.17) www.regulations.gov and will include Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If any personal information you have 2015. you have questions on this notice, provided. contact Karen L. Van Dyke, Office of the Submitting comments: If you submit a Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and comment, please include the docket Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology Administration; Director, number for this notice (DOT–OST– Technology. Positioning, Navigation, and Timing and 2015–0053) and provide a reason for [FR Doc. 2015–06538 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] Spectrum Management, telephone 202– each suggestion or recommendation. BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 366–3180 or email karen.vandyke@ You may submit your comments and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15270 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 retained as long as their contents may Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, become material in the administration Internal Revenue Service DC 20224, or through the internet, at of any internal revenue law. Generally, [email protected]. tax returns and tax return information Proposed Collection; Comment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: are confidential, as required by 26 Request for Regulation Project Title: Third-Party Disclosure U.S.C. 6103. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), requirements in IRS Regulations. Request for Comments: Comments Treasury. OMB Number: 1545–1466. submitted in response to this notice will ACTION: Notice and request for Abstract: These existing regulations be summarized and/or included in the comments. contain third-party disclosure request for OMB approval. All requirements that are subject to the comments will become a matter of SUMMARY: The Department of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. public record. Comments are invited on: Current Actions: There are no changes Treasury, as part of its continuing effort (a) Whether the collection of being made to these regulations at this to reduce paperwork and respondent information is necessary for the proper time. burden, invites the general public and performance of the functions of the other Federal agencies to take this Type of Review: Extension of agency, including whether the opportunity to comment on proposed currently approved collection. information shall have practical utility; and/or continuing information Affected Public: Individuals or (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate collections, as required by the households, business or other for-profit of the burden of the collection of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, organizations, and not-for-profit information; (c) ways to enhance the Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. institutions. quality, utility, and clarity of the 3506(c)(2)(A)). The IRS is soliciting Estimated Number of Responses: information to be collected; (d) ways to comments concerning third-party 307,064,630. minimize the burden of the collection of disclosure requirements in IRS Estimated Time per Respondent: information on respondents, including regulations. Varies. Estimated Total Annual Burden through the use of automated collection DATES: Written comments should be Hours: 68,885,183. techniques or other forms of information received on or before May 22, 2015 to The following paragraph applies to all technology; and (e) estimates of capital be assured of consideration. of the collections of information covered or start-up costs and costs of operation, ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments by this notice: maintenance, and purchase of services to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue An agency may not conduct or to provide information. Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution sponsor, and a person is not required to Approved: March 3, 2015. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. respond to, a collection of information Christie Preston, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: unless the collection of information Requests for additional information or displays a valid OMB control number. IRS Reports Clearance Officer. copies of the regulations should be Books or records relating to a [FR Doc. 2015–06500 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal collection of information must be BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR A public hearing will be held in northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20 Hawai‘i. Interested parties may provide factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm. Fish and Wildlife Service oral or written comments at this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hearing. Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301–427– 50 CFR Part 17 DATES: Comments and information 8443, email [email protected]), regarding this proposed rule must be or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS (ph. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE _ received by close of business on June 904–731–3032, email annmarie 22, 2015. A public hearing will be held [email protected]). Persons who use a National Oceanic and Atmospheric on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with Telecommunications Device for the Deaf Administration an informational open house starting at (TDD) may call the Federal Information 5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 hearings must be made in writing and 8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a [Docket No. 120425024–5022–02] received by May 7, 2015. week. RIN 0648–XB089 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on this document, identified by NOAA– Public Comments Solicited on the Endangered and Threatened Species; NMFS–2012–0154, by the following Proposed Listing Identification and Proposed Listing of methods: Eleven Distinct Population Segments • Electronic Submissions: Submit all We intend that any final action of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) electronic public comments via the resulting from this proposal be as as Endangered or Threatened and Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. accurate and effective as possible and Revision of Current Listings 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ informed by the best available scientific #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- and commercial information. Therefore, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 0154. we request comments or information Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, from the public, other concerned Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), complete the required fields. governmental agencies, the scientific Commerce; United States Fish and 3. Enter or attach your comments. community, industry, or any other Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior. OR interested party concerning this proposed rule. We are seeking ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month • Mail: Submit written comments to information and comments on whether petition finding; request for comments; Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, each of the 11 proposed green turtle notice of public hearing. Office of Protected Resources, National DPSs qualify as DPSs, whether listing of Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- SUMMARY: The green sea turtle (Chelonia each DPS is warranted, and, if so, West Highway, Room 13535, Silver mydas; hereafter referred to as the green whether they should be classified as Spring, MD 20910; or Green Turtle turtle) is currently listed under the threatened or endangered as described Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a in the ‘‘Listing Determinations Under Wildlife Service, North Florida threatened species, with the exception the ESA’’ section provided below. Ecological Services Office, 7915 of the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast Specifically, we are soliciting Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, breeding populations, which are listed information on the following subjects Jacksonville, FL 32256. as endangered. We, NMFS and USFWS, relative to green turtles within the 11 find that the green turtle is composed of OR proposed DPSs: (1) Historical and 11 distinct population segments (DPSs) • Public hearing: Interested parties current population status and trends, (2) that qualify as ‘‘species’’ for listing may provide oral or written comments historical and current distribution, (3) under the ESA. We propose to remove at the public hearing to be held at the migratory movements and behavior, (4) the current range-wide listing and, in its Japanese Cultural Center, 2454 South genetic population structure, (5) current place, list eight DPSs as threatened and Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i or planned activities that may adversely three as endangered. We also propose to 96826. Parking is available at the affect green turtles, (6) conservation apply existing protective regulations to Japanese Cultural Center for $5. efforts to protect green turtles, and (7) the DPSs. We solicit comments on these Instructions: Comments sent by any our extinction risk analysis and proposed actions. other method, to any other address or findings. We request that all data, Although not determinable at this individual, or received after the end of information, and comments be time, designation of critical habitat may the comment period, may not be accompanied by supporting be prudent, and we solicit relevant considered by the Services. All documentation such as maps, information for those DPSs occurring comments received are a part of the bibliographic references, or reprints of within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim, public record and will generally be pertinent publications. We will consider we propose to continue the existing posted for public viewing on comments and new information when critical habitat designation (i.e., waters www.regulations.gov without change. making final determinations. surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto All personal identifying information Rico) in effect for the North Atlantic (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential Public Comments Solicited on Critical DPS. business information, or otherwise Habitat This proposed rule also constitutes sensitive information submitted Though we are not proposing to the 12-month finding on a petition to voluntarily by the sender will be designate critical habitat at this time, we reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle publicly accessible. The Services will request evaluations describing the population as a DPS and to delist that accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ quality and extent of existing habitats DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian A’’ in the required fields if you wish to within U.S. jurisdiction for the green turtle population to constitute a remain anonymous). The proposed rule proposed North Atlantic, South Atlantic DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as is available electronically at http:// (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South the Central North Pacific DPS), we do www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/ Pacific (American Samoa), Central West not find delisting warranted. green.htm and http://www.fws.gov/ Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15273

Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam), them as critical habitat (pursuant to References Central North Pacific, and East Pacific section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the A complete list of all references cited DPSs, as well as information on other positive and negative economic, herein is available upon request (see FOR areas that may qualify as critical habitat national security and other relevant FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). for these proposed DPSs. Specifically, impacts, including benefits to the we are soliciting the identification of recovery of the species, likely to result Table of Contents particular areas within the geographical if these areas are designated as critical I. Background area occupied by these species that habitat. We also seek information II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the include physical or biological features regarding the conservation benefits of ESA that are essential to the conservation of designating areas within nesting III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA these DPSs and that may require special IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles beaches and waters under U.S. V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used management considerations or jurisdiction as critical habitat. Data protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). To Identify DPSs sought include, but are not limited to A. Discreteness Determination Essential features may include, but are the following: (1) Scientific or 1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea not limited to, features specific to commercial publications, (2) 2. Indian Ocean individual species’ ranges, habitats, and administrative reports, maps or other 3. Pacific Ocean life history characteristics within the B. Significance Determination graphic materials, and (3) information following general categories of habitat 1. North Atlantic from experts or other interested parties. features: (1) Space for individual growth 2. Mediterranean and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, Comments and data particularly are 3. South Atlantic air, light, minerals, or other nutritional sought concerning the following: (1) 4. Southwest Indian 5. North Indian or physiological requirements; (3) cover Maps and specific information describing the amount, distribution, and 6. East Indian-West Pacific or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 7. Central West Pacific reproduction and development of type of use (e.g., foraging or migration) 8. Southwest Pacific offspring; and (5) habitats that are by green turtles, as well as any 9. Central South Pacific protected from disturbance or are additional information on occupied and 10. Central North Pacific representative of the historical, unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the 11. East Pacific geographical, and ecological reasons why any habitat should or C. Summary of Discreteness and distributions of the species (50 CFR should not be determined to be critical Significance Determinations habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) VI. Listing Evaluation Process 424.12(b)). Areas outside the A. Discussion of Population Parameters for geographical area occupied by the and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs species at the time of listing should also regarding the benefits of designating B. Summary of Factors Affecting the be identified, if such areas are essential particular areas as critical habitat; (4) Eleven Green Turtle DPSs for the conservation of the species (16 current or planned activities in the areas C. Conservation Efforts U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Unlike for that might be proposed for designation D. Extinction Risk Assessments and occupied habitat, such areas are not and their possible impacts; (5) any Findings required to contain physical or foreseeable economic or other potential VII. North Atlantic DPS biological features essential to the A. Discussion of Population Parameters for impacts resulting from designation, and the North Atlantic DPS conservation of the species. ESA in particular any impacts on small B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North implementing regulations at 50 CFR entities; and (6) whether specific Atlantic DPS 424.12(h) specify that critical habitat unoccupied areas may be essential to 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened shall not be designated within foreign provide additional habitat areas for the Destruction, Modification, or countries or in other areas outside of conservation of the proposed DPSs. We Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request seek information regarding critical a. Terrestrial Zone information only on potential areas of b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones habitat for the proposed green turtle 2. Factor B: Overutilization for critical habitat within locations under DPSs as soon as possible, but no later U.S. jurisdiction. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or than June 22, 2015. Educational Purposes Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic Public Hearings 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing impact, impact on national security, and Regulatory Mechanisms The Services will hold a public any other relevant impact’’ of 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade hearing in Hawai‘i. Interested parties designating a particular area as critical Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence may provide oral or written comments habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear the Secretary to conduct a balancing of at this hearing. A public hearing will be i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., ii. Dredge Fishing the benefits of inclusion and the b. Channel Dredging benefits of exclusion from a critical with an informational open house starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic habitat designation of a particular area, d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural and to exclude any particular area Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Disasters where the Secretary finds that the Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96826. e. Effects of Cold Stunning benefits of exclusion outweigh the Parking is available at the Japanese f. Contaminants and Marine Debris benefits of designation, unless Cultural Center for $5. If requested by C. Conservation Efforts for the North excluding that area will result in the public by May 7, 2015, additional Atlantic DPS extinction of the species. Therefore, for hearings will be held regarding the D. Extinction Risk Assessment and proposed listing of the green turtle Findings for the North Atlantic DPS features and areas potentially qualifying VIII. Mediterranean DPS as critical habitat, we also request DPSs. If additional hearings are A. Discussion of Population Parameters for information describing: (1) Activities or requested, details regarding location(s), the Mediterranean DPS other threats to the essential features date(s), and time(s) will be published in B. Summary of Factors Affecting the that could be affected by designating a forthcoming Federal Register notice. Mediterranean DPS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West Destruction, Modification, or Indian DPS Pacific DPS Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened D. Extinction Risk Assessment and a. Terrestrial Zone Destruction, Modification, or Findings for the Central West Pacific b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range DPS 2. Factor B: Overutilization for a. Terrestrial Zone XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones A. Discussion of Population Parameters in Educational Purposes 2. Factor B: Overutilization for the Southwest Pacific DPS 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Educational Purposes Southwest Pacific DPS Regulatory Mechanisms 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Destruction, Modification, or Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence Regulatory Mechanisms Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade a. Terrestrial Zone i. Longline Fisheries Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 2. Factor B: Overutilization for iii. Trawl Fisheries i. Gill Net Fisheries Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic ii. Trawl Fisheries Educational Purposes c. Pollution b. Vessel Strikes 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation d. Effects of Climate Change c. Beach Driving 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing C. Conservation Efforts d. Pollution Regulatory Mechanisms D. Extinction Risk Assessment and e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Findings Disaster Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence IX. South Atlantic DPS C. Conservation Efforts for the North a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear A. Discussion of Population Parameters for Indian DPS b. Shark Control Programs the South Atlantic DPS D. Extinction Risk Assessment and c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Findings for the North Indian DPS d. Pollution and Marine Debris Atlantic DPS XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened A. Discussion of Population Parameters for Disasters Destruction, Modification, or the East Indian-West Pacific DPS C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Pacific DPS Indian-West Pacific DPS a. Terrestrial Zone D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS Destruction, Modification, or 2. Factor B: Overutilization for XV. Central South Pacific DPS Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or A. Discussion of Population Parameters for a. Terrestrial Zone the Central South Pacific DPS Educational Purposes b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 2. Factor B: Overutilization for Central South Pacific DPS 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Regulatory Mechanisms Educational Purposes 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation Destruction, Modification, or Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Regulatory Mechanisms a. Terrestrial Zone b. Marine Debris and Pollution 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones c. Effects of Climate Change Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 2. Factor B: Overutilization for C. Conservation Efforts for the South a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Atlantic DPS b. Marine Debris and Pollution Educational Purposes D. Extinction Risk Assessment and c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation Findings for the South Atlantic DPS Disasters 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing X. Southwest Indian DPS C. Conservation Efforts for the East Indian- Regulatory Mechanisms A. Discussion of Population Parameters for West Pacific DPS 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade the Southwest Indian DPS D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Findings for the East Indian-West Pacific a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Southwest Indian DPS DPS b. Marine Debris and Pollution 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened XIII. Central West Pacific DPS c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Destruction, Modification, or A. Discussion of Population Parameters for Disasters Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range the Central West Pacific DPS C. Conservation Efforts for the Central a. Terrestrial Zone B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Pacific DPS b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Central West Pacific DPS D. Extinction Risk Assessment and 2. Factor B: Overutilization for 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Findings for the Central South Pacific Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Destruction, Modification, or DPS Educational Purposes Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range XVI. Central North Pacific DPS 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation a. Terrestrial Zone A. Discussion of Population Parameters for 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones the Central North Pacific DPS Regulatory Mechanisms 2. Factor B: Overutilization for B. Summary of Factors Affecting the 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Central North Pacific DPS Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence Educational Purposes 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation Destruction, Modification, or b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Disasters Regulatory Mechanisms a. Terrestrial Zone C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Indian DPS Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 2. Factor B: Overutilization for D. Extinction Risk Assessment and a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS b. Vessel Strikes Educational Purposes XI. North Indian DPS c. Pollution 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation A. Discussion of Population Parameters for d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing the North Indian DPS Disasters Regulatory Mechanisms

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15275

5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade the East Pacific) populations of the DPS, and includes a proposed rule to Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence green turtle (63 FR 28359, May 22, revise the existing listings to identify 11 a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 1998). NMFS designated critical habitat green turtle DPSs worldwide and list i. Longline Fisheries for the species to include waters them as threatened or endangered under ii. Gillnet Fisheries iii. Other Gear Types surrounding Culebra Island, the ESA in place of the existing listings. b. Marine Debris and Pollution Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and its Our determinations have been made c. Vessel Interactions outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September only after review of the best available d. Effects of Climate Change 2, 1998). scientific and commercial information e. Effects of Spatial Structure On February 16, 2012, the Services pertaining to the species throughout its C. Conservation Efforts for the Central received a petition from the Association range and within each DPS. This is North Pacific DPS of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the similar to the action we took for D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Hawaiian green turtle population as a loggerhead sea turtles (76 FR 58868, Findings for the Central North Pacific DPS DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the September 22, 2011). XVII. East Pacific DPS ESA. On August 1, 2012, NMFS, with The ESA gives us clear authority to A. Discussion of Population Parameters for USFWS concurrence, determined that make these listing determinations and to the East Pacific DPS the petition presented substantial revise the lists of endangered and B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East information indicating that the threatened species to reflect these Pacific DPS petitioned action may be warranted (77 determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened FR 45571). Initiating a review of new ESA authorizes us to determine by Destruction, Modification, or information in accordance with the DPS regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’ Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range a. Terrestrial Zone policy was consistent with the which is expressly defined to include b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones recommendation made in the Services’ species, subspecies, and DPS, is an 2. Factor B: Overutilization for 2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-year Review. endangered species or a threatened Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or The Services initiated a status review to species based on certain factors. Review Educational Purposes consider the species across its range, of the status of a species may be 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation determine whether the petitioned action commenced at any time, either on the 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing is warranted, and determine whether Services’ own initiative—through a Regulatory Mechanisms other DPSs could be recognized. The status review or in connection with a 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Services decided to review the 5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)—or Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Hawaiian population in the context of in response to a petition. Because a DPS b. Pollution green turtles globally with regard to is not a scientifically recognized entity, c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural application of the DPS policy and in but rather one that is created under the Disasters light of significant new information language of the ESA and effectuated C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific since the listing of the species in 1978. through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, DPS The Services appointed a Status February 7, 1996), we have some D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Review Team (SRT) in September 2012. discretion to determine whether the Findings for the East Pacific DPS SRT members were affiliated with species should be reclassified into DPSs XVIII. Proposed Determinations NMFS Science Centers and the Services’ and what boundaries should be XIX. Significant Portion of the Range field, regional, and headquarters offices, XX. Effects of Listing recognized for each DPS. Section 4(c)(1) A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and and provided a diverse range of gives us authority to update the lists of Consultation Requirements expertise, including green turtle threatened and endangered species to B. Critical Habitat genetics, demography, ecology, and reflect these determinations. This can C. Take Prohibitions management, as well as risk analysis include revising the lists to remove a D. Identification of Those Activities That and ESA policy. The SRT was charged species or reclassify the listed entity. Would Constitute a Violation of Section with reviewing and evaluating all 9 of the ESA relevant scientific information relating II. Policies for Delineating Species XXI. Peer Review to green turtle population structure Under the ESA XXII. Classification globally to determine whether any Section 3 of the ESA defines A. National Environmental Policy Act ‘‘species’’ as including ‘‘any subspecies B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory populations may qualify as DPSs and, if Flexibility Act, and Paperwork so, to assess the extinction risk for each of fish or wildlife or plants, and any Reduction Act proposed DPS. Findings of the SRT are distinct population segment of any C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism detailed in the ‘‘Green Turtle (Chelonia species of vertebrate fish or wildlife mydas) Status Review under the U.S. which interbreeds when mature.’’ The I. Background Endangered Species Act’’ (hereinafter term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, referred to as the Status Review; NMFS not recognized in the scientific collectively referred to as the Services, and USFWS, 2014). The Status Review literature. Therefore, the Services listed the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) underwent independent peer review by adopted a joint policy for recognizing under the ESA (43 FR 32800). Pursuant 14 scientists with expertise in green DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR to the authority that the statute turtle biology, genetics, or related fields, 4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS provided, and prior to the current and endangered species listing policy. Policy requires the consideration of language in the definition of ‘‘species’’ The Status Review is available three elements when evaluating the regarding DPSs, the Services listed the electronically at http:// status of possible DPSs: (1) The species as threatened, except for the www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/ discreteness of the population segment Florida and Mexican Pacific Coast green.htm. in relation to the remainder of the breeding populations, which were listed This Federal Register document species to which it belongs; (2) the as endangered. The Services published announces the 12-month finding on the significance of the population segment recovery plans for U.S. Atlantic (http:// petition to identify the Hawaiian green to the species to which it belongs; and www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/ turtle population as a DPS and remove (3) the population segment’s plans.htm) and U.S. Pacific (including the protections of the ESA from the conservation status in relation to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

ESA’s standards for listing. This is overutilization for commercial, Most green turtles spend the majority discussed further in the Status Review, recreational, scientific, or educational of their lives in coastal foraging in the section entitled, ‘‘Overview of purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) grounds. These areas include fairly Information and Process Used to the inadequacy of existing regulatory shallow waters in open coastline and Identify DPSs.’’ mechanisms; or (5) other natural or protected bays and lagoons. While in these areas, green turtles rely on marine III. Listing Determinations Under the manmade factors affecting its continued algae and seagrass as their primary diet ESA existence (section 4(a)(1)(A–E) of the ESA). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA constituents, although some populations The ESA defines an endangered requires us to make this determination also forage heavily on invertebrates. species as one that is in danger of based solely on the best available These marine habitats are often highly extinction throughout all or a significant scientific and commercial data available dynamic and in areas with annual portion of its range (section 3(6)), and a after conducting a review of the status fluctuations in seawater and air threatened species as one that is likely of the species and taking into account temperatures, which can cause the to become endangered in the foreseeable any efforts being made by States or distribution and abundance of potential future throughout all or a significant foreign governments to protect the green turtle food items to vary portion of its range (section 3(20)). species. substantially between seasons and years Thus, in the context of the ESA, the (Carballo et al., 2002). Services interpret an ‘‘endangered IV. Biology and Life History of Green At nesting beaches, green turtles rely species’’ to be one that is presently in Turtles on beaches characterized by intact dune danger of extinction. A ‘‘threatened structures, native vegetation, little to no A thorough account of green turtle ° species,’’ on the other hand, is not biology and life history may be found in artificial lighting, and 26 to 35 C beach presently in danger of extinction, but is the Status Review, which is temperatures for nesting (Limpus, 1971; likely to become so in the foreseeable incorporated here by reference. The Salmon et al., 1992; Ackerman, 1997; future. In other words, the primary following is a succinct summary of that Witherington, 1997; Lorne and Salmon, statutory difference between a information. 2007). Nests are typically laid at night threatened and endangered species is at the base of the primary dune (Hirth, The green turtle, C. mydas, has a the timing of when a species may be in 1997; Witherington et al., 2006). circumglobal distribution, occurring danger of extinction, either presently Complete removal of vegetation, or (endangered) or in the foreseeable future throughout tropical, subtropical, and, to coastal construction, can affect thermal (threatened). a lesser extent, temperate waters. Their regimes on beaches and thus affect the When we consider whether a species movements within the marine incubation and resulting sex ratio of might qualify as threatened under the environment are not fully understood, hatchling turtles. Nests laid in these ESA, we must consider the meaning of but it is believed that green turtles areas are at a higher risk of tidal the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is inhabit coastal waters of over 140 inundation (Schroeder and Mosier, appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 2000). future’’ as the horizon over which 1989). The Status Review lists 468 Hatchlings emerge from their nests en predictions about the conservation known nesting sites worldwide, with 79 masse and almost exclusively at night, status of the species can be reasonably having nesting aggregations with greater presumably using decreasing sand relied upon. The foreseeable future than 500 females. The largest green temperature as a cue (Hendrickson, considers the life history of the species, turtle nesting aggregation, with an 1958; Mrosovsky, 1968). Immediately habitat characteristics, availability of estimated number of nesting females after hatchlings emerge from the nest, data, particular threats, ability to predict greater than 132,000, is Tortuguero, they begin a period of frenzied activity. threats, and the reliability to forecast the Costa Rica (Sea Turtle Conservancy, During this active period, hatchlings effects of these threats and future events 2013). There are 14 aggregations crawl to the surf, swim, and are swept on the status of the species under estimated to have 10,001–100,000 through the surf zone (Carr and Ogren, consideration. Because a species may be nesting females: Quintana Roo, Mexico 1960; Carr, 1961; Wyneken and Salmon, susceptible to a variety of threats for (Julio Zurita, pers. comm., 2012); 1992). They orient to waves in the which different data are available, or Ascension Island, UK (S. Weber, nearshore area and to the magnetic field which operate across different time Ascension Island Government, pers. as they proceed further toward open scales, the foreseeable future is not comm., 2013); Poila˜o, Guinea-Bissau water (Lohmann and Lohmann, 2003). necessarily reducible to a particular (Catry et al., 2009); Aldabra Atoll, Upon leaving the nesting beach and number of years. For the green turtle, Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011; entering the marine environment, post- the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer, unpubl. hatchling green turtles begin an oceanic evaluate the likelihood that a DPS data.); Mohe´li, Comoros Islands, France juvenile phase during which they are would reach a critical risk threshold (Bourjea, 2012); Mayotte, Comoros presumed to primarily inhabit areas (i.e., quasi-extinction). In making the Islands (Bourjea, 2012); Europa, where surface waters converge to form proposed listing determinations, we Esparses Islands, France (Lauret-Stepler local downwellings that result in linear applied the horizon of 100 years in our et al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012); Ras Al accumulations of floating material, consideration of foreseeable future Hadd, Oman (AlKindi et al., 2008); Ras especially Sargassum sp. This under the scope of the definitions of Sharma, Yemen (PERSGA/GEF, 2004); association with downwellings is well- endangered and threatened species, Wellesley Group, Australia (Unpubl. documented for loggerhead sea turtles pursuant to section 3 of the ESA. data cited in Limpus, 2009); Raine (Caretta caretta), as well as for some The statute requires us to determine Island, Australia (Chaloupka et al., post-hatchling green turtles whether any species is endangered or 2008a; Limpus, 2009); Moulter Cay, (Witherington et al., 2006; 2012). The threatened as a result of any one or Australia (Limpus, 2009); Capricorn smallest of oceanic green turtles combination of the following 5-factors: Bunker Group of Islands, Australia associating with these areas are (1) The present or threatened (Limpus et al., 2003); and Colola, relatively active, moving both within destruction, modification, or Mexico (Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado- Sargassum sp. mats and in nearby open curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) Figueroa, 2012). water, which may limit the ability of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15277

researchers to detect their presence as sexual maturity estimates are as high as of the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, compared to relatively immobile 35–50 years, with lower ranges reported 1996). According to the policy, loggerheads of the same life stage that for known age turtles from the Cayman quantitative measures of genetic or associate with similar habitat (Smith Islands (15–19 years; Bell et al., 2005) morphological discontinuity can be and Salmon, 2009; Witherington et al., and Caribbean Mexico (12–20 years; used to provide evidence for item (1). 2012). Zurita et al., 2012) and some mark- The SRT compiled a list of attributes Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles recapture projects (e.g., 15–25 years in that suggested various population originating from nesting beaches in the the Eastern Pacific; Seminoff et al., groups might be considered discrete, Northwest Atlantic appear to use 2002a). Mean adult reproductive identified potentially discrete units, and oceanic developmental habitats and lifespan of green turtles from Australia’s discussed alternative scenarios for move with the predominant ocean gyres southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has lumping or splitting these potentially for several years before returning to been estimated at 19 years using mark- discrete units. After arriving at a their neritic (shallower water, generally recapture and survival data (Chaloupka tentative list of units, each member of to 200 m depth, including open and Limpus, 2005). The maximum the SRT was given 100 points that could coastline and protected bays and nesting lifespan observed in a 27-year be distributed among two categories: (1) lagoons) foraging and developmental tag return dataset from Trindade Island, The unit under consideration is habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Brazil was 16 years; however, nesting discrete, and (2) the unit under Bolten, 2003). Larger neonate green monitoring was discontinuous over time consideration is not discrete. The spread turtles (at least 15–26 cm straight (Almeida et al., 2011). Tag return data of points reflects the level of certainty carapace length; SCL) are known to comprising 2,077 females (42,928 of the SRT surrounding a decision to occupy Sargassum sp. habitats and nesting events, 1968-partial 2012 call the unit discrete. The SRT surrounding epipelagic waters, where season) from continuous monitoring at determined that there are 11 discrete food items include Sargassum sp. and French Frigate Shoals (FFS), Hawai‘i regional populations of green turtles associated invertebrates, fish eggs, and show maximum nesting lifespans of 37– globally. Each of these was then insects (Witherington et al., 2012). 38 years (n=2), with many individuals evaluated for significance. Knowledge of the diet and behavior of (n=54) documented nesting over a A population may be considered oceanic stage juveniles, however, is minimum of 25–35 years (I. Nurzia- significant if it satisfies any one of the limited. Humburg, S. Hargrove, and G. Balazs, following conditions: (1) Persistence of The neritic juvenile stage begins when NMFS, unpublished data, 2013). the discrete segment in an ecological green turtles exit the oceanic zone and setting unusual or unique for the taxon; enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003). V. Overview of the Policies and Process (2) evidence that loss of the discrete The age at recruitment to the neritic Used To Identify DPSs segment would result in a significant zone likely varies with individuals The SRT considered a vast array of gap in the range of the taxon; (3) leaving the oceanic zone over a wide information in assessing whether there evidence that the discrete segment size range (summarized in Avens and are any green turtle population represents the only surviving natural Snover, 2013). After migrating to the segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of occurrence of a taxon that may be more neritic zone, juveniles continue being both discrete and significant. In abundant elsewhere as an introduced maturing until they reach adulthood, anticipation of conducting a green turtle population outside its historical range; and some may periodically move status review, NMFS contracted two and (4) evidence that the discrete between the neritic and oceanic zones post-doctoral associates in 2011 to segment differs markedly from other (NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker et al., collect and synthesize genetic and populations of the species in its genetic 2011). The neritic zone, including both demographic information on green characteristics. Because condition (3) is open coastline and protected bays and turtles worldwide. The SRT was not applicable to green turtles, the SRT lagoons, provides important foraging presented with, and evaluated, this addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4). habitat, inter-nesting habitat, breeding, genetic and demographic information. The SRT listed the attributes that would and migratory habitat for adult green Demographic information included make potential DPSs (those determined turtles (Plotkin, 2003; NMFS and green turtle nesting information; to be discrete in the previous step) USFWS, 2007). Some adult females may morphological and behavioral data; significant. As in the vote for also periodically move between the movements, as indicated by tagging discreteness, members of the SRT were neritic and oceanic zones (Plotkin, 2003; (flipper and passive integrated then given 100 points with which to Hatase et al., 2006) and, in some transponder (PIT) tags) and satellite vote for whether each unit met the instances, adult green turtles may reside telemetry data; and anthropogenic significance criterion in the joint policy. in the oceanic zone for foraging (NMFS impacts. Also discussed and considered All units that had been identified as and USFWS, 2007; Seminoff et al., as a part of this analysis were discrete were also determined to be 2008; Parker et al., 2011). Despite these oceanographic features and geographic significant. uses of the oceanic zone by green barriers. For more discussion on the process turtles, much remains unknown about A population may be considered the SRT used to identify DPSs, see how oceanography affects juvenile and discrete if it satisfies either one of the Section 3 of the Status Review adult survival, adult migration, prey following conditions: (1) It is markedly document. availability, and reproductive output. separated from other populations of the Most green turtles exhibit slow same taxon as a consequence of A. Discreteness Determination growth rates, which has been described physical, physiological, ecological, or In evaluating discreteness among the as a consequence of their largely behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited global green turtle population, the SRT herbivorous (i.e., low net energy) diet by international governmental began by focusing on the physical (Bjorndal, 1982). Consistent with slow boundaries within which differences in separation of ocean basins (i.e., Atlantic, growth, age-to-maturity for green turtles control of exploitation, management of Pacific, and Indian Oceans). The result appears to be the longest of any sea habitat, conservation status, or was an evaluation of data by major turtle species (Chaloupka and Musick, regulatory mechanisms exist that are ocean basins, although it quickly 1997; Hirth, 1997). Published age at significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) became clear that the Indian and Pacific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Ocean populations overlapped. The SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and around the world (Jensen and Dutton, evaluation by ocean basin was not to demographic data, and additional NMFS, unpublished data; M. Jensen, preclude any larger or smaller DPS information such as potential NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Results delineation, but to aid in data differences in morphology. The SRT indicated that the mtDNA variation organization and assessment. We also considered whether the available present in green turtles throughout the organized this section by ocean basin to information suggests that green turtle world today occurs within eight major explain the discreteness determination population segments are separated by clades (i.e., a group consisting of an process and results. vicariant barriers, such as ancestor and all its descendants) that are Within each ocean basin, the SRT oceanographic features (e.g., current structured geographically within ocean started by evaluating genetic systems), or biogeographic boundaries. basins. These clades represent information. The genetic data consisted Genetic information that was similarities between haplotypes on of results from studies using maternally presented to the SRT resulted from a evolutionary timescales as opposed to inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), global phylogenetic analysis (analysis ecological timescales. See Figure 1 for a biparentally inherited nuclear DNA based on natural evolutionary visual representation of these clades. (nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA relationships) based on sequence data There is divergence among individual consisting of very short nucleotide from a total of 129 mtDNA haplotypes haplotypes within each green turtle sequences repeated many times), and (i.e., mtDNA sequences, which are clade (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., single nucleotide polymorphism (a DNA inherited together) identified from 2013) and discrete populations can exist sequence variation occurring commonly approximately 4,400 individuals within these clades. within a population) markers. Next, the sampled at 105 green turtle nesting sites BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15279

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C been found in only two individuals, more than 8,000 km away. Further, no 1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea indicating very strong long-term turtles tagged in the eastern isolation of females. As such, there is Mediterranean have been recovered Two of the eight major mtDNA clades, strong evidence that these two farther west than the Tunisian Republic Clades I and II, are found in the geographically-separated groups of (Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean. Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I divergent haplotypes may be considered Nesting females from Cyprus, Turkey, includes haplotypes primarily found in discrete. the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and turtles from the Mediterranean and the In addition to genetic evidence for the State of Israel (Israel) have been western North Atlantic. Within Clade I, discreteness, in the Mediterranean, satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of two strongly divergent groups of green turtles are spatially separated Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey—with haplotypes are found, with one group from populations in the Atlantic and movements largely restricted to the being restricted to the Mediterranean Indian Oceans, with the nearest known eastern Mediterranean (Godley et al., and the other being restricted to the nesting sites outside the Mediterranean 2002; Broderick et al., 2007). Post- western North Atlantic. Mediterranean being several thousand kilometers away nesting turtles from this region migrate and western North Atlantic turtles share in the Republic of Senegal (Senegal), primarily along the coast from their only one specific haplotype that has and the North Atlantic population being nesting beach to their foraging and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23mr15.000 15280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

overwintering grounds in the Long stretches of cold water along the exist in the Atlantic Ocean/ Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002; coasts of Patagonia and southwest Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2) Broderick et al., 2007). Africa serve to isolate South Atlantic Mediterranean, and (3) South Atlantic. Demographic evidence of discreteness turtles from populations in the Indian These three populations are markedly of Mediterranean green turtles lies in and Pacific Oceans. separated from each other and from the fact that Mediterranean green turtles Foraging ground studies in the populations within the Pacific Ocean are the second smallest green turtles Atlantic have generally shown regional and Indian Ocean basins as a worldwide (the smallest being in the structuring with strong stock consequence of physical (including both eastern Pacific), with a mean nesting contribution from nearby regional oceanographic basins and currents), size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved nesting sites, but little mixing over long ecological, and behavioral factors. Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick et al., distances (Bolker et al., 2007). Overall, Information supporting this conclusion 2003), compared with 95 cm to 110 cm the distribution of the two genetic includes genetic analysis, flipper tag CCL size range for most other haplotype lineages (Clade I and Clade II) recoveries, and satellite telemetry. populations. is very similar to what is seen for the In the North Atlantic, tag recovery nesting sites and indicates a strong 2. Indian Ocean and telemetry data indicate that nesting regional structuring with little overlap Green turtles from the Indian Ocean females primarily reside within the (Bolker et al., 2007). However, a recent exhibit haplotypes from Clades II, III, North Atlantic. Some nesting females study showed that a large proportion of IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were juvenile green turtles in the Cape Verde Ocean, Bourjea et al. (2007b) genetically recaptured in the South Atlantic Islands in the eastern Atlantic assessed the population structure among (Troe¨ng et al., 2005). There is some originated from distant nesting sites 288 nesting green turtles from 10 degree of mixing of immature turtles on across the Atlantic, namely Suriname nesting sites. Overall, the southwest foraging pastures between the North and (38 percent), Ascension Island (12 Indian Ocean appears to have at least South Atlantic; however, nesting sites in percent) and Guinea Bissau (19 percent), two genetic stocks: (1) The South the eastern Caribbean carry mostly suggesting that, like loggerheads, green Mozambique Channel (Juan de Nova mtDNA haplotypes from a different turtles in the Atlantic undertake and Europa); and (2) the North clade (II), indicating strong long-term transoceanic developmental migrations Mozambique Channel. As stated earlier, isolation. Tagging studies have (Monzo´n-Argu¨ ello et al., 2010). The fact the authors recorded a high presence of identified juveniles from this that long distance dispersal is only seen a common and widespread South population in waters off Brazil and for juvenile turtles suggests that larger Atlantic Ocean haplotype (CM–A8) in Argentina, but we found no evidence of adult-sized turtles return to forage the South Mozambique Channel. movement of mature individuals. within the region of their natal nesting However, the observation that only a The second clade within the Atlantic sites, thereby limiting the potential for single Atlantic haplotype has been Ocean basin, Clade II, includes gene-flow across larger scales (Monzo´n- observed and that it occurs in high haplotypes found in all South Atlantic Argu¨ ello et al., 2010). frequency among South Mozambique nesting sites, some eastern Caribbean In the South Atlantic, flipper tag Channel rookeries suggests that gene turtles, and some turtles in the recoveries have established movement flow is not ongoing (Bourjea et al., southwest Indian Ocean. With a few between feeding grounds and nesting 2007b). Nesting sites in the North exceptions, green turtles in the South sites in the Caribbean and Brazil (Lima Mozambique Channel share several Atlantic carry an mtDNA haplotype that et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2008; Lima et haplotypes (including CmP47 and is found nowhere else, indicating strong al., 2012), and telemetry data indicate CmP49) with nesting sites in the eastern isolation of matrilines over evolutionary that juvenile green turtles move from Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and the time periods. The exceptions to this Argentina to Uruguay and Brazil, from Western Pacific, indicating strong- pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the Uruguay to Brazil, and from the Guianas connectivity with the eastern Indian eastern Caribbean, which exhibits a low to Brazil. Telemetry studies indicate Ocean population. However, tagging frequency of a haplotype from the North that nesting females from the eastern and tracking data document movements Atlantic/Mediterranean clade (Clade I); South Atlantic (west coast of Africa) are within the Southwest Indian Ocean but (2) nesting sites from the Gulf of confined to the eastern South Atlantic, not between it and the eastern Indian Mexico/Central America, which have a and nesting females from the western and western Pacific Oceans. Although low frequency of Clade II haplotypes; South Atlantic are confined to the there is some evidence of trans- and (3) two nesting sites from southeast western South Atlantic. In the eastern boundary movement between the Africa, which have high frequencies of South Atlantic, all tracked turtles southwest Indian Ocean and the Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a remained in the general vicinity of their population in the North Indian Ocean, shared haplotype in South Atlantic and release location. Nesting females from evidence from tag returns indicates that southwest Indian Ocean rookeries Ascension Island were tracked to most remain in the southwest Indian demonstrates for the first time a recent foraging grounds along the coast of Ocean. Indeed, some green turtles in matrilineal link between Atlantic and Brazil. Tanzania are probably resident, and Indian Ocean green turtle populations Finally, demographic evidence for others are highly migratory, moving to (Bourjea et al., 2007b). However, the discreteness of South Atlantic green and from nesting and feeding grounds SRT believes all these exceptions reflect turtles lies in the fact that the South within the southwest Indian Ocean in historical events rather than Atlantic is home to the largest green Kenya, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte, contemporary connectivity. This turtles in the world, with a mean Europa Island and South Africa (Muir, interpretation is supported by satellite nesting size of green turtles at Atol das 2005). From 2009 to 2011, 90 satellite telemetry, which reveals extensive Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738), transmitters deployed on nesting green movements of turtles within the South compared with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL turtles at five nesting sites in the Atlantic region but no evidence for size range for most other populations. southwest Indian Ocean showed that migrations into other areas, other than Based on the information presented nearly 20 percent of the tracked turtles rare instances of movement into above, the SRT concluded, and we used Madagascar coastal foraging foraging areas in the North Atlantic. concur, that three discrete populations grounds while more than 80 percent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15281

used the east African coasts, including Indian and western Pacific Ocean 3. Pacific Ocean waters off north Mozambique and south regions has been fairly extensive with The central west Pacific encompasses Tanzania. The SRT determined that more than 22 nesting sites sampled most of the area commonly referred to spatial separation between the although, because there are a high as Micronesia as well as parts of southwest Indian Ocean and other Indo- number of nesting sites in this region Melanesia. Genetic sampling in the Pacific populations, as well as an and there is complex structure, there central west Pacific has recently apparent nesting gap, the lack of trans- remain gaps in sampling relative to improved, but remains challenging, boundary recoveries in tagging, and distribution (e.g., Thailand, Vietnam, given the large number of small island localized telemetry, indicate parts of Indonesia, and the Philippines). and atoll nesting sites. At least five discreteness from other populations in Most nesting sites are dominated by management units have been identified the Indo-Pacific. haplotypes from Clade VII, but with in the region (Palau, Independent State In the North Indian Ocean, limited some overlap of Clades III and IV of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap, information from only a single nesting throughout the Indian Ocean—evidence CNMI/Guam, and the Republic of the site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27) of a complex colonization history in this Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands); exists on the genetic structure (M. region. While one common haplotype is Dethmers et al., 2006; M. Jensen, NRC, Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). shared across the Indian Ocean, pers. comm., 2013; Dutton et al., 2014). Nonetheless, four mtDNA haplotypes substantial gaps in nesting sites along The central west Pacific carries never reported from any other nesting the east coast of India and in the site were identified from Jana Island, haplotypes from Clade IV, while the southern Indian Ocean serve to isolate populations to the west carry and are highly divergent from other the eastern Indian-western Pacific haplotypes in the Indian Ocean. This haplotypes predominantly from Clade population from those in the north and population also appears to be isolated VII, so any mixing presumably reflects southwest Indian Ocean. The Wallace from other Indian populations by foraging migrations rather than Line (a boundary drawn in 1859 by the substantial breaks in nesting habitat interbreeding. The boundary between British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace along the Horn of Africa and along the the central west Pacific and the East entire eastern side of the Indian that separates the highly distinctive Indian-West Pacific populations is subcontinent. faunas of the Asian and Australian congruent with the northern portion of Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches biogeographic regions) and its northern the Wallace Line. Wide expanses of of the North Indian Ocean started in the extension separate this population from open ocean separate the central west late 1970s and indicates that some populations to the east, which carry Pacific from the central north Pacific, turtles in the North Indian Ocean haplotypes primarily from Clade IV. and genetic data provide no evidence of migrate long distances from distant Nesting sites to the northern extreme gene flow between the central west feeding grounds to nesting beaches (Taiwan and Japan) show more complex Pacific and the central north Pacific while others are quite sedentary, but all patterns of higher mixing of divergent over evolutionary time scales. Tagging stay within the North Indian Ocean. haplotypes, and the placement of studies also have not found evidence for Tagging studies have revealed that some individual nesting sites within this area migration of breeding adults to or from turtles nesting on Ras Al Hadd and is somewhat uncertain and may become adjacent populations. Masirah, Oman can be found as far away better resolved when additional genetic In the southwest Pacific, genetic as Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi data are available. sampling has been extensive for larger Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan Significant population substructuring nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral (Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green occurs among nesting sites in this area. Sea and New Caledonia (Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen, 2010; Dutton et al., 2014). turtle tagged in Oman was found in the Mixed-stock analysis of foraging However, several smaller nesting sites Maldives (Al-Saady et al., 2005). No grounds shows that green turtles from in this region have not been sampled tagging has been carried out on feeding multiple nesting beaches commonly mix (e.g., Solomon Islands, Republic of grounds (Al-Saady et al., 2005). at feeding areas across northern Vanuatu (Vanuatu), Tuvalu, PNG, etc.). A few green turtles in the North Australia (Dethmers et al., 2006) and The southwest Pacific population is Indian Ocean have been fitted with Malaysia (Jensen, 2010), with higher characterized by haplotypes from Clade satellite transmitters and reported at contributions from nearby large nesting www.seaturtle.org, but no data have V, which have been found only at sites. Satellite tracking also shows green been published. One telemetered female nesting sites in this population. It also turtle movement throughout the eastern green turtle remained in the coastal has a high frequency of haplotypes from Indian and western Pacific (Cheng, areas of the Persian Gulf for 49 days (N. Clades III and IV, as well as low 2000; Dermawan, 2002; Charuchinda et Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, frequency of haplotypes from Clades VI al., 2003; Wang, 2006). pers. comm., 2013), and two nesting and VII, making this area highly diverse turtles were telemetered at Masirah Given the information presented (haplotypes from the widespread Clade Island, Oman, both of which moved above, the SRT concluded, and we IV differ from those found in the central southward along the Arabian Peninsula concur, that three discrete populations west and central south Pacific). and were found in the Red Sea when the exist in the Indian Ocean, with the third Traditional capture-mark-recapture transmissions ceased (Rees et al. 2012). overlapping with the Pacific: (1) studies (Limpus, 2009) and genetic Telemetry data for captive-hatched and Southwest Indian, (2) North Indian, and mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010) reared green turtles at Republic of (3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three show that turtles from several different Maldives (Vabbinfaru Island, Male populations are markedly separated southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap Atoll) have indicated wide movement from each other and from populations on feeding grounds along the east coast patterns within the Indian Ocean (N. within the Atlantic Ocean as a of Australia. This mixing in foraging Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, consequence of physical, ecological, and areas might provide mating pers. comm., 2013). behavioral factors. Information opportunities between turtles from In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles supporting this conclusion includes different stocks as evidenced by the lack mix readily with those in the western genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, of differentiation found between the Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern and satellite telemetry. northern and southern GBR nesting sites

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for nuclear DNA (FitzSimmons et al., Turtles foraging in the MHI originate The central North Pacific population 1997). However, tagging, telemetry, and from Hawaiian nesting sites, with very and those in the central South Pacific genetic studies show movement of rare records of turtles from outside the and central west Pacific appear to be breeding adults occurs mainly within central North Pacific (Dutton et al., separated by large oceanic areas, and the the southwest Pacific. 2008), and there is a general absence of central North Pacific and the eastern In the central South Pacific, genetic turtles from the Hawaiian breeding Pacific populations are separated by the sampling has been limited to two population at foraging areas outside the East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic nesting sites (American Samoa and central North Pacific. From 1965–2013, barrier that greatly restricts or French Polynesia) among the many 17,536 green turtles (juvenile through eliminates gene flow for most marine small isolated nesting sites that adult stages) were tagged. With only species from a wide range of taxa characterize this region, but they both three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of (Briggs, 1974). contain relatively high frequencies of these tagged turtles have been within In the eastern Pacific, genetic Clade III haplotypes, which are not the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three sampling has been extensive and the found in the central west and southwest outliers involved recoveries in Japan, coverage in this region is substantial, Pacific populations. Nesting sites from the Marshall Islands, and the considering the relatively small this area share some haplotypes with Philippines (G. Balazs, NMFS, pers. population sizes of most eastern Pacific surrounding nesting sites, but at low comm., 2013). nesting sites, which include both frequency. There are also limited data Information from tagging at FFS, areas mainland and insular nesting. This on mixed-stock foraging areas from this in the MHI, the Northwest Hawaiian sampling indicates complete isolation of region. Flipper tag returns and satellite Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS, nesting females between the eastern and tracking studies demonstrate that post- and at Johnston Atoll shows that western Pacific nesting sites. Recent nesting females travel the complete reproductive females and males efforts to determine the nesting stock geographic breadth of this population, periodically migrate to FFS for seasonal origins of green turtles assembled in from French Polynesia in the east to Fiji breeding from the other locations. At the foraging areas have found that green in the west, and sometimes even slightly end of the season they return to their turtles from several eastern Pacific beyond (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; respective foraging areas. The nesting stocks commonly mix at feeding Craig et al., 2004; Maison et al., 2010; reproductive migrations of 19 satellite areas in the Gulf of California and along White, 2012), as far as the Philippines tracked green turtles (16 females and 3 the Pacific coast in San Diego Bay, U.S. (Trevor, 2009). The complete extent of males) all involved movements between (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, migratory movements is unknown. The FFS and the MHI. Conventional tagging unpubl. data). In addition, green turtles central South Pacific is isolated by vast using microchips and metal flipper tags of eastern Pacific origin have been expanses of open ocean from turtle has resulted in the documentation of found, albeit very rarely, in waters off populations to the north (Hawai‘i) and 164 turtles making reproductive Hawai‘i (LeRoux et al., 2003; Dutton et east (Galapagos), and in both of these movements from or to FFS and foraging al., 2008), Japan (Kuroyanagi et al., areas all turtle haplotypes are from an pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from 1999; Hamabata et al., 2009), and New entirely different clade (Clade VIII), or to FFS and the foraging pastures in Zealand (Godoy et al., 2012). A recent indicating lack of genetic exchange the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl. study of juvenile green turtles foraging across these barriers. data). at Gorgona Island in the Republic of The central North Pacific, which Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit Colombia indicated a small number (5 includes the Hawaiian Archipelago and morphological features that may make percent) of turtles with the haplotype Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green them discrete from other populations, CmP22, which was recently discovered turtles that are geographically discrete possibly reflecting genetic as well as to be common in nesting green turtles in their genetic characteristics, range, ecological adaptations. In the Hawai‘i from the Marshall Islands and American and movements, as evidenced by population, and in Australian Samoa (Dutton et al., 2014). This shows genetic studies and mark-recapture populations, green turtles have a well- that, despite the isolation of nesting studies using flipper tags, microchip developed crop, which has not been females between the eastern and tags, and satellite telemetry. The key found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific western Pacific, a small number of nesting aggregations within the populations of green turtles (Balazs et immature turtles successfully cross the Hawaiian Archipelago have all been al., 1998; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpubl. Pacific during developmental genetically sampled. Mitochondrial data). In addition, juvenile green turtles migrations in both directions. However, DNA studies show no significant in Hawai‘i have proportionally larger it is important to point out that there is differentiation (based on haplotype rear flippers than those in the western no evidence of mature turtles inhabiting frequency) between FFS and Laysan Caribbean (Wyneken and Balazs, 1996; foraging or nesting habitat across the Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., Balazs et al., 1998). These anatomical Pacific from their region of origin. 2013). While the Hawaiian Islands do differences may reflect adaptive Recent nDNA studies provide insights share haplotypes with Revillagigedos variation to different environmental that are consistent with patterns of Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at low conditions. A crop that holds food differentiation found with mtDNA in frequency, the populations remain material in the esophagus would permit the eastern Pacific. Roden et al. (2013) highly differentiated, and there is little more food to be ingested during each found significant differentiation evidence of significant ongoing gene foraging event in a more dynamic between FFS and two eastern Pacific flow. The Frey et al. (2013) analysis of feeding environment, which is helpful populations (the Gala´pagos Islands, mtDNA and nDNA in scattered nesting along wind-swept rugged coastlines Ecuador and Michoaca´n, Mexico) and sites on the main Hawaiian Islands where large waves crash ashore. Larger greater connectivity between Galapagos (MHI; Molokai, Maui, Oahu, Lanai, and flippers would also aid in making them and Michoaca´n than between FFS and Kauai) showed that nesting in the MHI stronger swimmers in this feeding either of the eastern Pacific nesting might be attributed to a relatively small environment, and during reproductive sites. number of females that appear to be migrations across rough pelagic waters, Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry related to each other and as opposed to calmer coastal waters data show that dispersal and demographically isolated from FFS. (Balazs et al., 1998). reproductive migratory movements of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15283

green turtles originating from the populations entirely within the Pacific only other population within Clade I), eastern Pacific region are generally Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2) and turtles from adjacent populations in confined to that region. Long-term Southwest Pacific, (3) Central South the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes flipper tagging programs at Michoaca´n Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5) from a different clade. The North (Alvarado-Dı´az and Figueroa, 1992) and East Pacific. These five populations are Atlantic population has globally unique in the Gala´pagos Islands (Green, 1984; markedly separated from each other and haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the P. Zarate, University of Florida, pers. from populations within the Atlantic population would result in significant comm., 2012) produced 94 tag returns Ocean and Indian Oceans as a genetic loss to the species as a whole. from foraging areas throughout the consequence of physical, ecological, The green turtles within the North eastern Pacific (e.g., Seminoff et al., behavioral, and oceanographic factors. Atlantic population occupy a large 2002b). There were two apparent Information supporting this conclusion portion of one of the major ocean basins groupings, with tags attached to turtles includes genetic analysis, flipper tag in the world; therefore, the loss of this nesting in the Gala´pagos largely recoveries, and satellite telemetry. segment would represent a significant recovered along the shores from Costa Collectively, all observations above gap in the global range of green turtles. Rica to Chile in the southeastern Pacific, led the SRT to propose that green turtles Green turtles take advantage of the and long-distance tag returns from the from the following geographic areas warm waters of the Gulf Stream to nest Michoaca´n nesting site primarily from might be considered ‘‘discrete’’ in North Carolina at 34° N., which is foraging areas in Mexico to Nicaragua. according to criteria in the joint DPS farther from the equator than any other However, there was a small degree of policy: nesting sites outside the Mediterranean overlap between these two regions, as at (1) North Atlantic Ocean Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show least one Michoaca´n tag was recovered (2) Mediterranean Sea that the North Atlantic green turtle as far south as Colombia (Alvarado-Dı´az (3) South Atlantic Ocean population has minimal mixing with and Figueroa, 1992). (4) Southwest Indian Ocean populations in the South Atlantic and Satellite telemetry efforts with green (5) North Indian Ocean Mediterranean regions. The mean size of turtles in the region have shown similar (6) East Indian Ocean-West Pacific nesting females in the North Atlantic, results to those for flipper tag Ocean which could reflect the ecological recoveries. A total of 23 long-distance (7) Central West Pacific Ocean setting and/or be genetically based, is satellite tracks were considered for the (8) Southwest Pacific Ocean larger (average 101.7–109.3 cm CCL; Status Review (Seminoff, 2000; Nichols, (9) Central South Pacific Ocean (Guzma´n-Herna´ndez, 2001, 2006) than 2003; Seminoff et al., 2008). Satellite (10) Central North Pacific Ocean those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea data show that turtles tracked in (11) East Pacific Ocean (average 88–96 cm CCL), and smaller northeastern Mexico (Nichols, 2003; J. B. Significance Determination than those at varying locations in the Nichols, California Academy of South Atlantic, such as those at Isla Sciences, unpubl. data) and California In accordance with the DPS Policy, Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL; (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2010) the SRT next reviewed whether the Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011), Atol all stayed within the region, whereas population segments identified in the das Rocas, Brazil (112.9–118.6 cm CCL; turtles tracked from nesting beaches in discreteness analysis were biologically Hirth, 1997; Bellini et al., 2013), and the Gala´pagos Islands all remained in and ecologically significant to the taxon Ascension Island (average 116.8 cm waters off Central America and the to which they belong, which is the CCL; Hirth, 1997). broader southeastern Pacific Ocean taxonomic species C. mydas. Data Another factor indicating uniqueness (Seminoff et al., 2008). relevant to the significance question of the North Atlantic population is a Demographic evidence of discreteness include ecological, behavioral, genetic typical 2-year remigration interval, as is also found in morphological and morphological data. The SRT compared to 3-year or longer intervals differences between green turtles in the considered the following factors, listed that are more common elsewhere eastern Pacific and those found in the DPS Policy, in determining (Witherington et al., 2006). elsewhere. The smallest green turtles whether the discrete population 2. Mediterranean worldwide are found in the eastern segments were significant: (1) Evidence Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0 that loss of the discrete segment would Mediterranean turtles differ markedly cm CCL in Michoaca´n, Mexico (n=718, result in a significant gap in the range in their genetic characteristics from (Alvarado-Dı´az and Figueroa, 1992) and of the taxon; (2) evidence that the other regional populations, with 86.7 cm CCL in the Gala´pagos (n=2708; discrete segment differs markedly from globally unique haplotypes and strong (Za´rate et al., 2003), compared to the 95 other populations of the species in its divergence from the other population cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most genetic characteristics; and (3) within Clade I (the North Atlantic green turtles. In addition, Kamezaki and persistence of the discrete segment in an population). Therefore, the loss of the Matsui (1995) found differences in skull unusual or unique ecological setting. population would result in significant morphology among green turtle The DPS policy also allows for genetic loss to the species as a whole. populations on a broad global scale consideration of other factors if they are Given this genetic distinctiveness and when analyzing specimens representing appropriate to the biology or ecology of the distinctive environmental west and east Pacific (Japan and the species, such as unique conditions, it is likely that turtles from Gala´pagos), Indian Ocean (Comoros and morphological or demographic the eastern Mediterranean have Seychelles), and Caribbean (Costa Rica characteristics, and unique movement developed local adaptations that help and Guyana) populations. The eastern patterns. them persist in this area. Mediterranean Pacific was different from others based females are smaller than those in any on discriminant function analysis (used 1. North Atlantic other regional population except the to discriminate between two or more Green turtles in the North Atlantic Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL naturally occurring groups). differ markedly in their genetic (Broderick et al., 2003) compared to the Given the information presented characteristics from other regional global average of 95 cm–110 cm CCL. above, the SRT concluded, and we populations. They are strongly divergent The loss of the population would concur, that there are five discrete from the Mediterranean population (the result in a significant gap in the range

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

of the taxon. The population Channel produces distinctive areas of population is located at the center of the encompasses a large region, separated high productivity that support a robust species’ range, would strongly affect from other regional populations by large turtle population, and complex current connectivity within the species as a expanses of ocean, and with an apparent patterns in the area create a distinctive whole. Connectivity is important for the biogeographic boundary formed by the ecological setting for green turtles. maintenance of genetic diversity and western Mediterranean. Madagascar is one of the largest islands resilience of the species. Genetic data Finally, the Mediterranean Sea in the world and its proximity to the indicate the presence of ancestral appears to be a unique ecological setting African coast, along with a proliferation haplotypes with significant mtDNA for the species. It is the most saline of nearby islands, creates a complex diversity. The loss of this population, marine water basin in the world (38 series of habitats suitable for green and its ancestral haplotypes, would parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is turtles. Loss of this population would represent a significant genetic loss to the nearly enclosed, and is outside the leave a gap of over 10,000 km between species. The wide size range of nesting normal latitudinal range for the species, populations in southern India and those females within this population (82.1 being the farthest from the equator of in west-central Africa. Nesting turtles cm–105.6 cm; Charuchinda and any green turtle population. Although from this population are the largest Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also similar information is not available for within the Indian Ocean, ranging from an indication of the high level of green turtles, it has been postulated that 103 cm (SCL)–112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier, diversity within this population. the high salinity of sea water in the 1971; 1985) which could reflect growth 7. Central West Pacific Mediterranean acts as a ‘‘barrier’’ due to presence of a network of foraging preventing loggerhead sea turtles from areas and localize migratory The Central West Pacific population moving among the areas of the Western movements. is genetically significant in that it has Mediterranean, explaining why they do both globally unique haplotypes and not mix between the north and south 5. North Indian ancestral haplotypes. The Central West Mediterranean as juveniles (Revelles et The ecological setting for this region Pacific has no continental shelf habitats, al., 2008). All nesting sites within the is unique for green turtles in that it with all nesting occurring on small Mediterranean are between latitudes contains some of the warmest and islands or atolls that are volcanic or 31–40° N., which not only affects highly saline waters in the world, coralline limestone. There is an temperature but results in more seasonal indicative of the partially enclosed apparent oceanic boundary between the variation in day length and marine habitats within this system. The Central West Pacific and the Central environmental conditions, which may salinity in the North Indian Ocean North Pacific population and an have fostered local adaptations in green varies from 32 to 37 ppt comparable apparent biogeographic boundary turtles living there. only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity between the Central West Pacific and in this region varies with local and 3. South Atlantic the East Indian-West Pacific population. seasonal differences particularly in the Loss of turtles from this population The South Atlantic population has Arabian Sea (dense, high-salinity) and would create a large gap near the center globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity). of the geographic range of the species. the loss of the population would result Although genetic data are very limited in significant genetic loss to the species for this population, with the only 8. Southwest Pacific as a whole. The South Atlantic sample being from the Persian Gulf, it Clade V haplotypes have only been population contains the only nesting has two groups of highly divergent found at nesting sites in the Southwest site in the world associated with a mid- haplotypes that are not found anywhere Pacific population. In addition to these ocean ridge. This unique ecological else in the world (i.e., markedly globally unique haplotypes, the setting at Ascension Island, one of the different genetic characteristics). The presence of the ancestral haplotypes and largest nesting sites within this loss of this population, and its globally significant mtDNA diversity make this population, ensures diverse nesting unique haplotypes, which are not found population genetically significant. habitats and promotes resilience for the in any other population, would result in Unlike most other populations in the species. This population spans an entire significant genetic loss to the species as Pacific Ocean, this population includes hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss a whole. This population is isolated island nesting sites in close proximity to would result in a gap of at least 12,000 from other Indian Ocean populations coastal foraging areas. The Great Barrier km between populations off southeast which would render its loss a Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef Africa and those in Florida, clearly a significant gap in the range of the system in the world and was significant gap in the range of the taxon. species. Nesting turtles are smaller here periodically isolated over geological Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have than in other Indian Ocean regions, time. It provides expansive, year-round acted as a refuge for Atlantic green possibly reflecting genetic adaptations foraging habitat for green turtles and turtles during the Pleistocene period to local environmental conditions. supports one of the largest nesting sites (Reece et al., 2005). The average size of in the world. 6. East Indian-West Pacific nesting females is larger here than in 9. Central South Pacific any other populations, ranging from This area of complex habitats at the 112.9–118.6 cm CCL (Hirth, 1997; confluence of the tropical Indian and This population has globally unique Almeida et al., 2011) compared to 95– Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the 110 cm CCL worldwide, which could for speciation and diversification of population would result in significant reflect an adaptation to local both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is genetic loss to the species as a whole. environmental conditions such as unique in that it contains the most To a greater extent than in any other habitat, availability of food, water extensive continental shelf globally, and regional population, nesting sites are temperature, and population dynamics. particularly low salinity waters in the widely dispersed among a large number northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss of of small habitats on islands and atolls. 4. Southwest Indian green turtles from this vast area would Foraging areas are mostly coral reef Within the Southwest Indian Ocean, create a substantial gap in the global ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga strong upwelling in the Mozambique distribution and, because this and Fiji being a notable exception.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15285

There is an apparent oceanic boundary significant gap in the global range of the C. Summary of Discreteness and with the Central North Pacific species. Significance Determinations population. Although turtles in this area 11. East Pacific are poorly studied, they may have In summary, the 11 discrete evolved adaptations to persist with this The two cold-water currents on the populations identified in the very diffuse metapopulation structure. If east side of the Pacific Ocean (the Discreteness Determination section were green turtles were lost from this entire Humboldt Current in the south and the also determined to be significant to the area, it would create a significant gap in California Current in the north) leave a species, C. mydas. Each is genetically the range across the southern Pacific distinctive region of tropical ocean unique, and many are identified by Ocean. along the west coasts of Mexico, Central unique mtDNA haplotypes which could America, and northern South America represent adaptive differences. Some 10. Central North Pacific that is known as the Eastern Pacific populations exist in unique or unusual Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974). Mitochondrial DNA in this ecological settings influenced by local Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this extensively sampled region includes ecological and physical factors which area exhibit a unique overwintering globally unique haplotypes. Although may also lead to adaptive differences behavior similar to hibernation. This two haplotypes are shared with and represent adaptive potential. Some area also has a very narrow continental individuals in the Revillagigedos also possess unique morphological or shelf and low levels of seagrass, Islands in the East Pacific, there is little other demographic characteristics that resulting in a unique diet for green evidence of significant ongoing gene render them significant. Most turtles (e.g., tunicates and red mangrove flow. The loss of this population would populations represent a large portion of fruits; Amorocho and Reina, 2007). This the species’ range, and their loss would result in significant genetic loss to the population has globally unique species as a whole. result in a significant gap in the range haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the of the species. This population has no continental- population would result in significant shelf habitat and all nesting occurs on genetic loss to the species as a whole. Based on the information provided in mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this Mean size of nesting turtles in the East the Discreteness Determination and population are known to bask, a rare Pacific is smaller, at approximately 82 Significance Determination sections behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and cm CCL (Pritchard, 1971) than in any above, the SRT identified the following have unique morphological traits such other population, which could reflect an 11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure as unusually large flippers, possibly adaptation to local ecological 2): (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, reflecting adaptations to their ecological conditions, as could the distinctive (3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian, setting. This is the most isolated of all ‘‘black’’ phenotype. The Galapagos (5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West populations, with an apparent Island chain is one of the few areas Pacific, (7) Central West Pacific, (8) biogeographic boundary with the where green turtles bask (Hawai‘i being Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South Eastern Pacific population and oceanic the other). Loss of all turtles from this Pacific, (10) Central North Pacific, and boundaries with the Central West and population would leave a significant (11) East Pacific. We concur with the Central South Pacific populations. If all gap in the range of the species as it findings of the SRT and conclude that turtles were lost from this vast occurs along much of the eastern the 11 potential DPSs identified by the geographic area, it would create a boundary of the world’s largest ocean. SRT warrant delineation as DPSs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23MR15.001 15286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

VI. Listing Evaluation Process data to identify structuring and issued jointly by the Services. substructuring within each DPS. This Information on conservation efforts for A. Discussion of Population Parameters informed the SRT of metapopulation each DPS is summarized from the Status for the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs dynamics in order that it might consider Review. For a more detailed description In these sections, we describe the these dynamics in considerations about of conservation efforts, please see that geographic range of each DPS. We the future of the species, including document. When assessing conservation discuss its population parameters, whether source populations and genetic efforts, the SRT assumed that all which are derived from population data diversity are being maintained. conservation efforts would remain in and influence the persistence of the With regard to diversity and place at their current levels. In our final DPS. These population parameters resilience, the SRT considered the determinations, we considered the include: Abundance, growth rates or extent of ecological variation, including conservation benefits of continued trends, spatial structure, and diversity the overall nesting spatial range, protections under the ESA. or resilience (McElhany et al., 2000). diversity in nesting season, and NMFS has used this approach in diversity of nesting site structure and D. Extinction Risk Assessments and numerous status reviews. USFWS uses orientation, e.g., whether nesting sites Findings a similar approach, based on Shaffer are insular or continental, have a high To analyze the extinction risk of each and Stein (2000), to evaluate a species’ or low beach face, and whether there are DPS, the SRT collected and presented status in terms of its representation, a variety of types of sites. The SRT also information on the six critical resiliency, and redundancy; this considered demographic and genetic assessment elements: (1) Abundance, (2) methodology has also been a widely diversity of the DPS which may indicate growth rates/trends, (3) spatial accepted approach (Tear et al., 2005). its ability to adapt and thus its structure, (4) diversity/resilience, (5) Though expressed differently, these two resilience. One of the considerations five factor analysis/threats, and (6) approaches rely on the same when looking at diversity was the DPS’s conservation efforts. Shortly after each conservation biology principles. Though ability to adapt to climate change presentation, the SRT voted twice: A this information is presented separately including, but not limited to, sea level vote on the contribution of each critical from the assessment of threats under rise and warming of nesting beaches. assessment element to extinction risk, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, population and a vote on the overall risk of dynamics represent one aspect of the B. Summary of Factors Affecting the extinction to the DPS (see section 3.3.4 other natural or manmade factors Eleven Green Turtle DPSs of the Status Review for a more detailed affecting the continued existence of the Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) discussion of this process). species that we consider under Factor E. and implementing regulations at 50 CFR In the first vote, SRT members ranked Complete population abundance and part 424 set forth procedures for adding the importance of each of the four trend estimates do not exist for any of species to the Federal List of population parameters (Abundance, the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Trends, Spatial Structure, Diversity/ Review and summarized here represent Species. Under section 4(a) of the ESA, Resilience) by assigning them a value the best scientific information available. the Services must determine whether a from 1 to 5 for each DPS, with 1 The data are more robust for some areas species is threatened or endangered indicating a very low risk and 5 than for others. For each DPS, the because of any of the following 5 indicating a very high risk. SRT primary data available are collected on factors: (A) The present or threatened members then ranked the influence of nesting beaches, either as counts of destruction, modification, or the section 4(a)(1) factors (threats) on nests or counts of nesting females, or a curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) the status of each DPS by assigning a combination of both (either direct or overutilization for commercial, value of 0 (neutral effect on status—this extrapolated). Information on recreational, scientific, or educational could mean that threats are not abundance and trends away from the purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) sufficient to appreciably affect the status nesting beaches is limited and often the inadequacy of existing regulatory of the DPS, or that threats are already non-existent, primarily because these mechanisms; or (E) other natural or reflected in the population parameters), data are, relative to nesting beach manmade factors affecting its continued –1 (threats described in the 5-factor studies, logistically difficult and existence. analysis suggest that the DPS will expensive to obtain. Therefore, the In this rulemaking, information experience some decline (<5 percent primary and best available information regarding the status of each of the 11 decline) in abundance within 100 source for directly evaluating status and green turtle DPSs is considered in years), or –2 (threats described in the 5- trends of the DPSs is nesting data. relation to the five factors provided in factor analysis suggest that the DPS will Nesting female abundance estimates section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That experience significant decline (≥5 for each nesting site or nesting beach are information presented here is a percent decline) in abundance within presented in the Status Review for each summary of the information in the 100 years). They then ranked the potential DPS. Accompanying this Status Review. The reader is directed to influence of conservation efforts on the information is trend information in the the subsection within each DPS section status of each DPS by assigning a value form of bar plots and Population of the Status Review titled ‘‘Analysis of of 0 (neutral effect on status—this could Viability Analysis (PVA) models Factors Listed Under ESA Section mean that conservation efforts are not extending 100 years into the future for 4(a)(1)’’ for a more detailed discussion sufficient to appreciably affect the status the 33 sites that met the criteria for of the factors. of the DPS, or that conservation efforts depicting the data this way, i.e., recent are already reflected in the population (<10 year old) data over a given period C. Conservation Efforts parameters), +1 (activities described in of time (10 years for bar plots, 15 years In evaluating the efficacy of protective Conservation Efforts suggest that the for PVA) with consistent protocols and efforts not yet implemented or not yet DPS will experience <5 percent increase effort during that time. proven to be effective, we rely on the in abundance within 100 years), or +2 With regard to spatial structure, the Policy on Evaluation of Conservation (activities described in Conservation SRT used information from genetic, Efforts When Making Listing Decisions Efforts suggest that the DPS will tagging, telemetry, and demographic (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), experience ≥5 percent increase in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15287

abundance within 100 years). The SRT As noted above, the SRT estimated analyses assuming all protections would did note in discussions that none of the likelihood that a population would remain in place. these elements is entirely independent. fall below a critical risk threshold VII. North Atlantic DPS Abundance, growth rates, spatial within 100 years. The SRT did not structure, and diversity/resilience are define the critical risk threshold A. Discussion of Population Parameters linked and often dependent on each quantitatively but instead provided the for the North Atlantic DPS other. Past threats and conservation following definition: ‘‘A DPS that has The range of the North Atlantic DPS efforts affect these four population reached a critical risk threshold has extends from the boundary of South and parameters. To minimize ‘‘double such low abundance, declining trends, Central America north along the coast to counting,’’ the SRT considered only limited distribution or diversity, and/or the northern extent of the green turtle’s those threats and conservation measures significant threats (untempered by range to include Panama, Costa Rica, that are unlikely to be reflected in the significant conservation efforts) that the Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, population parameters. DPS would be at very high risk of and the United States. It then extends In the second vote, SRT members extinction with little chance for due east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48° provided their expert opinion (via vote) recovery.’’ N.; follows the coast south to include on the likelihood that each DPS would While the SRT’s review of the DPSs’ the northern portion of the Islamic reach a critical risk threshold (quasi- statuses was rigorous and extensive, the Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania; to extinction) within 100 years. In the framework used does not allow us to 19° N.) on the African continent; and Status Review, the SRT defined the easily or clearly translate a particular west along the 19° N. latitude to the critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) critical risk category to an ESA listing Caribbean basin, turning south and west as follows: ‘‘A DPS that has reached a status. Structured expert opinion is a at 63.5° W., 19° N., and due south at 7.5° critical risk threshold has such low valid and commonly used method of ° abundance, declining trends, limited evaluating extinction risk and forms a N., 77 W. to the boundary of South and distribution or diversity, and/or useful starting point for our analysis. Central to include Puerto Rico, the significant threats (untempered by However, in our judgment, the critical Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos significant conservation efforts) that the risk threshold approach used for this Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti), DPS would be at very high risk of status review does not directly correlate Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, extinction with little chance for with the ESA’s definitions of and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS recovery.’’ Generally, DPSs were endangered and threatened. The ESA includes the Florida breeding considered to have higher viability if defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as population, which was originally listed they were composed of a number of ‘‘any species which is in danger of as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, relatively large populations, distributed extinction throughout all or a significant 1978). Critical habitat was previously throughout the geographic range of the portion of its range.’’ The critical risk designated for areas within the range of DPS, and exhibited stable or increasing threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a this DPS (i.e., coastal waters growth rates. DPSs were considered to condition worse than endangered, surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto be at higher risk if they were composed because it essentially precludes Rico; 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). of fewer robust populations or with recovery. Thus, while the SRT votes Green turtle nesting sites in the North robust populations all concentrated in a informed our listing determinations, we Atlantic are some of the most studied in small geographic area, where they might did not equate a particular critical risk the world, with time series exceeding 40 be susceptible to correlated category with an ESA listing status, and years in Costa Rica and 35 years in catastrophes. Any DPS with low therefore the votes were not the basis for Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were phenotypic and/or habitat diversity those determinations. However, to make identified within the North Atlantic were also considered to be at higher risk our proposed listing determinations, we DPS, although some represent numerous because the entire DPS could be applied the best available science that individual beaches. For instance, vulnerable to persistent environmental was compiled by the SRT in examining Florida nesting beaches were listed by conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000; the definitions of endangered and county with the numerous beaches in Saba et al., 2008; Van Houtan and threatened species under section 3 of each county representing one site and, Halley, 2011) or stochastic catastrophic the ESA. for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to events (Hawkes et al., 2007; Van Houtan After considering the extinction risk, North Carolina), each state’s nesting and Bass, 2007; Fuentes et al., 2011). the Services then reviewed the present beaches were represented as one site. Each member was given 100 points to threats and threats anticipated in the There are four regions that support high spread across risk categories, reflecting foreseeable future for each DPS. We density nesting concentrations for their interpretation of the information examined the significant threats to each which data were available: Tortuguero, for that DPS; the voting results are DPS, how these threats affected that Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche, available in the Status Review. The DPS, and how they were predicted to Yucatan, and Quintana Roo); Florida, spread of points is meant to reflect the affect the DPS in the foreseeable future. United States; and Cuba. There is one amount of uncertainty in the risk Our analysis weighed each factor within nesting site with >100,000 nesting threshold bins. Risk categories were <1 the scope of the ESA’s definitions of females (Tortuguero at 131,751; percent, 1–5 percent, 6–10 percent, 11– threatened and endangered for each Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Sea Turtle 20 percent, 21–50 percent, and >50 DPS. Conservancy, 2013), one with 10,001– percent. We note that, presumably Among other things, the Services also 100,000 (Quintana Roo, Mexico at because this species is such a long-lived carefully considered where current 18,257; Julio Zurita, pers. comm. 2012) species and, as such, it is unlikely that conditions or protections are present and six with 1,001–5,000: Cayo Largo, it would go extinct within 100 years specifically because green turtles are Cuba; Campeche, Yucatan, and even if it was lost in many places, every listed under the ESA, and whether those Veracruz, Mexico; and Brevard and DPS received numerous points in the <1 conditions would likely exist absent Palm Beach Counties, FL, United States. percent category, including those with such a listing. We note that the latter There are four with 501–1,000; the most depressed numbers and that was not considered by the SRT, Tamaulipas, Mexico; Vieques, Puerto face the highest threats. meaning the SRT conducted all risk Rico; Martin and Indian River Counties,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

FL, United States; nine with 101–500; the United States, Mexico, and Cuba associated with Sargassum algae in the 26 with <50; and 26 with numbers (Witherington et al., 2006). Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico unquantified. Seventy-nine percent of (Witherington et al., 2012), and B. Summary of Factors Affecting the the nesting turtles in this DPS nest at vulnerable to ingesting contaminants North Atlantic DPS Tortuguero. such as tar balls and plastics that Of the nesting sites with long-term 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened aggregate in convergent zones where data sets, both Tortuguero and the index Destruction, Modification, or Sargassum aggregates (Witherington, beaches in Florida exhibit a strong Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 2002). Juvenile and adult green turtles positive trend in the PVAs that were a. Terrestrial Zone and their nearshore foraging habitats are conducted on them, as does Isla also exposed to high levels of Aguada, Mexico (one beach in the Within the range of the North Atlantic pollutants, such as agricultural and Campeche group). Three beaches in DPS, nesting beaches continue to be residential runoff, and sewage which Cuba (total of 489 nesting females) degraded from a variety of activities. result in degraded foraging habitat either showed no trend or a modest Destruction and modification of green (Smith et al., 1992). Further, increased positive trend. One beach in Mexico (El turtle nesting habitat results from nutrient load in these coastal waters Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend. coastal development, coastal armoring, causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is Genetic sampling in the North beachfront lighting, erosion, sand linked to harmful algal blooms that Atlantic DPS has been generally extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian result in the loss and degradation of extensive with good coverage of large traffic on nesting beaches (Witherington seagrass beds, and possibly populations in this region; however, and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992; fibropapilloma tumors in green turtles some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are Witherington et al., 1996; Lutcavage et (Milton and Lutz, 2003). absent and coastal nesting sites in the al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1998; Mosier, In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Gulf of Mexico are under-represented. 1998; Witherington and Koeppel, 2000; Panama, water quality is also affected by Genetic differentiation based on mtDNA Mosier and Witherington, 2002; Leong sewage and industrial and agricultural indicated that there are at least four et al., 2003; Roberts and Ehrhart, 2007). runoff. Pollution remains a major threat independent nesting subpopulations in In addition, sea level rise resulting from in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources the North Atlantic DPS characterized by climate change poses a threat to all of pollution are industrial and shallow regional substructuring: (1) nesting beaches. Portions of the agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and Florida (Hutchinson Island; Lahanas et Southern United States and Caribbean solid waste, and household sewage al., 1994), (2) Cuba (Guanahacabibes are found be to highly vulnerable to sea (Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber, Penı´nsula and Cayerı´a San Felipe; Ruiz- level rise (Melillo et al., 2014). For 2003). Urquiola et al., 2010), (3) Mexico instance, along the southern portion of Nearshore foraging habitats such as (Quintana Roo; Encalada et al., 1996), the Florida coastline, one climate seagrass beds are affected by propeller and (4) Costa Rica (Tortuguero; Lahanas change model predicted one meter of scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand et al., 1994). These nesting sites are sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the mining, and marina construction characterized by common and inundation of more than 50 percent of throughout the range of the DPS (Smith widespread haplotypes dominated by coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and et al., 1992; Dow et al., 2007; Patrı´cio et CM–A1 and/or CM–A3. A relatively low Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Most green turtle al., 2011). Sand placement projects level of spatial structure is detected due nesting in the United States is along the Florida coastline affect to shared common haplotypes, although concentrated along the southeastern nearshore reefs as a result of direct there are some rare/unique haplotypes coast of Florida with more than 90 burial of portions of the reef habitat and at some nesting sites. Connectivity may percent of nesting occurring from loss of food sources available to green indicate recent shared common Brevard to Broward counties (http:// turtles (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999). ancestry. ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/ The SRT found, and we concur, that Green turtles nest on both continental nesting/FlexViewer/). Loss of nesting the North Atlantic DPS of the green and island beaches throughout the range habitat as a result of sea level rise poses turtle is negatively affected by ongoing of the DPS (Witherington et al., 2006). a threat to the population. Sea level rise changes in both its terrestrial and Major nesting sites are primarily is exacerbated by coastal development marine habitats as a result of land and continental with hundreds of lower and armoring, which prevents the beach water use practices as considered above density sites scattered throughout the from migrating and causes nesting green in Factor A. The increasing threats to Caribbean. Green turtles nesting in turtles to abandon their nesting attempts the terrestrial and marine habitats are Florida seem to prefer barrier island more frequently as a result of their not reflected in the current trend for the beaches that receive high wave energy encounter with such structures (Mosier, North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on and that have coarse sands, steep slopes, 1998; Mosier and Witherington, 2000; nesting numbers and not on all current and prominent foredunes. The greatest Rizkalla and Savage, 2011). Females life stages. These increasing threats to nesting is on sparsely developed might nest in sub-optimal habitats, the population will become apparent beaches that have minimal levels of where nests are more vulnerable to when those life stages affected by the artificial lighting. A high-low nesting erosion or inundation (Rizkalla and threats return to nest, as the trend pattern for Florida and Mexico occurs Savage 2011). As a result, nests would information is based solely on numbers during the same years; however, nesting be subject to more frequent inundation, of nests. This lag time was considered in Tortuguero, Costa Rica is not always exacerbated erosion, and increased in our analysis. For example, a threat in sync with Florida and Mexico (e.g., moisture from tidal overwash, which that affects the oceanic juvenile phase 2011 was a high nesting year in Florida, can potentially alter thermal regimes, an would not be detected until those turtles but for Tortuguero the high nesting year important factor in determining the sex return to nest, approximately 15 to 20 was 2010). The nesting season is similar ratio of hatchlings. years later. The SRT also found, and we throughout the range of the DPS, with concur, that coastal development, green turtles nesting from June to b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones beachfront lighting, erosion, sand November in Costa Rica (Bjorndal et al., Green turtles in the post-hatchling extraction, and sea level rise 1999), and May through September in and early-juvenile stages are closely increasingly impact nesting beaches of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15289

this DPS and are increasing threats to significant threat to the persistence of take significant numbers of turtle eggs the DPS. this DPS. (Stancyk, 1982; Allen et al., 2001). Nest protection programs are in place at most 2. Factor B: Overutilization for 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation of the major nesting beaches in the Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been North Atlantic DPS, although they are Educational Purposes found in green turtle populations in the managed at varying levels and degrees A partial list of the countries within United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene et al., of effectiveness (Engeman et al., 2005). the range of the North Atlantic DPS 2005; Foley et al., 2005; Hirama and Predator species that are particularly where ongoing intentional capture of Ehrhart, 2007), the Bahamas, the difficult to manage include red fire ants green turtles occurs, includes Costa Rica Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico (Dow (Solenopsis invicta) and jaguars (Mangel and Troe¨ng, 2001; Gonzalez et al., 2007; Patrı´cio et al., 2011), (Panthera onca) (Wetterer, 2006; Prieto Prieto and Harrison, 2012), Mexico Cayman Islands (Wood and Wood, 1994; and Harrison, 2012). (Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols, Dow et al., 2007), Costa Rica Although FP disease is of major 2001; Dirado et al., 2002; Guzma´n- (Tortuguero; Mangel and Troe¨ng, 2001), concern, with increasing levels in some Herna´ndez and Garcı´a Alvarado, 2011), Cuba (Moncada and Prieto, 2000), green turtle populations in this DPS, it Cuba (Fleming, 2001; F. Moncado, Mexico (Yucatan Peninsula; K. Lopez, should be noted there is uncertainty of Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera, pers. comm., as cited in MTSG, 2004), the long-term survivability and effect on pers. comm., 2013), Nicaragua (Lagueux, and Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998). the reproductive effort of the 1998; Humber et al., 2014), the Bahamas FP continues to be a major problem in population. Predation is known to occur (Fleming, 2001), Jamaica (Haynes- some lagoon systems and along the throughout this DPS, and we find it to Sutton et al., 2011), and the Cayman nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a be a significant threat to this DPS in the Islands (Fleming, 2001). Harvest chronic, often lethal disease occurring absence of well managed nest protection remains legal in several of these predominantly in green turtles (Van programs. countries (Humphrey and Salm, 1996; Houtan et al., 2014). A correlation Wamukoya et al., 1996; Fleming, 2001; appeared to exist between these 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Fretey, 2001; Bra¨utigam and Eckert, degraded habitats and the prevalence of Regulatory Mechanisms 2006). FP in the green turtles that forage in At least 15 regulatory mechanisms The commercial artisanal green turtle these areas but no direct link was that apply to green turtles regionally fishery in Nicaragua continues to be a established (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004; (e.g., U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery threat to the Tortuguero nesting Foley et al., 2005). Indeed, across green Conservation and Management Act) or population, the largest remaining green turtle populations, it is widely observed globally (e.g., Convention on turtle population in the Atlantic that FP occurs most frequently in International Trade in Endangered (Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). Local eutrophied and otherwise impaired Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) apply demand for turtle meat in coastal waterways (Herbst, 1994; Van Houtan et to green turtles within the North communities continues (Garland and al., 2010). A recent study establishes Atlantic Ocean. The analysis of these Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle that eutrophication substantially existing regulatory mechanisms fishery on the Caribbean coast that is increases the nitrogen content of assumed that all would remain in place located in the most important macroalgae, thereby promoting the at their current levels. developmental and foraging habitat for latent herpes virus which causes FP In the United States, regulatory Caribbean green turtles (Fleming, 2001; tumors in green turtles (Van Houtan et mechanisms that protect green turtles Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The al., 2014) although it is argued that there are in place and include State, Federal, hunting of juvenile and adult turtles is no inferential framework to base this and international laws. The green turtle continues both legally and illegally in conclusion (Work et al., 2014). Despite was listed under the ESA in 1978, many foraging areas where green turtles the high incidence of FP among foraging providing relatively comprehensive originating from Florida nesting beaches populations, there is no conclusive protection and recovery activities to are known to occur (Chaco´n, 2002; evidence on the effect of FP on minimize the threats to green turtles in Fleming, 2001). reproductive success (Chaloupka and the United States. Considering the Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing Balazs, 2005). dependence of the species on threat in Panama (Evans and Vargas, Harmful algal blooms, such as a red conservation efforts, significant 1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize’s tide, also affect green turtles in the concerns remain regarding the beaches and foraging along its coast are North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. harvested in the Robinson Point area species that causes most red tides is The development and implementation and sold in markets and restaurants Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the (Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green produces a toxin (Redlow et al., 2002). shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most turtles are captured in the area southeast Since 2007, there were two red tide significant conservation of Belize, an area which may be an events, one in 2007 along the east coast accomplishment for North Atlantic important migratory corridor (Searle, of Florida, and one in 2012 along the green turtles in the marine environment 2004). There are important feeding west coast of Florida. Sea turtle since their 1978 ESA listing. In the grounds in the Banc d’Arguin, stranding trends indicated that these southeast United States and Gulf of Mauritania. While the frequency of events were acting as a mortality factor Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not (A. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife shrimp and flounder trawls for over a known, green turtle nests are reported as Conservation Commission, pers. comm., decade. These regulations are being harvested there (Fretey, 2001; 2013). These events may impact a implemented and enforced to varying Fretey and Hama, 2012). population’s present and future degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Commercial harvest of green turtles reproductive status. Southeast Atlantic. For example, the was a factor that contributed to the Predators such as raccoons (Procyon State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement historic decline of this DPS. Current lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes of TED regulations and tow time limits. harvest of green turtles and eggs, in a (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes In other States, enforcement of TED portion of this DPS, continues to be vulpes), and coyotes (Canis latrans) may regulations depends on available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

resources, and illegal or improperly regulations allow for the harvest of mandatory in shrimp and flounder installed TEDs continue to contribute to green turtles of certain sizes, months, or trawls for over a decade. However, mortality of green turtles. Further, TEDs for ‘‘traditional’’ use. Gear restrictions compliance varies throughout the are not required in all trawl fisheries, and TED requirements exist in a few States, and green turtle mortality and green turtle mortality continues in countries, although the compliance continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp level is unknown. Our Status Review shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison trawling is the highest (Lewison et al., did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in et al., 2014). With the current 2014). There are also regulatory place to specifically address marine regulations in place, an estimated 3,000 mechanisms in place that address the pollution, sea level rise, and other green turtles are captured (1,400 killed) loss of nesting habitat, such as the effects of climate change that continue by shrimp trawls each year in the Gulf Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B– to contribute to the extinction risk of and U.S. Southeast Atlantic (http:// 33.0155, which addresses threats from this DPS. sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_ armoring structures. However, these resources/section_7/freq_biop/ regulatory mechanisms allow for 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade documents/fisheries_bo/shrimp_biop_ variances and armoring permits Factors Affecting Its Continued 2014.pdf). These regulations are continue to be issued along nesting Existence implemented and enforced to varying beaches. a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Other threats, such as light pollution Southeast Atlantic (see discussion in Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and on nesting beaches, marine debris, Factor D). vessel strikes, and continued direct industrial fishing gear continues to be a harvest of green turtles in places like major threat to green turtles in the North ii. Dredge Fishing Nicaragua, are being addressed to some Atlantic DPS. The adverse impacts of Dredge fishing gear is the extent by regulatory mechanisms, bycatch on sea turtles has been predominant gear used to harvest sea although they remain a problem. In documented in marine environments scallops off the mid- and northeastern addition, other regional and national throughout the world (National U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop dredges legislation to conserve green turtles Research Council, 1990b; Epperly, 2003; are composed of a heavy steel frame and (often all sea turtles) exists throughout Lutcavage et al., 1997). The lack of cutting bar located on the bottom part of the range of the DPS. The extent to comprehensive and effective monitoring the frame and a bag made of metal rings which threats have been reduced as a and bycatch reduction efforts in many and mesh twine attached to the frame. result of these efforts is difficult to pelagic and near-shore fisheries Turtles can be struck and injured or ascertain. When the SRT assessed operations throughout the range of the killed by the dredge frame and/or conservation efforts, it assumed that all North Atlantic DPS still allows captured in the bag, where they may conservation efforts would remain in substantial direct and indirect mortality drown or be further injured or killed place at their current levels. The (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). when the catch and heavy gear are following countries have laws to protect i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries dumped on the vessel deck. green turtles: The Bahamas, Belize, b. Channel Dredging Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman Gill net fisheries may be the most Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican ubiquitous of fisheries operating in the In addition to the destruction or Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS. degradation of habitat as described in Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, In the United States, some states (e.g., Factor A above, periodic dredging of Panama, and the United States South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, sediments from navigational channels (including the commonwealth of Puerto Louisiana, and Texas) have prohibited can also result in incidental mortality of Rico). gill nets in their waters, but there sea turtles. Direct injury or mortality of With regard to the United States, the remain active gill net fisheries in other green turtles by dredges has been well key law currently protecting green U.S. states, in U.S. Federal waters, documented in the southeastern and turtles is the ESA. This law has been Mexican waters, Central and South mid-Atlantic U.S. (National Research instrumental in conserving sea turtles, America, and the Northeast Atlantic. Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105 eliminating directed take of turtles in Finfish fisheries accounted for the green turtles were impacted as a result U.S. waters unless authorized by permit greatest proportion of turtle bycatch (53 of dredging operations in the U.S and reducing indirect take. In addition, percent) in Cuba. In Jamaica, fish traps Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and gill nets are the gear primarily including modification of dredges, have Management and Conservation Act has identified in sea turtle bycatch. Purse been successfully implemented to been effective at mandating responsible seine and gill nets are used commonly reduce mortalities and injuries to sea fishing practices and bycatch mitigation in the waters of the Dominican Republic turtles in the United States (73 FR within fleets that sell fisheries products (Dow et al., 2007). In Costa Rica, gill 18984, April 8, 2008; 77 FR 20728, April to the United States, and the Marine nets, hook and line, and trawls are the 6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a main gear types deployed (Food and take limits based on the expected dedicated fund to support marine turtle Agriculture Organization of the United number of green turtles impacted that conservation projects in foreign Nations, 2004). Shark-netting operations will not, directly or indirectly, countries, with emphasis on protecting in Panama are known to capture green appreciably reduce the likelihood of nesting populations and nesting habitat. turtles (Meylan et al., 2013). survival and recovery of the green turtle In addition, at least 12 international The development and implementation in the wild. treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery apply to the conservation of green was likely the most significant c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic turtles in the North Atlantic DPS. conservation accomplishment for North Boat strikes have been shown to be a Outside of the United States, there are Atlantic green turtles in the marine major mortality source in Florida some national regulations that address environment since their 1978 ESA (Singel et al., 2003). Vessel strikes are a the harvest of green turtles as well as the listing. In the southeast United States growing concern and, as human import and export of turtle parts. These and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been populations increase in coastal areas,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15291

vessel strikes are likely to increase activities are likely to become more result of ingesting contaminants (NMFS and FWS, 2008). From 2005 to apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007). (Witherington, 2002). 2009, 18.2 percent of all stranded green Periodic hurricanes and other weather Green turtles are affected by turtles (695 of 3,818) in the U.S. Atlantic events are generally localized and rarely anthropogenic marine debris (including (Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of result in whole-scale losses over discarded fishing gear) and plastics Mexico) were documented as having multiple nesting seasons. However, throughout the North Atlantic DPS. sustained some type of propeller or storm intensity and frequency are Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters collision injuries (L. Belskis, NMFS, predicted to increase as a result of are particularly susceptible to these pers. comm., 2013). It is quite likely that climate change (Melillo et al., 2014). effects as they feed on Sargassum in this is a chronic, albeit unreported, The negative effects of hurricanes on which there is a high occurrence of problem near developed coastlines in low-lying and/or developed shorelines debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010; other areas as well, such as Panama may be longer-lasting and a greater Witherington et al., 2012). In recent (e.g., Oro´s et al., 2005). threat to the DPS overall when decades, there has been an increase in combined with the effects of climate stranded green turtles reported as d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural change, and particularly sea level rise. affected by discarded fishery gear Disasters throughout the southeastern United e. Effects of Cold Stunning While sea turtles have survived past States (Teas and Witzell, 1996; Adimey eras that have included significant Cold stunning is the hypothermic et al., 2014). temperature fluctuations, future climate reaction that occurs when sea turtles are change is expected to happen at exposed to prolonged cold water C. Conservation Efforts for the North unprecedented rates, and if turtles temperatures. Cold stunning of green Atlantic DPS cannot adapt quickly, they may face turtles regularly occurs at several In the North Atlantic, nest protection local to widespread extirpations locations in the United States, including efforts have been implemented on two (Hawkes et al., 2009). Climate change Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still et major green turtle nesting beaches, and sea level rise have the potential to al., 2002); Long Island Sound, New York Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica affect green turtles significantly in the (Meylan and Sadove, 1986; Morreale et and Florida, and progress has been North Atlantic DPS. North Atlantic al., 1992); the Indian River Lagoon made in reducing mortality from turtle populations could be affected by system and the panhandle of Florida human-related impacts on other nesting the alteration of thermal sand (Mendonc¸a and Ehrhart, 1982; beaches. Tortuguero National Park was characteristics of beaches (from Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; Foley established in 1976 to protect the warming temperatures), resulting in the et al., 2007); and Texas inshore waters nesting turtles and habitat at this reduction or cessation of male hatchling (Hildebrand, 1982; Shaver, 1990). Cold- nesting beach, which is by far the largest production (Hawkes et al., 2009; stunning events at these foraging areas in the DPS and the western hemisphere. Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased sea (Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; Since that time, the harvest of nesting surface temperatures may alter the McMichael et al., 2006) leads to turtles on the beach has been reduced timing of nesting for some stocks mortality of juvenile and adult green by an order of magnitude (Bjorndal et (Weishampel et al., 2004), although the turtles, which may affect the present al., 1999). At Tortuguero, Sea Turtle implications of changes in nesting and future green turtle population trend. Conservancy researchers and volunteers regularly monitor green turtle nesting timing are unclear. Changes in sea f. Contaminants and Marine Debris temperatures will also likely alter trends, growth rates and reproductive seagrass, macroalgae, and invertebrate Several activities associated with success, and also conduct sea turtle populations in coastal habitats in many offshore oil and gas production, lighting surveys, education, and regions (Scavia et al., 2002). Further, a including oil spills, operational community outreach. significant rise in sea level, as is discharge, seismic surveys, explosive In Florida, a key effort was the projected for areas within the range of platform removal, platform lighting, and acquisition of the Archie Carr National the North Atlantic DPS (Flaxman and drilling and production activities, are Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by Vargas-Moreno, 2011), could known to affect sea turtles (National Federal, State, Brevard and Indian River significantly restrict green turtle nesting Research Council, 1996; Davis et al., counties, and a non-governmental habitat due to coastal development. 2000; Viada et al., 2008; Conant et al., organization, where nesting densities Structures on the landward side of the 2009; G. Gitschlag, NMFS, pers. comm., range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to beach can effectively prevent access to 2007, as cited in Conant et al., 2009). Oil 262 nests/km (419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley, nesting habitat and reduce available spills near nesting beaches just prior to University of Central Florida, pers. nesting habitat (Mosier, 1998). The or during the nesting season place comm., 2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers. increasing interaction between the nesting females, incubating egg comm., 2014). Over 60 percent of the structures and the hydrodynamics of clutches, and hatchlings at significant available beachfront acquisitions for the tide and current, due to sea level rise, risk from direct exposure to Refuge have been completed as the often results in the alteration of the contaminants (Fritts and McGehee, result of a multi-agency land acquisition beach profile seaward and in the 1982; Lutcavage et al., 1997; effort. In addition, Hobe Sound National immediate vicinity of the structure Witherington, 1999), and have negative Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal (Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Terchunian, impacts on nesting habitat. The national seashores such as the Dry 1988; Tait and Griggs, 1990; Plant and Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi Canyon Tortugas National Park and Canaveral Griggs, 1992), increased longshore 252) oil spill, which started April 20, National Seashore, military installations currents that move sand away from the 2010, discharged oil into the Gulf of such as Patrick Air Force Base and area, loss of interaction between the Mexico through July 15, 2010. Canaveral Air Force Station, and State dune and the beach berm, and Witherington et al. (2012) note that the parks where green turtles regularly nest, concentration of wave energy at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was provide protection for nesting turtles. ends of the structure (Schroeder and particularly harmful to pelagic juvenile However, despite these efforts, Mosier, 1996). Impacts from global green turtles. Due to their size, turtles in alteration of the coastline continues climate change induced by human these stages are more vulnerable as a and, outside of publicly-owned lands,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

coastal development and associated considered in our analysis. However, due to pollution, including agricultural coastal armoring remain serious threats. the 5-factor (section 4(a)(1) of the ESA) and residential runoff, anchor damage, Considerable effort has been analysis revealed continuing threats to dredging, channelization, and marina expended since the 1980s to document green turtles and their habitat that affect construction remains a threat to both and reduce commercial fishing bycatch all life stages. juvenile and adult green turtles. Many mortality. In the Atlantic and Gulf of On nesting beaches, many portions of green turtles in this DPS remain Mexico, measures (such as gear the DPS continue to be exposed to, and susceptible to direct harvesting. Current modifications, changes to fishing are negatively impacted by, coastal legal and illegal harvest of green turtles practices, and time/area closures) are development and associated beachfront and eggs for human consumption required to reduce sea turtle bycatch in lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion continues in the eastern Atlantic and pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net, as described in Factor A above. Impacts the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the Virginia pound net, scallop dredge, and from such development are further directed harvest of turtles in Nicaragua southeast shrimp and flounder trawl exacerbated by existing and planned that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong fisheries. However, enforcement of shoreline development and shoreline to the largest and arguably the most regulations depends on available engineering. The current and important population within the DPS resources, and bycatch continues to anticipated increase in armored (although this population continues to contribute to mortality. Since 1989, the shoreline along high density nesting increase in spite of the harvest). United States has prohibited the beaches, particularly in Florida, is a However, potential degradation or loss importation of shrimp harvested in a substantial unresolved threat to the of other, smaller populations is also of manner that adversely affects sea turtles. recovery and stability of this DPS as it concern, as these contribute to the As a result of conservation efforts, will result in the permanent loss of diversity and resilience of the DPS. many of the intentional impacts nesting habitat. Finally, the prevalence of FP has directed at sea turtles have been Nests and hatchlings are susceptible reached epidemic proportions in some lessened. For example, harvest of eggs to predation which is prevalent parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The and adults has been reduced at several throughout the beaches within the range extent to which this will affect the long- nesting areas, including Tortuguero, and of the North Atlantic DPS. Predation term outlook for green turtles in the an increasing number of community- would be an increasing threat without North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting based initiatives are in place to reduce nest protection and predatory control trends across the DPS continue to the take of turtles in foraging areas. programs in place. increase despite the high incidence of However, despite these advances, Nesting beaches are also extremely the disease. human impacts continue throughout the susceptible to sea level rise, which will While the Status Review indicates North Atlantic. The lack of effective exacerbate some of the issues described that the DPS shows strength in many of monitoring in pelagic and near-shore above in addition to leading to the the critical population parameters fisheries operations still allows potential loss of nesting beaches. Along (abundance, population trends, spatial substantial direct and indirect mortality, the southeastern United States, one structure, and diversity/resilience), as and the uncontrolled development of climate change model predicted a indicated above, numerous threats coastal and marine habitats threatens to 1-meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting continue to act on the DPS, including destroy the supporting ecosystems of in the inundation of more than 50 habitat degradation (coastal long-lived green turtles. percent of coastal wildlife refuges development and armoring, loss of (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). foraging habitat, and pollution), bycatch D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Green turtle nesting in Florida is Findings for the North Atlantic DPS in fishing gear, continued turtle and egg concentrated along coastal wildlife harvesting, FP, and climate change. In the North Atlantic DPS, there are refuges in southern Florida such as Importantly, the analysis of threats in several regions that support high Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge the Status Review was conducted density nesting concentrations, and the Archie Carr National Wildlife assuming current management regimes including possibly the largest in the Refuge, with more than 90 percent of would continue. world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green nesting occurring along southeast Many of the gains made by the species turtle nesting population trends have Florida. This increase in sea level will over the past few decades are a direct been encouraging, exhibiting long-term result in the permanent loss of current result of ESA protections in the United increases at all major nesting sites, green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of States, as well as protections by U.S. including Tortuguero (Troe¨ng, 1998; beach is expected to be worse as a result States and local jurisdictions and other Campbell and Lagueux, 2005; Troe¨ng of the increase in hurricane frequency countries within the DPS range that are and Rankin, 2005) and Florida and intensity (Flaxman and Vargas- influenced by the species’ ESA status. (Chaloupka et al., 2008; B. Moreno, 2011). The increasing threat of Because the green turtle is currently Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife coastal erosion due to climate change listed under the ESA, take can only be Conservation Commission, pers. comm., and sea level rise is expected to be authorized in the United States through 2013). The North Atlantic DPS is exacerbated by increasing human- the processes provided in sections 7 and characterized by geographically induced pressures on coastal areas 10 of the ESA and their implementing widespread nesting at a diversity of (IPCC, 2007). regulations. In the southeastern United sites, both mainland and insular. The In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat States, threats to nesting beaches and increasing threats are not reflected in degradation, direct harvest, and FP are nearshore waters include: Sand the current trend for the North Atlantic major threats to green turtles in the placement on nesting beaches and DPS as it was based on nesting numbers North Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and associated impacts to nearshore and not all current life stages. These industrial fishing gear, including drift hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty and increasing threats to the population will nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls, dock construction; and other activities. become apparent when those life stages still cause substantial direct and Any such activities that are currently affected by the threats return to nest as indirect mortality of green turtles funded, permitted and/or authorized by the trend information is based solely on (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In addition, Federal agencies are subject to numbers of nests. This lag time was degradation and loss of foraging habitat consultation with USFWS and NMFS,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15293

and therefore are subject to reasonable VIII. Mediterranean DPS Bagda et al., 2012; Dutton unpublished and prudent measures to minimize data, 2013); and Turkey (Akayatan, A. Discussion of Population Parameters effects of these activities as well as Alata, Kazanli, Samandag and for the Mediterranean DPS conservation recommendations Yumurtal(k; Bagda et al., 2012). The associated with those consultations. The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually demography of green turtles in the Federally-managed fisheries are also enclosed basin occupying an area of Mediterranean appears to be consistent subject to interagency consultation approximately 2.5 million square among the various nesting assemblages under section 7 of the ESA. During the kilometers. The Mediterranean DPS is (Broderick and Godley, 1996; Broderick consultation process NMFS and USFWS bounded by the entire coastline of the et al., 2002a). This consistency in have an opportunity to work with the Mediterranean Sea, excluding the Black parameters such as mean nesting size, action agency to design practices to Sea. The westernmost border of the inter-nesting interval, clutch size, minimize effects on green turtles, such range of this DPS is marked by the Strait hatching success, nesting season, and as when the activity occurs in areas or of Gibraltar (Figure 2). clutch frequency suggests a low level of habitats used mostly by green turtles Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs population structuring in the (i.e., seagrass beds and nesting beaches). mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, Mediterranean. Mediterranean turtles Activities that affect green turtles and with three nesting concentrations in have not been detected foraging outside do not involve Federal agencies, such as Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria. Currently, the Mediterranean (e.g., Lahanas et al., beach driving, some beach armoring, approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are 1998; Monzo´n-Argu¨ ello et al., 2010). and research, must comply with section laid in the Mediterranean each year— Despite years of flipper tagging 10 of the ESA to avoid violating the about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent (Demetropoulos and statute. Section 10 permits require in Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with Hadjichristophorou, 1995, 2010; Y. avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating trace nesting in Israel, Egypt, the Kaska, Pamukkale University, pers. impacts to green turtles to the extent Hellenic Republic (Greece), and comm., 2013), few tag recoveries have possible. In addition to the above Lebanon (Kasparek et al., 2001; Rees et been reported. However, satellite requirements, the requirement for use of al., 2008; Casale and Margaritoulis, tracking revealed that post-nesting TEDs in fisheries within the United 2010). There are no sites with greater turtles migrate primarily along the coast States and in fisheries outside of the than 500 nesting females. These from their nesting beach to foraging United States that export wild-caught numbers are depleted from historical grounds, increasing the likelihood of shrimp to the United States is tied to levels (Kasparek et al., 2001). In terms interacting with fisheries (Broderick et listing under the ESA. of distribution of nesting sites in the al., 2002a). This DPS has exhibited increases at Mediterranean, there are 32 sites, with With regard to diversity and major nesting sites, and has several Akyatan, Turkey being the largest resilience, the overall spatial range of stronghold populations. Green turtles in nesting site, hosting 25 percent of the the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting the U.S. Atlantic have increased steadily total annual nesting (35–245 nesting is found primarily in the eastern since being protected by the ESA females; Tu¨ rkozan and Kaska, 2010). Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, (Suckling et al., 2006). ESA driven There are seven sites for which 10 Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt: Kasparek et programs such as land acquisition, nest years or more of recent data are al., 2001). The nesting season is protection, development of the TEDs, available for annual nesting female consistent throughout the range of this and educational programs provide a abundance (a criterion for presenting DPS (June to August; Broderick et al., conservation benefit to green turtles. trends in a bar graph). Of these, only 2002a), thus limiting the temporal The species is conservation dependent one site—West Coast, Cyprus—met our buffering against climate change in or conservation-reliant in that even standards for conducting a PVA. Of the terms of impacts due to storms and when biological recovery goals are seven sites, five appeared to be other seasonal events. The fact that achieved, maintenance of viable increasing, although some only slightly, turtles nest on both insular and populations will require continuing, and two had no apparent trend. continental sites suggests some degree species-specific intervention (Scott et However, while the Mediterranean DPS of nesting diversity, but with the sites so al., 2010). Without alternate appears to be stable or increasing, it is close together, the benefits of this mechanisms in place to continue certain severely depleted relative to historical diversity may be minimal. existing conservation efforts and levels. This dynamic is particularly protections, threats would be expected apparent along the coast of Palestine/ B. Summary of Factors Affecting the to increase and population trends may Israel, where 300–350 nests were Mediterranean DPS be curtailed or reversed. Considering the deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella, 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened conservation dependence of the species, 1995) compared to a mean of eight nests Destruction, Modification, or significant concerns remain regarding each year from 1993 to 2008 (Casale and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range the inadequacy of regulatory Margaritoulis, 2010). a. Terrestrial Zone mechanisms (one of the five section With regard to spatial structure, 4(a)(1) factors (Factor D), especially genetic sampling in the Mediterranean In the Mediterranean, destruction and when we evaluate the status of the DPS has been extensive and the coverage in modification of green turtle nesting absent the protections of the ESA. this region is substantial. Within the habitat result from coastal development For the above reasons, we propose to Mediterranean, rookeries are and construction, beachfront lighting, list the North Atlantic DPS as characterized by one dominant sand extraction, beach erosion, threatened. We do not find the DPS to haplotype CM–A13 and a recent study vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and be in danger of extinction presently showed no population substructuring beach pollution (Kasparek et al., 2001; because of the increasing nesting between several rookeries in Cyprus and Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). These population trends and geographically Turkey (Bagda et al., 2012). However, activities may directly affect the amount widespread nesting at a diversity of analysis using unpublished data from and suitability of nesting habitat sites; however, continued threats are additional rookery samples in Cyprus available to nesting females and thus likely to endanger the DPS within the shows evidence for two stocks: Cyprus affect the nesting success of green foreseeable future. (Karpaz, North Cyprus and Lara Bay; turtles, as well as the survivability of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

eggs and hatchlings. In Turkey, coastal (Camin˜ as, 2004). The Mediterranean has existing regulatory mechanisms construction on Samandag˘ and Kazanli been declared a ‘‘special area’’ by the assumed that all would remain in place beaches is of concern, particularly from MARPOL Convention (International at their current levels. associated lighting and human activities Convention for the Prevention of Regulatory mechanisms are in place on the beach (Tu¨ rkozan and Kaska, Pollution from Ships), in which throughout the range of the DPS that 2010). In Cyprus, the increased deliberate petroleum discharges from address the direct capture of green construction of beachfront hotels and vessels are banned, but numerous turtles for most of the countries within other properties in some areas in recent repeated offenses are still thought to this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries years, as well as the associated increase occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996). have developed national legislation to in beachfront lighting and human protect sea turtles and nesting habitats 2. Factor B: Overutilization for activity on the beach, is decreasing the (Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or quality of nesting habitat following countries have laws to protect Educational Purposes (Demetropoulos and green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., Overutilization for commercial Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, 2010). In Turkey and Latakia beach in purposes likely was a factor that Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In Syria, beach erosion and sand extraction contributed to the historical declines of addition, at least 13 international also pose a problem to green turtle this DPS. Egg collection and turtle treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms nesting habitat (Tu¨ rkozan and Kaska, harvest for individual consumption still apply to the conservation of green 2010; Rees et al., 2010). occurs in Egypt (Clarke et al., 2000; turtles in the Mediterranean DPS. Nesting beaches in the eastern Nada and Casale, 2008). A study found National protective legislation generally Mediterranean are exposed to high that the open selling of sea turtles in prohibits intentional killing, levels of pollution and marine debris, in Egypt generally has been curtailed due harassment, possession, trade, or particular the beaches of Cyprus, to enforcement efforts, but a high level attempts at these (Margaritoulis et al., Turkey, and Egypt (Camin˜ as, 2004). In of intentional killing for the black 2003). In addition, some countries have Turkey, marine debris washing ashore is market or for direct personal site-specific legislation or conservation a substantial problem and has degraded consumption still exists (Nada and designation for turtle habitat protection. nesting beaches, especially Akyatan and Casale, 2008). Several hundred turtles These are implemented to various Samandag˘ beaches. In Syria, Jony and are currently estimated to be degrees throughout the range of the Rees (2008) reported that beaches slaughtered each year in Egypt (Nada DPS. There are some national contain a large amount of plastic litter and Casale, 2008). In Syria and Egypt, regulations, within this DPS, that that washes ashore or is blown in from as reported for other countries, green specially address the harvest of green dumps located in the beach dunes; this turtles incidentally captured by fishers turtles. litter has been documented as are sometimes eaten (Nada and Casale, In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra accumulating in such large amounts that 2008; Rees et al., 2010). Small quantities beaches have been afforded protection it can hinder nesting females from of stuffed turtles and juvenile turtle through the Fisheries Law and locating suitable nesting sites and cause carapaces, presumably of Syrian origin, Regulations since 1989 (Margaritoulis, emergent hatchlings to have difficulty have been observed for sale in Latakia 2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches crawling to the sea (Rees et al., 2010). and Damascus (Rees et al., 2010). (Alagadi Beach, Karpaz Peninsular, In Cyprus, marine debris has also been South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation a significant problem on some beaches, designated as Special Protected Areas although organized beach clean-ups in Nest and hatchling predation likely (Fuller et al., 2010). These four areas recent years have greatly reduced the was a factor that contributed to the include the third and fifth most amount of litter on the beach historical decline of the Mediterranean important green turtle nesting beaches (Demetropoulos and DPS. There have been no records of FP in the Mediterranean (Kasparek et al., Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., or other diseases in green turtles in this 2001). In Syria, establishment of a 2010). DPS. In this DPS, green turtle eggs and protected area at Latakia beach, the most hatchlings are subject to depredation by important green turtle nesting beach in b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes), the country, is being sought but is facing Dynamite fishing and boat anchors golden jackals (Canis aureus), feral and strong opposition from the tourism affect green turtles and their habitat in domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), sector (Rees et al., 2010). While it is the Mediterranean. Khalil et al. (2009) and ghost crabs (Ocypode cursor; van important to recognize the success of reported that dynamite fishing offshore Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown these protected areas, we must also note of nesting beaches is a common problem and MacDonald, 1995; Aureggi et al., that the protection has been in place for in Lebanon. Illegal dynamite fishing 1999, 2005; Simms et al., 2002; Akcinar some time and the threats to the species also occurs year round in Libya (Hamza, et al., 2006; Jony and Rees, 2008; Khalil remain (particularly from increasing 2010), and, although illegal, explosions et al., 2009; Aureggi and Khalil, 2010; tourism activities). It is unlikely that the at sea that are likely due to dynamite Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, protective measures discussed here are fishing have been reported off the coast 2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Rees et al., sufficient for the conservation of the of Syria (Saad, unpubl. data, as cited in 2010). species in the Mediterranean. Rees et al., 2010). Further, the Regulatory mechanisms are not in Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing place in many countries within this DPS activity, and corresponding boat Regulatory Mechanisms to address the major threat of sea turtle anchoring also may affect green turtle There are at least 13 international bycatch. Some of the countries in which foraging habitat in the neritic treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms this DPS is located limit the number and environment. that pertain to the Mediterranean, and type of fishing licenses issued but sea Because the Mediterranean is an nearly all countries lining the turtle bycatch is not considered in these enclosed sea, organic and inorganic Mediterranean have some level of authorizations. It is unlikely that wastes, toxic effluents, and other national legislation directed at sea turtle bycatch mortality can be sufficiently pollutants rapidly affect the ecosystem protection. The SRT analysis of these reduced across the range of the DPS in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15295

the near future because of the diversity Greece (Margaritoulis et al., 2003), most dangerous waste produced by the and magnitude of the fisheries operating Tunisia (Laurent et al., 1990), Turkey fishing industry (Camin˜ as, 2004). in the DPS, the lack of comprehensive (Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc¸, 2001), Syria, The discharge of chemical substances, information on fishing distribution and Israel, and Libya (Casale et al., 2010), including highly toxic chromium effort, limitations on implementing but are likely also captured by bottom compounds from a soda-chromium demonstrated effective conservation trawlers in other neritic foraging areas factory close to the Kazanli nesting measures, geopolitical complexities, in the eastern Mediterranean (Casale et beach in Turkey, is cause for concern limitations on enforcement capacity, al., 2010). Laurent et al. (1996) (Kasparek et al., 2001; Venizelos and and lack of availability of estimated that approximately 10,000 to Kasparek, 2006). comprehensive bycatch reduction 15,000 sea turtles were being captured d. Effects of Climate Change technologies. Our Status Review did not annually by bottom trawling in the reveal regulatory mechanisms in place eastern Mediterranean. Although most Both the marine and terrestrial realms to specifically address coastal of the turtles taken were loggerheads, will be influenced by temperature development, marine pollution, sea they estimated that the number of green increases and will likely undergo level rise, and effects of climate change turtles taken was 1,000 to 3,000 alterations that will adversely affect that continue to contribute to the annually in Turkey and Egypt alone. green turtles. Mediterranean turtle extinction risk of this DPS. More recently, Casale (2011) compiled populations could be affected by the alteration of thermal sand 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade available trawl bycatch data throughout the Mediterranean and reported that characteristics (from global warming), Factors Affecting Its Continued resulting in the reduction or cessation of Existence Italy and Tunisia have the highest level of sea turtle bycatch, potentially over male hatchling production (Kasparek et ˜ a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear 20,000 captures per year combined, and al., 2001; Caminas, 2004; Hawkes et al., Incidental capture of sea turtles in Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Libya, Greece, 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). In artisanal and commercial fisheries is a and Egypt each have an estimated 1,900 northern Cyprus, green turtle hatchling significant threat to the survival of green or more sea turtle captures per year. sex ratios are already thought to be turtles in the Mediterranean. Fishing Further, Albania, Algeria, Cyprus, highly female biased (approximately 95 practices alone have been estimated to Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, and Syria percent female; Wright et al., 2012). result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures may each capture a few hundred sea This, in tandem with predicted future per year, with approximately 50,000 turtles per year (Casale, 2011). Available rises in temperatures, is cause for mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009; data suggest the annual number of sea concern (Fuller et al., 2010). As Casale, 2011) and sea turtle bycatch in turtle captures by all Mediterranean temperatures increase, there is also multiple gears in the Mediterranean is trawlers may be greater than 39,000 concern that incubation temperatures considered among the most urgent (Casale, 2011). Although most of the will reach levels that exceed the thermal conservation priorities globally (Wallace turtles reported by Casale (2011) as tolerance for embryonic development, et al., 2010). taken by bottom trawlers were thus increasing embryo and hatchling mortality (Fuller et al., 2010). Further, a i. Longline Fisheries undoubtedly loggerheads, a few thousand were likely green turtles based significant rise in sea level would In the Mediterranean, surface longline on earlier reports (Laurent et al., 1990; restrict green turtle nesting habitat in the eastern Mediterranean. While sea fisheries are a source of green turtle Laurent et al., 1996; Oruc¸, 2001; bycatch (Camin˜ as, 2004). Incidental Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Nada and turtles have survived past eras that have captures have been reported from Casale, 2008). included significant temperature Cyprus (Godley et al., 1998), Turkey fluctuations, future climate change is (Godley et al., 1998), Italy (Laurent et b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic expected to happen at unprecedented al., 2001), and Egypt (Nada, 2001; rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly Propeller and collision injuries from Camin˜ as, 2004). In Egypt, based on fleet they may face local to widespread boats and ships are becoming more data and catch rates reported by fishers extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). common for sea turtles in the during the 2000s, the total number of Impacts from global climate change Mediterranean, although it is unclear as sea turtles (i.e., all species) bycaught in induced by human activities are likely to whether the events, or just the longlines was estimated to be over 2,200 to become more apparent in future years reporting of the injuries, are increasing. per year (Nada and Casale, 2008). (IPCC, 2007). Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of Fishers also reported that some of the In summary, within Factor E, we find particular concern in areas of intense caught turtles are dead, and the that fishery bycatch and marine tourist activity, such as Greece, Turkey, incidence of mortality is particularly pollution that occurs throughout the and Syria. Boats operating near sea high in longlines and gill nets. range of the Mediterranean DPS are turtle nesting beaches during the nesting significant threats to this DPS. In ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing season are likely to either cause females addition, boat strikes and changes likely Casale (2008) considered mortality by to abandon nesting attempts or cause to result from climate change are an set nets to be 60 percent, with a their injury or death (Camin˜ as, 2004). increasing threat to the persistence of resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles Males may also be affected in high-use this DPS. killed per year. However, a breakdown boating areas where sea turtle mating C. Conservation Efforts of these estimates by turtle species is occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees et not available. Most of these turtles are al., 2010). Regional and national efforts are likely juveniles, with an average size of c. Pollution underway to conserve green turtles 45.4 cm CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008). (often all sea turtles) throughout the Unattended or discarded nets, floating range of the DPS. The extent to which iii. Trawl Fisheries plastics and bags, and tar balls are of threats have been reduced as a result of Green turtles have been reported as particular concern in the Mediterranean these efforts is difficult to ascertain. incidentally captured in bottom trawls (Camin˜ as, 2004; Margaritoulis, 2007). Green turtle nesting primarily occurs in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011), Monofilament netting appears to be the in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria, and a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

notable proportion of nesting in those intrinsically high risk to the long-term Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the areas is protected through various stability of the population. The spatial Caribbean portion of the South Atlantic mechanisms. In Turkey, three important range of the population is limited to the including Caribbean South America, green turtle nesting beaches (Alata, eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting and along eastern South America down Kazanli, and Akyatan) were all season is consistent throughout this DPS through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern designated as protected areas by the (June to August; Broderick et al., 2002a), South Atlantic, significant sea turtle Turkish Ministry of Culture, while two thus limiting the temporal buffering habitats have been identified, including other beaches (Belek and Go¨sku Delta) against climate change in terms of green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco also have some level of protected status impacts due to storms and other Bay, Equatorial Guinea/Gabon (Formia, (Kasparek et al., 2001; Fuller et al., seasonal events. The fact that turtles 1999); Congo (Bal et al., 2007; Girard et 2010). These five protected beaches nest on both insular and continental al., 2014); Mussulo Bay, Angola (Carr represent approximately 60 percent of sites suggests some degree of nesting and Carr, 1991); and Principe Island nesting in Turkey (see Canbolat et al., diversity but, with the sites so close (SWOT, 2010). In the western South 2009 and Fuller et al., 2010). together, the benefits of this diversity Atlantic, juvenile and adult green turtles There has been success within these may be minimal. Mitochondrial DNA utilize foraging areas throughout the protected areas, but as the protection studies have identified two stocks but, Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic, has been in place for some time and the in general there is low population often resulting in interactions with threats to the species remain substructuring in the Mediterranean. (particularly from increasing tourism fisheries occurring in those same waters The five-factor analysis in the Status (Dow et al., 2007). While no nesting activities), it is unlikely that the Review reveals numerous significant protective measures discussed here are occurs as far south as Uruguay and threats to green turtles within the range Argentina, both countries have sufficient for the conservation of the of the DPS. Coastal development, important foraging grounds for South species in the Mediterranean. beachfront lighting, erosion resulting Atlantic green turtles (Lopez- Marine debris is also a significant from sand extraction, illegal harvest, Mendilaharsu et al., 2006; Lezama, problem on many green turtle nesting detrimental fishing practices, and 2009; Gonza´lez Carman et al., 2011; beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in marine pollution both at nesting Prosdocimi et al., 2012; Rivas-Zinno, particular the nesting beaches of Cyprus beaches and important foraging grounds and Turkey (Camin˜ as, 2004; are continuing concerns across the 2012). Within the range of the South Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, Mediterranean DPS, and are Atlantic DPS, there are a total of 51 2010; Fuller et al., 2010; Tu¨ rkozan and insufficiently tempered by conservation nesting sites (some being individual Kaska, 2010). Although organized beach efforts. Current illegal harvest of green beaches and others representing clean-ups in recent years on some turtles for human consumption multiple nesting beaches) that can be beaches in Cyprus have greatly reduced continues as a moderate threat to this roughly divided into four regions: the amount of litter on the beach DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout western Africa, Ascension Island, (Demetropoulos and the Mediterranean Sea, particularly Brazil, and the South Atlantic Caribbean Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., bycatch mortality of green turtles in (including Colombia, the Guianas, and 2010), it is still an overall pervasive pelagic longline, set net, and trawl Aves Island in addition to the numerous problem. fisheries. Additional threats from boat small, insular nesting sites). Much of the Protection of marine habitats is in the strikes, which are becoming more South Atlantic is data poor with only early stages in the Mediterranean, as in common, and changes likely to result occasional or incomplete nesting other areas of the world. Off the Lara- from climate change will negatively surveys. Therefore, for 37 of the 51 Toxeftra nesting beaches in western affect this DPS. identified nesting areas of this DPS, we Cyprus, a marine protection zone For the above reasons, we propose to were not able to estimate nesting female extends to the 20-m isobath (i.e., 20-m list the Mediterranean DPS as abundance, even for relatively large depth line) as delineated by the endangered. Based on its low nesting nesting sites such as French Guiana. Of Fisheries Regulation (Margaritoulis, abundance, limited spatial distribution, the nesting sites for which an estimate 2007; Demetropoulos and and exposure to increasing threats, we could be derived, three account for the Hadjichristophorou, 2010). As find that this DPS is presently in danger bulk of the nesting: Poila˜o, Guinea- mentioned above, establishment of a of extinction throughout its range. Bissau (29,016 nesting females; Catry et protected area at Latakia beach in Syria al., 2009); Ascension Island, UK (13,417 is being sought and would include IX. South Atlantic DPS protection of a section of sea offshore; nesting females; S. Weber, Ascension A. Discussion of Population Parameters however, it is facing strong opposition Island Government, pers. comm., 2013); for the South Atlantic DPS from the tourism sector (Serra, 2008; and the Galibi Reserve, Suriname (9,406 Rees et al., 2010). The South Atlantic DPS’s range nesting females; Schulz, 1975; boundary begins at the border of Weijerman et al., 1998). There are two D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Panama and Colombia at 7.5° N., 77° W., sites with >10,000 nesting females Findings heads due north to 10.5° N., 77° W., (Poila˜o and Ascension Island); one site The Mediterranean DPS is then northeast to 19° N., 63.5° W., and with 5,001–10,000 nesting females characterized by low green turtle along 19° N. latitude to Mauritania in (Suriname); three sites with 1,001–5,000 nesting abundance at 32 different Africa, to include the U.S. Virgin nesting females (Trindade Island, Brazil locations, with many of these sites Islands in the Caribbean. It extends (2,016; Almeida et al., 2011; Projecto having only one or two known nesting along the coast of Africa to South Africa, Tamar, 2011); Aves Island, Venezuela females and none having greater than with the southern border being 40° S. (2,833; Prieto et al., 2012); and Matapica 245 nesting females. While some of latitude. Reserve, Suriname (3,661; A. Turney, these sites show stable or increasing Green turtle nesting occurs on pers. comm., 2012). There are three sites trends, the extremely low nesting beaches along the western coast of with 501–1,001 nesting females, three abundance of this DPS compared to Africa from southern Mauritania to sites with 101–500, two sites with 51– historical abundance creates an South Africa, in the middle of the South 100, and 37 unquantified sites. Poila˜o

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15297

accounts for almost 46 percent of the eastern South Atlantic as well as b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones total number of nesting females. juveniles from Suriname and Ascension Long-term monitoring data for this Island. On the western side of the South DPS are relatively scarce. There are Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large Overall, many demographic three sites for which 10 or more years Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is parameters of green turtles in the South of recent data are available for annual characterized by the Global Atlantic appear to vary widely among nesting female abundance (a criterion International Waters Assessment for presenting trends in a bar graph in the various nesting assemblages. (GIWA) as suffering severe impacts in the Status Review): (1) Ascension However, this variability in parameters the areas of pollution, coastal habitat Island, UK; (2) Galibi and Matapica such as remigration interval, clutch size, modification, and overexploitation of Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch fish stocks (Marques et al., 2004). The Rocas, Brazil. Together, the first two frequency is not separated out Patagonian Shelf LME is moderately sites represent approximately 26,759 regionally within the range of the DPS affected by pollution, habitat nesting females (42 percent of the and therefore does not necessarily modification, and overfishing (Mugetti population), while the third site has suggest a high level of population et al., 2004). In the Canary Current LME, only 275 nesting females (Bellini et al., structuring. Average sizes of nesting the area is characterized by the GIWA as 2013). Ascension Island, and Galibi and females are the largest reported for severely impacted in the area of Matapica Reserves have exhibited females globally (Hirth, 1997; Almeida modification or loss of ecosystems or substantial increases since the 1970s. et al., 2011; Bellini et al., 2013). ecotones and health impacts, but these Although they did not meet the criteria With regard to diversity and impacts are decreasing (http:// for presenting bar graphs, there are resilience, the overall range of the DPS www.lme.noaa.gov). The Celtic-Biscay indications of trends at other beaches in is extensive and varied, with both Shelf LME is affected by alterations to the South Atlantic, such as increasing insular and continental nesting. the seabed, agriculture, and sewage trends at Isla Trindade, Brazil, and Aves Ascension Island, one of the largest (Valde´z-Gonza´lez and Ramı´rez-Bautista, Island, Venezuela, and decreasing nesting sites, is isolated and protected 2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been trends at Bioko Island, Equatorial in the middle of the South Atlantic, and characterized as severely impacted in Guinea. appears to have migratory connections the area of solid wastes by the GIWA; With regard to spatial structure, the this and other pollution indicators are to nesting sites on the eastern and phylogenic relationship of the eastern increasing (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). western ends of the DPS’s range. The Caribbean nesting sites indicates that, On the eastern side of the South insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of despite the close proximity of other Atlantic, the Benguela Current LME has potential impacts from sea level rise and Caribbean nesting sites, they are more been moderately impacted by tropical weather. Aves Island, one of the closely related to the nesting sites in the overfishing, with future conditions South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC, unpubl. largest Caribbean nesting sites within expected to worsen by the GIWA data). Green turtle nesting sites found in the range of the South Atlantic DPS is (Prochazka et al., 2005). Brazil, Ascension Island, and West particularly vulnerable to sea level rise as it is a very low-lying island. In Brazil, green turtles in degraded Africa have shallow structuring and are coastal areas that have ingested plastic dominated by a common and B. Summary of Factors Affecting the debris have been found to have diets widespread haplotype, CM–A8, that is South Atlantic DPS that are lower in diversity and quality found in high frequency across all (Santos et al., 2011). Off the nesting sites in the South Atlantic 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened northwestern coast of Suriname run-off (Bjorndal et al., 2006; Formia et al., Destruction, Modification, or from rice production and other 2006). A recent study showed that a Curtailment of its Habitat or Range agricultural activities is a problem large proportion of juvenile green turtles a. Terrestrial Zone (Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and likely foraging in Cape Verde in the eastern would have similar impacts. The Atlantic originated from distant nesting At continental sites in the South reduction of carrying capacity for green sites across the Atlantic, namely Atlantic DPS destruction and turtles in seagrass beds impacted by Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island modification of sea turtle nesting habitat anchor damage in popular bays in the (12 percent), and Guinea Bissau (19 (for green turtles and other species) U.S. Virgin Islands has also been percent), suggesting that, like the result from coastal development and loggerheads, green turtles in the Atlantic documented (Williams, 1988). Likewise, construction, placement of erosion sediment contamination from coastal undertake transoceanic developmental control structures and other barriers to migrations (Monzo´n-Argu¨ ello et al., and upstream industrial sites has been nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular recognized in the Caribbean, including 2010). The fact that long distance and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles St. Croix (Ross and DeLorenzo, 1997), beach erosion, beach sand placement, and has the potential to impact green suggests that larger adult-sized turtles beach pollution, removal of native return to forage within the region of turtle habitat as well as the turtles vegetation, and planting of non-native their natal nesting sites, thereby limiting themselves. Such coastal degradation vegetation (D’Amato and Marczwski, the potential for gene flow across larger has been seen throughout the Caribbean 1993; Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, scales (Monzo´n-Argu¨ ello et al., 2010). areas that fall within the range of the 1999; Naro-Maciel et al., 1999; Important foraging grounds in the South Atlantic DPS (Dow et al., 2007). western South Atlantic, such as those Broderick et al., 2002b; Marcovaldi et In summary, we find that the South off of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, are al., 2002; Formia et al., 2003; Tanner, Atlantic DPS of the green turtle is shared by turtles from various nesting 2013). negatively affected by ongoing changes assemblages in the western South In very low-lying islands such as in both its terrestrial and marine Atlantic and Ascension Island. Aves, rising sea levels and increased habitats as a result of land and water use Important foraging grounds in the storms could result in a loss of nesting practices as considered above in Factor eastern South Atlantic, such as the Gulf habitat, thus potentially eliminating A. However, sufficient data are not of Guinea, are shared by turtles from the their functionality as nesting beaches. available to assess the significance of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

these threats to the persistence of this Guinea (Formia et al., 2013), Guinea- pollution, habitat destruction affecting DPS. Bissau (Catry et al., 2009), Gambia, and eggs and hatchlings at nesting beaches, Senegal (Barnett et al., 2004), the Congo and nest and hatchling predation. Most 2. Factor B: Overutilization for and Principe Island (Girard et al., 2013). South Atlantic countries, including Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or The prevalence varies greatly among those in South America, the Caribbean, Educational Purposes locations. and Africa, have developed national Overutilization for commercial Eggs and nests in Brazil experience legislation and have various projects purposes likely was a factor that depredation, primarily by foxes sponsored by governments, local contributed to the historical declines of (Dusycion vetulus; Marcovaldi and communities, academic institutions, this DPS. Although legal and illegal Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by green and non-governmental organizations to collection of eggs and harvest of turtles turtles in the southern Atlantic African protect sea turtles and nesting and persists as a threat to this DPS, it does coastline experience predation from foraging habitats to varying degrees not appear to be a significant threat to local wildlife and feral animals, such as (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003). its resilience. Eggs are taken for human jackals (Canus sp.; Weir et al., 2007). The consistency and effectiveness of consumption in Brazil, but the amount Shark predation on green turtles, such programs likely vary greatly across is considered minor when compared to especially by tiger sharks (Galeocerdo countries and over time based on historical rates of egg collection cuvier), has been documented off resource availability and political (Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; northeastern Brazil at a frequency high stability. In addition, some countries Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Almeida and enough to indicate that green turtles have site specific legislation or Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles, may be an important food source for conservation designation for turtle including green turtles, for medicinal tiger sharks off Brazilian waters habitat protection. Regional and purposes occasionally occurs in (Bornatowski et al., 2012). Predation on national legislation to conserve green northeastern Brazil (Alvez and Rosa, nesting females can also occur from turtles (often all sea turtles) exists 2006; Braga-Filho and Schiavetti, 2013). large predators, such as jaguars throughout the range of the DPS. The Egg harvest occurred in the Galibi area (Panthera onca) in Suriname (Autar, extent to which threats have been until 1967 when a ban was enacted. 1994). On Ascension Island predation reduced as a result of these efforts is Subsequently, a controlled harvest was by domestic and feral cats (Felus sp.) difficult to ascertain. The following allowed until the early 2000s via permit and dogs (Canus sp.), frigate birds countries have laws to protect green with poaching continuing at (Fregata minor), land crabs (subphylum turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension approximately 100 to 450 nests per year Crustacea), and fish (class Osteichthyes) Island, Benin, Brazil, British Virgin (Reichart and Fretey, 1993). have all been cited as mortality sources Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Throughout the Caribbean areas of the for hatchling green turtles (Broderick et Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic South Atlantic DPS, harvest of green al., 2002a). On the Bijago´s Archipelago of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and nest predation by monitor lizards Guiana, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, legal, continues (Dow et al., 2007). (Varanus sp.) was highly variable, with Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory Among the British Caribbean territories green turtle nests experiencing 76 Coast, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St. within the South Atlantic DPS ˜ percent predation rates on Joao Vieira Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, (including Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, (da Silva Ferreira, 2012). On the Senegal, Sierra-Leone, South Africa, the British Virgin Islands, and southern beaches of Bioko in the Gulf of Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Montserrat) there are legal sea turtle Guinea, predation on eggs and Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin fisheries, with anywhere from a few hatchlings can come from a wide variety Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Montserrat) to over a thousand (Turks of species, such as ghost crabs (family and Caicos) green turtles taken per year Ocypodidae), ants (family Formicidae), The Status Review described limited (Godley et al., 2004). monitor lizards, monkeys (suborder regulatory mechanisms to address Turtles are harvested along the west Haplorrhini), porcupines (order bycatch, such as TED requirements; African coast and, in some areas, are Rodentia), vultures (family Accipitridae) however, there are no widespread considered a significant source of food and crows (Corvus sp.), in addition to regulations to address bycatch as a and income due to the poverty of many village dogs (Toma´s et al., 1999). result of the gill net fisheries. A variety residents (Formia et al., 2003; Toma´s et Although disease and predation are of countries operate industrial trawling al., 2010). In the Bijago´s Archipelago known to occur, quantitative data are off Guinea-Bissau. The national (Guinea-Bissau), all sea turtles are not sufficient to assess the degree of government does not have any protected by national law, but impact of these threats on the requirements for TED use in their enforcement is limited and many turtles persistence of this DPS. waters. There is also extensive illegal are killed by locals for consumption fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009). 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing (Catry et al., 2009). While the Bolama-Bijago´s Biosphere Regulatory Mechanisms Reserve covers the entire archipelago 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation There are at least 20 national and and provides some protection through FP is highly variable in its presence international treaties and/or regulatory the management of the reserve and the and severity throughout the range of the mechanisms that pertain to the South survey work patrolling the areas, limited DPS, with areas of lower water quality, Atlantic DPS. Regulatory mechanisms enforcement and resource shortages especially due to nutrient enrichment, that address the direct capture of green limit the effectiveness of the reserve. It often being the sites with the most turtles for most of the countries within is unlikely that bycatch mortality, prevalent and most severe cases of FP. this DPS are implemented to various discussed in more detail in Factor E, can In Brazilian waters, FP has been degrees throughout the range of the be sufficiently reduced across the range documented but is highly variable DPS, with some countries having no of the DPS in the near future because of among sites (Williams and Bunkley- commitment to the implementation of the diversity and magnitude of the Williams, 2000). FP has been confirmed the regulation. The main threats to fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack among green turtles of Africa’s Atlantic South Atlantic green turtles include of comprehensive information on coast, from Gabon and Equatorial fishery bycatch, marine debris and fishing distribution and effort,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15299

limitations on implementing any requirements for TED use in their expected to happen at unprecedented demonstrated effective conservation waters. There is also extensive illegal rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly measures, geopolitical complexities, fishing occurring (Catry et al., 2009). they may face local to widespread limitations on enforcement capacity, While the Bolama-Bijago´s Biosphere extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). and lack of availability of Reserve covers the entire archipelago Impacts from global climate change comprehensive bycatch reduction and provides some protection through induced by human activities are likely technologies. the management of the reserve and the to become more apparent in future years The Status Review did not reveal any survey work patrolling the areas, limited (IPCC, 2007). regulatory mechanisms in place to enforcement and resource shortages In summary, within Factor E, we find specifically address coastal limit the effectiveness of the reserve. that bycatch that occurs throughout the development, marine pollution, sea In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish South Atlantic, particularly bycatch level rise, and effects of climate change stocks have been reduced through mortality of green turtles from nearshore that continue to contribute to the overfishing and environmental gill net fisheries, continues to be a extinction risk of this DPS. degradation, and many fishers that significant threat to this DPS. In incidentally catch sea turtles will keep addition, changes likely to result from 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade and kill the turtle to feed their families climate change are also an increasing Factors Affecting Its Continued (Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has threat to this DPS and likely a Existence been made to generate alternative significant threat to the persistence of a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear sources of income for the local this DPS. populations of the Ivory Coast and to Green turtles are incidentally C. Conservation Efforts for the South employ ex-poachers to patrol the captured throughout the South Atlantic Atlantic DPS beaches (Pen˜ ate et al., 2007). DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines, The main in-water threat to green drift and set gill nets, bottom and mid- b. Marine Debris and Pollution turtles in the South Atlantic DPS is water trawls, fishing dredges, pound Various studies have shown high incidental capture in fisheries, although nets and weirs, haul and purse seines, prevalence of marine debris ingestion by marine debris and pollution are also pots and traps, and hook and line gear. green turtles in the western South threats. The main threat on beaches is There is also substantial Atlantic, in some cases occurring in 100 habitat destruction, followed by documentation of the interaction of percent of the individuals examined hatchling predation. Most South small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries (Bugoni et al., 2001; Tourinho et al., Atlantic countries, including those in with green turtles in their foraging 2010; Guebert-Bartholo et al., 2011; South America, the Caribbean, and grounds along the western South Murman, 2011). Africa, have developed national Atlantic, with green turtles documented Oil exploration and extraction within legislation and have various projects as the most common species stranded the Gulf of Guinea rapidly increased sponsored by governments, local throughout the coast of Brazil since the discovery of oil reserves in the communities, academic institutions, (Marcovaldi et al., 2009); Lima et al., 1980s and 1990s (Formia et al., 2003), and non-governmental organizations to 2010; Barata et al., 2011; Lo´pez-Barrera with the associated activities and protect sea turtles, and nesting and et al., 2012). Similarly, artisanal gill net potential for oil spills and other foraging habitats to varying degrees fisheries in the coastal waters of the Rio pollution creating a threat to the (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al., 2003). de la Plata area of Uruguay were important foraging areas and nesting The consistency and effectiveness of estimated to have captured 1,861 green beaches for green turtles in the area. such programs likely vary greatly across turtles over the 13-month duration of a countries and over time based on c. Effects of Climate Change study, despite a time-area closure resource availability and political during the ‘‘peak’’ season identified in As in other areas of the world, climate stability. In addition, some countries Lezama (2009). change and sea level rise have the have site specific legislation or Incidental captures of juvenile green potential to affect green turtles in the conservation designation for turtle turtles have also been documented on South Atlantic. Effects of climate change habitat protection. When assessing important foraging grounds off include, among other things, increased conservation efforts, we assumed that Argentina, especially Samborombo´n Bay sea surface temperature, the alteration of all conservation efforts would remain in and El Rinco´n, primarily from gill nets thermal sand characteristics of beaches place at their current levels. used by the artisanal fisheries, but also (from warming temperatures), which Conservation through education is a from shrimp nets and other artisanal could result in the reduction or widely-used and valuable tool fishing gear (Gonza´lez Carman et al., cessation of male hatchling production throughout nations within the range of 2011). Green turtles utilizing foraging (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., the South Atlantic DPS and around the grounds off Argentina have been 2009), and a significant rise in sea level, world. Such education initiatives can be demonstrated to be primarily from the which could significantly restrict green highly successful. In Akassa, Nigeria, a Ascension Islands nesting beaches, turtle nesting habitat. In very low-lying dedicated, intensive conservation although individuals from Trindade islands such as Aves, rising sea levels education program by the Akassa Island, Suriname, and Aves Island and increased storms could potentially Community Development Project nesting assemblages were also utilizing eliminate its functionality as a nesting resulted in sea turtles being recognized the Argentine foraging grounds beach. Some beaches will likely locally as an essential part of the area’s (Prosdocimi et al., 2012). Therefore experience lethal incubation natural heritage. This has resulted in the impacts to green turtles off Argentina temperatures that will result in losses of majority of the nests in Akassa being affect a variety of nesting assemblages complete hatchling cohorts (Fuentes et protected, and when live stranded within the western and central South al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011; Glen and turtles are found, they are released Atlantic. Mrosovsky, 2004). While sea turtles (Formia et al., 2003). However, in areas A variety of countries operate have survived past eras that have where the utilization of sea turtles is industrial trawling off Guinea-Bissau. included significant temperature deeply ingrained in the local culture, The national government does not have fluctuations, future climate change is such as the La Guajira region of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Colombia (Patino-Martinez et al., 2012), turtles and other sea turtle species in Trindade, and Atol das Rocas seem to be changing people’s attitudes about the fisheries, with the objective of stable or do not have sufficient data to use of sea turtles can be a long, slow developing mitigation plans for this make a determination. Bioko, Equatorial process. threat (http://www.prictma.com.ar). Guinea, appears to be in decline. The In the Caribbean, green turtle Green turtle nesting occurs on many diversity/resilience of the DPS is conservation on the nesting beach varies beaches along the western coast of bolstered by the widespread nature of widely among the 22 nations and Africa, and there have been, and the rookeries, but a potential concern is territories. However, programs at the continue to be, sea turtle projects in the domination of the DPS by insular three largest nesting sites—Aves Island, many of the nations in the area ranging nesting sites, which has the potential to French Guiana, and Suriname—with from research to public awareness to reduce the resilience of the DPS in the over 500 crawls per year (Dow et al., government conservation efforts (see face of sea level rise and increasing 2007), provide protection to a Formia et al., 2003 for a regional tropical storm activity. significant proportion of nesting in the synopsis). The largest nesting The 5-factor analysis in the Status area. assemblages occur on Poila˜o, Bijago´s Review revealed numerous continuing In South America, outside of the Archipelago, Guinea Bissau, and on threats to green turtles within the South Caribbean, Brazil is the only nation with Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. While Atlantic DPS. Habitat destruction and substantial green turtle nesting. In conservation efforts on the beaches have degradation both at nesting beaches and Brazil, the primary nesting areas are been established, issues with important foraging grounds is a monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the enforcement capabilities and resources continuing concern, though inconsistent national sea turtle conservation make consistent protection problematic across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest) program, and many detrimental human (Catry et al., 2009; Formia et al., 2003; of green turtles within the South activities are restricted by various state Toma´s et al., 2010). Since 2001, a push Atlantic was likely a primary factor in and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei has been made to generate alternative past declines. While reduced from those Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al., sources of income for the local levels due to increased legal protections, 2002; 2005). Nevertheless, tourism populations of the Ivory Coast and to harvest is still thought to be fairly development in coastal areas in Brazil is employ ex-poachers to patrol the extensive in some areas of western high, and Projeto TAMAR works toward beaches (Pen˜ ate et al., 2007). Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues raising awareness of turtles and their Green turtle conservation efforts on to be a major concern throughout the conservation needs through educational Ascension Island have involved range of the DPS, near nesting beaches and informational activities at their extensive monitoring, outreach, and and foraging areas as well as on the high Visitor Centers that are dispersed research. The group Turtles in the UK seas. Despite increasing legal throughout the nesting areas Overseas Territories promotes the protections for sea turtles within the (Marcovaldi et al., 2005; Marcovaldi conservation, research, and management DPS, the inadequacy of existing 2011). Since 1990, TAMAR has worked of marine turtle populations and their regulatory mechanisms is a noted issue. along green turtle foraging areas such as habitats, and has worked extensively on While many international and national Almofala and Ubatuba (Marcovaldi et Ascension Island (http:// laws purporting to protect sea turtles al., 2002). www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/ exist, limitations in resources and The South Atlantic Association is a ascension.shtml). Additionally, there political will create a situation of multinational group that includes are legal prohibitions protecting sea inconsistent or sometimes nonexistent representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, turtles on Ascension. practical measures to enforce those and Argentina that meets bi-annually to Overall, conservation efforts for green laws. Increasing awareness and share information and develop regional turtles in the South Atlantic DPS are conservation efforts by governments, action plans to address threats, inconsistent. While there are numerous local communities, non-governmental including bycatch. In 2001, the and varied conservation efforts, organizations, and industries have Brazilian Plan for Reduction of especially on the primary nesting helped to reduce threats, but efforts Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in beaches, many issues remain due to remain inconsistent and often resource Fisheries was created to address limited enforcement of existing laws limited. incidental capture of the five species in and marine protected areas as well as While the Status Review indicates the country (Marcovaldi et al., 2002, extensive fishery bycatch, especially in that the DPS shows strength in many of 2006). This national plan includes coastal waters. The effectiveness and the critical population parameters, there various activities to mitigate bycatch, consistency of conservation measures are still concerns about the impacts of including time-area restrictions of will need to be increased substantially ongoing threats. The increasing threats fisheries, use of bycatch reduction to prevent the further decline, and allow are not reflected in the current trend for devices, and working with fishers to the recovery, of this DPS in the future. the South Atlantic DPS as it was based successfully release live-captured on nesting numbers and not all current turtles. In Uruguay, all sea turtles are D. Extinction Risk Assessment and life stages. These increasing threats to protected from human impacts, Findings for the South Atlantic DPS the population will only become including fisheries bycatch, by Nesting abundance for this DPS is apparent when those life stages affected presidential decree (Decreto relatively high, with large rookeries by the threats return to nest and the Presidencial 144/98). The Karumbe spread out geographically, the two beaches are consistently monitored, as conservation project in Uruguay has largest at Poila˜o, Guinea-Bissau, and the trend information is based solely on been working on assessing in-water Ascension Island, UK. Population numbers of nests. This lag time and threats to marine turtles for several trends within rookeries are inconsistent nesting data were considered in our years (see http://cicmar.org/proyectos/ and, in many cases, the data are limited analysis. promacoda), with the objective of and a trend could not be determined, For the above reasons, we propose to developing mitigation plans in the even for major rookeries. While some list the South Atlantic DPS as future. In Argentina, various nesting beaches such as Ascension threatened. We do not find the DPS to conservation organizations are working Island, Aves Island, and Galibi appear to be in danger of extinction presently toward assessing bycatch of green be increasing, others such as Poila˜o, because of high nesting abundance and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15301

geographically widespread nesting at a (Bourjea, 2012); and Assumption, With regard to diversity and diversity of sites; however, the Cosmoledo, Astove, and Farquhar in the resilience, nesting in the Southwest continued threats are likely to endanger Seychelles; ∼2,000 (J. Mortimer unpubl. Indian DPS occurs throughout the range the DPS within the foreseeable future. data). There are four sites with <500 of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the nesting females: Madagascar; main continent of Africa in Kenya. The X. Southwest Indian DPS Mozambique; Amirantes Group, nesting substrate can be variable as A. Discussion of Population Parameters Seychelles; and Inner Islands of the some of the nesting beaches are volcanic for the Southwest Indian DPS Seychelles; and 23 more sites with islands and the atolls are made of The range of the Southwest Indian unquantified numbers of nesting coralline sand. Nesting occurs DPS has as its western boundary the females. The largest nesting site, throughout the year with peaks that vary shores of continental Africa from the Europa, accounts for approximately 30 among nesting sites (Dalleau et al., equator, just north of the Kenya-Somalia percent of all nesting. 2012; Mortimer, 2012). The fact that border, south to the Cape of Good Hope Green turtles in the Southwest Indian turtles nest on both insular and (South Africa), and extends south from Ocean were exploited for many decades continental sites, in variable substrates there along 19° E. longitude to 40° S., (Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982; and at different peak seasons suggests a 19° E. Its southern boundary extends Mortimer et al., 2011); however, the high degree of nesting diversity and indicates some resiliency. along 40° S. latitude from 19° E. to 84° species has successfully recovered at The genetic structure of this DPS is E., and its eastern boundary runs along some nesting beaches in the recent years characterized by high diversity and a 84° E. longitude from 40° S. latitude to and trend data show increasing trends, albeit largely at protected sites (Bourjea, mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as the equator. Its northern boundary well as common and widespread extends along the equator from 84° E. to 2012). At protected nesting sites with long-term monitoring, five out of six haplotypes. These common and the continent of Africa just north of the widespread haplotypes (CM–A8, CmP47 Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2). monitoring sites have shown increase in nesting activities (Europa, Glorieuses, and CmP49) make up the majority of the Nesting occurs along the east coast of haplotypes present in the Southwest Africa as far south as 25° S., the north, Mayotte, Mohe´li, and Aldabra), whereas a declining trend has been reported for Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral west, and south coasts of Madagascar, haplotypes (based on presence in the and scattered offshore islands in the Tromelin Island (Bourjea, 2012). There are three nesting sites with greater than South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in DPSs). The Southwest Indian Ocean 10 years of recent monitoring data: Les the Status Review). Foraging occurs represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to Glorieuses, Europa and Tromelin, along the east coast of Africa, around 6.5 percent (mean = 4.2 percent) Eparses Islands, the trends of which are Madagascar where numerous seagrass estimated sequence divergence among discussed above. No sites met our beds are found, and on shallow banks the seven haplotypes identified. These standards for conducting a PVA. and shoals throughout the region, haplotypes belong to three highly including those associated with With regard to spatial structure, diverged genetic clades of haplotypes virtually every island in Seychelles genetic sampling in the Southwest and highlights the complex colonization (Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer et al., 1996). Indian DPS has been fairly extensive history of the region. There have been Small and immature turtles are also and nesting sites are relatively well no nDNA studies from this region, nor concentrated in Mozambique around represented, with the exception of the are there studies published on genetic Bazaruto and Inhassoro and in Maputo northern nesting sites. Mitochondrial stock composition at foraging areas Bay (Bourjea, 2012). Along the coast of DNA studies indicate a moderate degree within the range of the Southwest Kenya, an aerial survey in 1994 of spatial structuring within this DPS, Indian DPS. indicated that sea turtles are widely with connectivity between proximate distributed within the 20-m isobaths nesting sites (see below). Overall, the B. Summary of Factors Affecting the mainly within seagrass beds and coral Southwest Indian DPS appears to have Southwest Indian DPS reefs (Frazier, 1975; Wamukoya et al., at least two genetic stocks: (1) The 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened 1996; Okemwa et al., 2004). The eastern South Mozambique Channel consisting Destruction, Modification, or seaboard of South Africa serves as a of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range feeding and developmental area for numerous nesting sites in the North green turtles (Bourjea, 2012). Mozambique Channel consisting of a. Terrestrial Zone For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites Nosy Iranja, Mayotte, Mohe´li, Habitat degradation is reported as an with some measure of abundance, four Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra, important source of additional mortality of which have more than 10,000 nesting Farquhar, also including Tromelin for this DPS, although the exact scale of females: Europa (Eparses Islands, located east of Madagascar (Bourjea et habitat destruction at nesting beaches France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler et al., al., 2006). Satellite telemetry data are often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012). 2007; Bourjea, 2012), Aldabra Atoll available for green turtles that nest at In particular, habitat destruction due to (Seychelles; 16,000 (Mortimer et al., some nesting beaches within the range development of the coastline and 2011; Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer of this DPS. Green turtles nesting along dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is unpubl. data)), Mohe´li (Comoros; 15,000 the East African coast confine their a threat to green turtles throughout the (Bourjea, 2012), and Mayotte (France; migration to along the coast. This is in Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 1996). 12,000; Bourjea et al., 2007a; Bourjea, contrast to those nesting on islands (e.g., Increases in tourism and human 2012). Les Glorieuses has 5,001–10,000 Comoros, Eparses, and Seychelles), population growth on Mayotte Island nesting females (6,000; Lauret-Stepler et which reach the East African or may lead to further negative impacts al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012). Five sites have Malagasy coast via ‘migration corridors’ upon this coastal environment (Bourjea 1,001–5,000 nesting females: Tromelin or along mid-oceanic seagrass beds. This et al., 2007). The possible negative Island; 4,500 (Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; behavior is believed to be mainly effects of artificial lighting at a main Bourjea, 2012); Kenya; 1,500 (Okemwa attributable to the fact that those areas nesting beach on Aldabra are of concern et al., 2004); Tanzania; 1,500 (Muir, are characterized by a network of large at the Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011), 2005; Bourjea, 2012); Mauritius; 1,800 seagrass beds (Bourjea, 2012). although it is currently being addressed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(J. Mortimer, Seychelles Dept. of Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007). Similarly, Status Review revealed a lack of existing Environment, pers. comm., 2014). commercial and small-scale fisheries at regulatory mechanisms to address sea foraging grounds along the east African level rise, and effects of climate change b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones coast, mainly Tanzania and Kenya, that continue to contribute to the In Mohe´li, Comoros Islands, habitat affect green turtles nesting on Mayotte, extinction risk of this DPS. degradation due to sedimentation, sand Comoros Islands (Bourjea et al., 2007). extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed Intentional capture of green turtles 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade degradation is also a concern (Ahamada, continues in the Seychelles (Seminoff et Factors Affecting Its Continued 2008). Similar situations are reported for al., 2004) and in the east coast of Africa Existence Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and (Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro et al., a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear Madagascar (Ciccione et al., 2002; 2006). Quantifying the magnitude of the Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994 as cited In summary, current legal and illegal threat of fisheries on green turtles in the in Bourjea, 2012). collection of eggs and harvest of turtles Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult For both the terrestrial and the persists as a threat throughout this DPS. given the low level of observer coverage neritic/oceanic zones, we believe that The killing of nesting females continues and dearth of investigations into sufficient data are not available to assess to threaten the stability of green turtle bycatch conducted by countries that the significance of these threats to the populations in many areas affecting the have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are persistence of this DPS. DPS by reducing adult abundance and caught in demersal and pelagic egg production. 2. Factor B: Overutilization for longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation (Peterson, 2005; Louro et al., 2006; Educational Purposes The prevalence of FP in the Costa et al., 2007; Fennessy and Isaksen, Legal and illegal collection of eggs Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP 2007; Peterson et al., 2007; 2009). and harvest of turtles throughout the is extremely rare among green turtles in Bycatch is a concern along the east coast Southwest Indian DPS for human Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer, unpublished of Africa and in many island Exclusive consumption persists as a threat to this data). Side striped jackals (Canis Economic Zones (EEZs), including the DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for adustus) and honey badgers (Melivora Seychelles, Mayotte, Comoros, Comoros Islands (Ahamada, 2008; capensis) are known to depredate nests Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa. Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa et on the mainland coast of East Africa (Mortimer et al., 1996; Bourjea et al., al., 2007; Videira et al., 2008); Tanzania (Baldwin et al., 2003). 2007a; Bourjea, 2012). (Bourjea, 2012); Madagascar However, quantitative data are not b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; sufficient to assess the degree of impact Disasters Ciccione et al. 2002 as cited in Bourjea, of these threats on the persistence of 2012; Lilette, 2006 as cited in Bourjea, this DPS. Effects of climate change include, 2012); and Kenya (Bourjea, 2012). Egg among other things, increased sea exploitation has affected green turtle 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing surface temperatures, the alteration of populations in the Maldives (Seminoff Regulatory Mechanisms thermal sand characteristics of beaches et al., 2004). Illegal egg collection in There are at least 15 national and (from warming temperatures), which Mauritius seems to be an important international treaties and/or regulatory could result in the reduction or source of mortality but no data are mechanisms that pertain to the cessation of male hatchling production available. Southwest Indian DPS. The analysis of (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., Nesting green turtle numbers in the these existing regulatory mechanisms 2009), and a significant rise in sea level, Seychelles have increased at protected assumed that all would remain in place which could significantly restrict green sites, but declined where there has been at their current levels; however, some turtle nesting habitat. In the Southwest heavy poaching, as on the developed are not realizing their full potential Indian DPS, climate change could have islands of Mahe´, Praslin, and La Digue because they are not adequately profound long-term impacts on nesting (Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island enforced. populations because much of the and Aldabra, the number of nesting Regulatory mechanisms that address nesting occurs in low-lying islands and females was known to have decreased the direct capture of green turtles are atolls. The pending sea level rise from due to overharvesting (Mortimer, 1984), implemented to various degrees climate change is a potential problem, but they have been protected at Aldabra throughout the range of the DPS with as this will inundate nesting sites and since 1968 (J. Mortimer, pers. comm., some countries having no commitment decrease available nesting habitat Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014). to the implementation of the regulation. (Daniels et al., 1993). While sea turtles Areas of particularly heavy Existing regulatory mechanisms to have survived past eras that have exploitation of green turtles include address bycatch and coastal included significant temperature foraging locations in the Western Indian development are not implemented fluctuations, future climate change is Ocean such as Madagascar adequately as evident by the high level expected to happen at unprecedented (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo, of bycatch within this DPS. rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly 1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal fisheries, In addition to broad-reaching they may face local to widespread such as beach seines and gill nets, have international instruments, the following extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). been reported to take tens of thousands countries have laws to protect green Impacts from global climate change of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981; turtles: Mozambique, Republic of induced by human activities are likely Rakotonirina, 1987; Rakotonirina and Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte to become more apparent in future years Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber et Island, and the French Eparses Islands. (IPCC, 2007). al., 2010). This exploitation affects However, these regulatory mechanisms In summary, within Factor E, we find turtles nesting in the Eparses Islands, are not range-wide and do not address that fishery bycatch that occurs where poaching and illegal trade at the loss of the nesting beach, throughout the range of the DPS, international foraging grounds are also a overutilization, and bycatch that are particularly bycatch of green turtles threat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; significant threats to this DPS. The from long lining operations, small

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15303

prawn trawl fishery, and coastal gill DPS may have benefitted from continued threats are likely to endanger nets, can affect juvenile to adult size conservation efforts at the nesting the DPS within the foreseeable future. turtles. In addition, climate change and beaches. XI. North Indian DPS natural disasters are expected to be an D. Extinction Risk Assessment and increasing threat to the persistence of A. Discussion of Population Parameters Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS this DPS. for the North Indian DPS The Southwest Indian DPS is C. Conservation Efforts for the characterized by relatively high levels of The range of the North Indian DPS Southwest Indian DPS green turtle nesting abundance and begins at the border of Somalia and Nine countries of the southwest increasing trends. The overall nesting Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red Indian Ocean developed and signed the range for the Southwest Indian DPS Sea, Persian Gulf and east to the Gulf of Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine occurs throughout the range of this DPS Mannar off the southern tip of India and Turtle Memorandum of Understanding on islands, atolls, and on the main includes a major portion of India’s (IOSEA; www.ioseaturtles.org): Comoros continent of Africa in Kenya. The fact southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. The southern and eastern boundaries in June 2001, United Republic of that turtles nest on both insular and ° ° Tanzania in June 2001, Kenya in May continental sites, and nesting substrate are the equator (0 ) and 84 E., 2002, Mauritius in July 2002, can be variable as some of the nesting respectively, which intersect in the Madagascar in January 2003, Seychelles beaches are volcanic islands and the southeast corner of the range of the DPS. in January 2003, South Africa in atolls are made of coralline sand, It is bordered by the following countries February 2005; and Mozambique and suggests a high degree of nesting (following the water bodies from west to France (Indian Ocean) in December diversity. Nesting also occurs east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, 2008. IOSEA aims to develop and assist throughout the year with peaks that vary Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, countries of the region in the among rookeries (Dalleau et al., 2012; Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, implementation of the IOSEA regional Mortimer, 2012). The genetic structure Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, strategy for management and of this DPS is characterized by high Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka (Figure conservation of sea turtles and their diversity and a mix of unique and rare 2). habitats. Accordingly, IOSEA has been haplotypes, as well as common and Nesting is concentrated primarily in successfully coordinating and closely widespread haplotypes. However, the the northern and western region of the monitoring region-wide conservation five-factor analysis in the Status Review range of the North Indian DPS from the efforts in the Indian Ocean for years. revealed continuing threats to green Arabian Peninsula to the Pakistani- This has included the development of a turtles and their habitat within the range Indian border, with smaller but state-of-the-art online reporting facility, of the DPS. significant nesting colonies occurring in satellite tracking, genetic regional Nesting beaches throughout the range Sri Lanka, India’s Lakshadweep Island database, flipper tag inventory, and a of this DPS are susceptible to coastal group, and the Red Sea. Nesting in the global bibliographic resource. development and associated beachfront Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers. Also within the Southwest Indian lighting, erosion, and sea level rise. Seagrass beds are extensive within the DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-Marine Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation range of the DPS, although a Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea continues in portions of the range of the comprehensive understanding of turtle conservation. This is a technical, DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct juvenile and adult foraging areas is non-political working group comprised capture of juvenile and adult turtles lacking. There are extensive foraging of specialists from eleven countries: continues to take place using a variety areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the coasts Comoros, France (La Re´union), Kenya, of gear types in artisanal and industrial of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, fisheries. in the Red Sea (Ross and Barwani, 1982; Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, The Southwest Indian DPS is Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well protected by various international al Hickman, along the Sahil al Jazit as representatives from treaties and agreements as well as a few coastline in Oman, is one of the most intergovernmental organizations, national laws, and there are protected important known foraging grounds for academic, and non-governmental beaches throughout the range of this green turtles. Although development of organizations within the region. DPS. As a result of these designations dense seagrass beds is limited The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and agreements, many of the intentional seasonally due to monsoons, the (IOTC) is playing an increasingly impacts directed at sea turtles have been Arabian Sea coast’s foraging areas are constructive role in turtle conservation. lessened, such as the harvest of eggs and extensive (Jupp et al., 1996 as cited in In 2005, the IOTC adopted Resolution adults in several nesting areas, although Ferreira et al., 2006). Juvenile green 05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06 the extent to which they are reduced is turtles have been sighted and captured on Sea Turtles, which sets out reporting not clear. year-round in the lagoons in Agatti and requirements on interactions with sea While the Status Review indicates Kavaratti. These Lakshadweep lagoons turtles and accordingly provides an that the DPS shows strength in many of are known to be important executive summary per species for the critical population parameters, there developmental habitat for green turtles adoption at the Working Party on are still concerns about threats to the in this DPS (Tripathy et al., 2002; Ecosystem and By-catch and then DPS from fisheries interactions, direct Tripathy et al., 2006). subsequently at the Scientific harvest (eggs and adults), and climate Thirty-eight total nesting sites were Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a change. identified by the SRT, some being ‘‘Sea Turtle Identification Card’’ to be For the above reasons, we propose to individual beaches and others distributed to all long-liners operating list the Southwest Indian DPS as representing multiple nesting beaches, in the Indian Ocean (http:// threatened. We do not find the DPS to although nesting data is more than a www.iotc.org/). be in danger of extinction presently decade old for the vast majority of these Although there is considerable because of the high nesting abundance sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates uncertainty in anthropogenic and geographically widespread nesting indicate that, of the 38 sites, two have mortalities, especially in the water, the at a diversity of sites; however, the >10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Yemen; 18,000 (PERSGA/GEF, 2004) Arabia) has been characterized important green turtle nesting beaches and Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 16,184 (Ross, genetically based on limited sampling; in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma 1979; AlKindi et al., 2008)); one has however, it was found to be very Protected Area, and this nesting habitat 5,001–10,000 nesting females (Kamgar distinct from other nesting sites is secure from beach development Beach at Ormara, Pakistan; 6,000 elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on threats. (Groombridge et al., 1988)); five have mtDNA analysis. There are no studies of Light pollution is increasing near the 1,001–5,000 nesting females (Saudi foraging grounds within the range of the Karan Island, Saudi Arabia site from oil Arabian Gulf Islands; 2,410 (Al- North Indian DPS to provide rig developments, but the impact on Merghani et al., 2000; Pilcher, 2000); information on the distribution or the hatchlings and nesting females is north coast of Ras Al Hadd, Oman; mixing of turtles outside of this DPS. A unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research 1,875 (Salm et al., 1993); Ra’s Jifan to few flipper tag recoveries have been and Education Consultants, pers. Ra’s Jibsh, Oman; 1,500 (Ross, 1979; reported with no reported recoveries comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the AlKindi et al., 2008); Masirah Island, outside of the range of the North Indian main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia, Oman; 1,125 (Grobler et al., 2001); and DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri uncontrolled particulate emissions from Gujarat, India; 1,125 (Sunderraj et al., Lanka, and Oman were satellite tagged a large cement factory has coated the 2006a, 2006b; K. Shanker pers. comm., and tracked during post-nesting beaches at times and poses a threat to 2013); 15 sites have 101–500 nesting migrations, and all remained within the hatchlings because they are unable to females; 10 have fewer than 50; and one range of the North Indian DPS. The emerge from the nest due to the is unquantified. The largest site, Ras satellite telemetry data for nesting hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004; Sharma in Yemen, accounts for 33 females in Sri Lanka provided some Pilcher, 1999). percent of the nesting females. Daran information on possible foraging b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Beach, Jiwani, Pakistan, with an locations which were within the inshore estimated 371 nesting females (Waqas et waters of southern Sri Lanka and the Trawling occurs throughout much of al., 2011), and Zabargard Island, Egypt, Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, the range of the North Indian DPS and with an estimated 444 nesting females although sample size was limited has the potential to destroy bottom (Hanafy, 2012; El-Sadek et al., 2013), are (Richardson et al., 2013). Satellite habitat in these areas. Marine pollution, the only sites for which 10 or more telemetry for nesting females in Kuwait including direct contamination and years of recent data are available for verified nesting in Qaru Island. These structural habitat degradation, affects annual nesting female abundance (the turtles migrated to the shallow seas in green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. standards for representing trends in bar Saudi Arabia (Rees et al., 2013). The most dramatic example of the plot in this report). It is difficult to With regard to diversity and threats to sea turtles and their habitat ascertain any trend from these data. No resilience, the demography of green from oil pollution in the region is the sites met the standards for PVA. turtles in the North Indian DPS appears Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian Gulf in However, some other sites were to vary among nesting assemblages, 1991, which is estimated to be the examined, with caveats, as follows. suggesting a complex population largest oil spill in history at the time of Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to structuring in the North Indian DPS. the 2010 report (ABC, 2010). have increased from approximately The population is moderately dispersed In the Arabian Gulf, extensive 6,000 females nesting each year for the within the range of the North Indian seagrass beds provide important period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and Barwani, DPS, although the greatest nesting is foraging sites for green turtles within 1982) through the late 1980s concentrated in the northern and waters of Bahrain, United Arab (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989), to western region of the DPS’s range, with Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but the estimate of 16,184 nesting females, about 72 percent of the nesting these are being degraded and lost from as calculated from 21,578 nests found in concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The the continual threat of dredging, 2007 (AlKindi et al., 2008). Declines are nesting season varies widely within the siltation, and land reclamation (Pilcher, evident at Hawkes Bay and Sandspit, range of the DPS. The peak nesting 2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; Pakistan, where a mean of season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in Abdulqader, 2008; Al-Abdessalaam et approximately 1,300 nests were Gujarat, India, it is from August to al., 2008). deposited annually from 1981 to 1985 March (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and in In the waters surrounding the (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989) and Oman, nesting occurs year-round. Lakshadweep islands in India, there a mean of approximately 600 nests were exist high densities of green turtles that, B. Summary of Factors Affecting the laid from 1994 to 1997 (Asrar, 1999). At without the natural level of control from North Indian DPS Gujarat, India, 866 nests were deposited the top predators such as tiger sharks, in 1981 (Bhaskar, 1984) and 461 nests 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened can cause an increase in grazing in 2000 (Sunderraj et al., 2006); Destruction, Modification, or pressure and reduce the amount of however, because there are only two Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range healthy seagrass beds available (Kelkar data points, it is not possible to a. Terrestrial Zone et al., 2013). determine a trend. At Ras Sharma, In summary, we find that the North counts of nightly nesting females during One of the largest green turtle nesting Indian DPS of the green turtle is peak nesting season in 1966 and 1972 populations within this DPS is negatively affected by ongoing changes (30–40 females; Hirth, 1968; Hirth and concentrated on the nesting beaches of in both its terrestrial and marine Hollingsworth, 1973) versus the same Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross, 1979). Ras Al habitats as a result of land and water use index during the peak of the 1999 Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous practices. Beach and marine pollution nesting season (15 females; Saad, 1999) smaller nesting beaches south of it are are an increasing threat to this DPS. are suggestive of a decline. Again the protected from development as part of lack of multiple-year data sets for both the Ras Al Hadd Nature Reserve. 2. Factor B: Overutilization for Gujarat and Ras Sharma preclude trend However, upland light pollution is Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or assessment. negatively impacting these otherwise Educational Purposes With regard to spatial structure, only suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt, Directed take of eggs and turtles by one stock from this DPS (in Saudi USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most humans occurs at the primary green

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15305

turtle nesting beaches and in waters off persists as a threat to this DPS. The effort to strengthen participation in of Saudi Arabia (Al-Merghani et al., harvest of nesting females continues to international and regional agreements 1996; Pilcher, 2000), Yemen (K. Nasher, threaten the stability of green turtle (PERSGA, 2010). The analysis of these Sana’a University, pers. comm., 2013), populations in many areas affecting the existing regulatory mechanisms Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, DPS by reducing adult abundance and assumed that all would remain in place pers. comm., 2013), Djibouti and egg production. at their current levels. The overall Somalia (PERSGA 2001; van de Elst, 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation effectiveness and enforcement of these 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, laws varies among the countries and 2011; Witsen, 2012), Eritrea (Howe The prevalence of FP in the North relies on each country’s priorities. Often et al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam Indian DPS is not known. Predation of the enforcement of these laws is done in et al., 2009), the Islamic Republic of Iran hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (Vulpes collaboration with non-governmental (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011), India vulpes arabica) is common at the Ras al agencies such as HEPCA in the Red Sea (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and Sri Lanka Jinz, Oman green turtle nesting beach (http://www.hepca.org/). (Mendonc¸a et al., 2010), and (Rajakaruna et al., 2009; Turtle Regulatory mechanisms that address Conservation Project, 2009). Directed depredation by feral dogs has been the direct capture of green turtles are take of nesting females is also still identified as a major threat at sea turtle implemented to various degrees common at nesting beaches in Yemen nesting beaches in Pakistan (Asrar, throughout the range of the DPS with (K. Nasher, Sana’a University, pers. 1999; Firdous, 2001) and the main green some countries having no regulation in comm., 2013). In spite of wildlife turtle nesting beach at Ras Sharma place. Our Status Review reported no protection laws, green turtles are still (Stanton, 2008). On two Egyptian Red widespread regulations for the gill net killed opportunistically for food in Sea beaches (Ras Honkorab and Om Al- and trawl fisheries to address the threat Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, Abath beaches, which are both within of bycatch. The Status Review revealed pers. comm., 2013). Wadi Gimal National Park limits), Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles predation is reported to be very high a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms and the collection of turtle eggs is fairly with only a few nests surviving to address coastal development, sea widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia (Mancini, 2012). The most common level rise, and effects of climate change region of the Gulf of Aden and the Red predators observed on these two that continue to contribute to the Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an beaches in Egypt were desert foxes (V. extinction risk of this DPS. important source of subsidiary food for zerda) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade artisanal fishers (PERSGA, 2001; van de but ghost crabs were regularly observed Factors Affecting Its Continued Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, near nests as well. In Qatar, depredation Existence 2011; Witsen, 2012). Harvesting of sea of eggs and hatchlings by foxes has been turtle eggs and meat for consumption by identified as a key source of turtle a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear local communities and fishers occurs at mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets, a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe et Pilcher, 2006). Along the beaches of trawls, and longline fisheries is a al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et Gujarat in India, dogs, jackals, monitor significant cause of sea turtle mortality al., 2009); however, the pressure on lizards, crabs, crows, and possibly for the North Indian DPS, although there green turtle populations is reported to hyenas and feral pigs depredate nests are fewer bycatch data than for other be high because they are prized for their and eat hatchings (Sunderraj et al., regions of the world (Wright and meat products (Teclemariam et al., 2006). Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007; Although disease and predation are 2009). Egg harvesting has also been Bourjea et al., 2008; Abdulqader, 2010; known to occur, quantitative data are reported as a threat impacting green Wallace et al., 2010). The magnitude of turtles in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not sufficient to assess the degree of trawl, gill net, and longline fisheries with eggs being used for both impact of these threats on the within the range of the North Indian consumption (in some cases as an persistence of this DPS. DPS is great with no substantive sea aphrodisiac) and for use in traditional 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing turtle protection measures in place to medicines (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011). In spite of wildlife protection laws, Regulatory Mechanisms reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality. green turtles are still killed There are several international treaties Along the coast of Ras Al Hadd, one of opportunistically for trade in the Bay of and/or regulatory mechanisms that the densest nesting beaches of this DPS, Mannar between India and Sri Lanka pertain to the North Indian DPS, and fishery related mortality is particularly (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In nearly all countries lining the North high where green turtles are incidentally India, green turtle export was banned in Indian DPS have some level of national caught in fishing gear (Salm, 1991). the 1980s; however, subsistence legislation directed at sea turtle i. Gill Net Fisheries harvesting continues (Bhupathy and protection. The following countries Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the have laws to protect green turtles: Gill nets are widely deployed and number of green turtles killed by fishers Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, used throughout the region and known has been reported in Agatti Island, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, to kill thousands of sea turtles in some Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, regions (Project GloBAL, 2007). Two killing has been linked to increases in Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and member Indian Ocean Tuna green turtles within the area. The Yemen. In addition, at least 14 Commission parties, Iran and Kenya, perception is that green turtles damage international treaties and/or regulatory alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets fishing gear and overgraze seagrass mechanisms apply to the conservation in the Indian Ocean in 2012. In thereby reducing catch levels (Arthur of green turtles in the North Indian DPS. Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India, et al., 2013). Within the last decade, since the the most common net fisheries (i.e., gill In summary, current legal and illegal establishment of the Jeddah Convention net, shore seine, anchor net and drag collection of eggs and harvest of turtles (The Regional Convention for the nets) are known to incidentally catch throughout the range of the North Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of green turtles (Tripathy et al., 2006; Indian DPS for human consumption Aden Environment), there is more of an Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Incidental capture of sea turtles in 2001); however, no specific information Risk Assessment and Productivity— fishing nets (presumably in gill nets or about the type of pollution was Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles set nets) has been identified as the main provided. In Sri Lanka, Kapurusinghe overlapping with fisheries in the IOTC cause of mortality of juvenile green (Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that region.’’ One conclusion was that green turtles within Iranian and the United polluted inland water flows into Beira turtles account for 50 88 percent of Arab Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki, Lake and subsequently the sea, and that artisanal and commercial gill nets 2007; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008). In garbage, including polythene and bycatch. Two methods of estimating Qatar, entrapment of turtles in fishing plastics, dumped on beaches in some total bycatch were used, and resulted in nets has been identified as a key source areas is washed into the sea, where it an annual gill net bycatch estimate of of mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005). can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat, 29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC India, the increase in ports and shipping region. ii. Trawl Fisheries traffic results in problems from oil While conservation efforts for the Shrimp trawling occurs in many spills, garbage, and other pollutants North Indian DPS are extensive and countries throughout the range of the such as fertilizers and cement (Surderraj expanding, they still remain inadequate North Indian DPS including Pakistan, et al., 2006). to ensure the long-term viability of the India, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In population. Efforts have been largely e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Yemen, trawling is believed to be a focused on the nesting beaches, and Disasters significant threat to sea turtles, mainly there are only recent efforts underway to hawksbill and greens; however, no data Similar to other areas of the world, understand the extent of green turtle are available (Bourjea et al., 2008). climate change and sea level rise have interactions with gill nets and trawlers Pakistan and India require the use of the potential to affect green turtles in and the resulting cumulative effects TEDs to meet the requirements of U.S. the North Indian DPS. Effects of climate from bycatch—one of the major threats Public Law 101–162, section 609 for change include, among other things, to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify exporting shrimp to the United States, increased sea surface temperatures, the and protected critical foraging grounds but the level of compliance is unclear alteration of thermal sand is also lacking. (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. obs. 2013). characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Nowhere else within the range of the Findings for the North Indian DPS North Indian DPS are TEDs being used result in the reduction or cessation of and it can be assumed that significant male hatchling production (Hawkes et The North Indian DPS has a high level sea turtle bycatch occurs. One al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and of green turtle nesting abundance with documented assessment of the impact of a significant rise in sea level, which two of the largest nesting assemblages of trawling on sea turtles in this region is could significantly restrict green turtle green turtles in the world nesting in from Bahrain where trawls were nesting habitat. In addition, cyclones Yemen and Oman. The North Indian reported to capture over 300 sea turtles such as those occurring in consecutive DPS also has expansive, largely annually, mostly greens (Abdulqader years in 1998 and 1999 in Kachchch, undeveloped nesting beaches, and many and Miller, 2012; Abdulqader, 2010). India, cause severe erosion of the of these beaches are protected from nesting beach (Surderraj et al., 2006) development as nationally designated b. Vessel Strikes and, when combined with the effects of reserves or protected areas, although Boat strikes have been identified as a sea level rise, may have increased threats still remain. The North Indian major cause of sea turtle mortality in the cumulative impacts in the future. While DPS also features extensive coastal United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam sea turtles have survived past eras that seagrass beds distributed throughout the et al., 2008) and Qatar (Al-Muraikhi et have included significant temperature region, which provide abundant al., 2005). Boat strikes of sea turtles also fluctuations, future climate change is foraging grounds for this species. have been identified as a regular expected to happen at unprecedented Nesting beaches are distributed broadly occurrence in Iran and seem to be rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly throughout the region. increasing in some areas (Mobaraki, they may face local to widespread Coastal development, beachfront 2011). Boat strikes are undoubtedly a extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). lighting, fishing practices, and marine regular occurrence throughout the Impacts from global climate change pollution at nesting beaches and Arabian Gulf and other important green induced by human activities are likely important foraging grounds are turtle foraging grounds within the range to become more apparent in future years continuing concerns across the DPS. of the North Indian DPS and, (IPCC, 2007). Current illegal harvest of green turtles cumulatively, are likely significant, but Within Factor E, we find that fishery and eggs for human consumption is a quantification is lacking. bycatch (longline, gill net, and trawl continuing but limited threat to this fishing) occurs throughout the range of DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout c. Beach Driving the DPS and is a significant threat to the North Indian DPS, particularly Beach driving by fishers who haul this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel bycatch mortality of green turtles from and launch boats from Ras al Jinz beach strikes, climate change and natural gill nets and trawl fisheries, and the in Oman is highly problematic, and disasters are expected to be an cumulative mortality from these hatchling turtles are likely being caught increasing threat to the persistence of fisheries is probably the greatest threat in ruts, struck or run over. However, no this DPS. to this DPS. Additional threats from assessment has been conducted to boat strikes, which are becoming more C. Conservation Efforts for the North determine the extent of impacts on common, and expected impacts of Indian DPS nesting turtles and hatchlings (E. climate change, will negatively affect Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its this DPS. 31 contracting Parties to report sea turtle Conservation efforts are substantial d. Pollution bycatch and to use safe handling and but uneven in the range of the North Pollution has been identified as a release techniques for sea turtles on Indian DPS and focused almost entirely main threat to sea turtles in Iran longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA on nesting beaches. The ability for some (Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous, also recently completed an ‘‘Ecological countries to sustain or develop needed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15307

conservation programs in the context of Bastinal pers. comm., 2011); Ningaloo, Tagging and tracking studies have political instability within the region is North West Cape, Australia (6,269; been geared to studying internesting of concern. Further, our analysis did not Prince, 2003; Markovina, 2008; Bool et migrations, and defining the range of consider the scenario in which current al., 2009; Gourlay et al., 2010; Kelliher internesting habitats and post-nesting laws or regulatory mechanisms were not et al., 2011); Baguan Island, Philippines migrations. Green turtles that were continued. Given the conservation (5,874; Pawikan Conservation Project, satellite tracked from Pulau Redang, dependence of the species, without 2013); and Pangumbahan, Indonesia Terengganu indicate migrations to the mechanisms in place to continue (5,199; Muhara and Herlina, 2012). South China Sea and Sulu Sea areas conservation efforts in this DPS, some Seven sites have 1,001–5,000 nesting (Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported threats could increase and population females: Sangalaki (2,740; Reischig et movements of eight post-nesting green trends could be affected. al., 2012), Enu (2,048; Dethmers, 2010), turtles from Wan-An Island, Taiwan that For the above reasons, we propose to Mataha (1,652; Reischig et al., 2012), were satellite tracked, and which list the North Indian DPS as threatened. and Belambangan Island, Indonesia distributed widely on the continental We do not find the DPS to be in danger (1,736; Dermawan, 2002); Terranganu shelf to the east of mainland China. of extinction presently because of high (1,875; Chan, 2010) and Sarawak Turtle Satellite telemetry studies conducted nesting abundance in protected areas; Island, Malaysia (1,155; Groombridge from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the however, the continued threats are and Luxmoore, 1989; Chan 2006; Chan, green turtles nesting at Taipin Tao are likely to endanger the DPS within the 2010); and Lihiman, Philippines (1,217; a shared natural resource among the foreseeable future. Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013). nations in the southern South China Eight sites have 501–1,000 nesting Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS females, 30 have <500 nesting females, same area travelled long distances in a A. Discussion of Population Parameters and seven are unquantified. post-nesting migration, ending in the for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS Green turtle populations within the Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the range of the East Indian-West Pacific Malaysia Peninsula with distances that The western boundary for the range of ranged from 456 to 2,823 km the East Indian–West Pacific DPS is 84° DPS have experienced apparent ° declines at some nesting sites, and (Charuchinda et al., 2002) and in the E. longitude from 40 S. to where it coastal region of Japan (Wang, 2006). coincides with India near Odisha, increases at others in the past several decades. For instance, in Southeast Waayers and Fitzpatrick (2013) found northeast along the shoreline and into that in the Kimberly region of Australia, the West Pacific Ocean to include Asia, data suggest that populations have ° ° declined in the Gulf of Thailand, the green turtle appears to have a broad Taiwan extending east at 41 N. to 146 migration distribution and numerous E. longitude, south and west to 4.5° N., Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru ° Betiri National Park, Pangumbahan, potential foraging areas. 129 E., then south and east to West Mixed stock analysis of foraging Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu Papua in Indonesia and the Torres grounds shows that green turtles from Island, all in Indonesia, although the Straits in Australia. The southern multiple nesting beach origins ° lack of recent and/or multiple year data boundary is 40 S. latitude, commonly mix at feeding areas in prevents an assessment of the current encompassing the Gulf of Carpentaria foraging grounds across northern trends at these sites. At Sipadan, (Figure 2). Australia (Dethmers et al., 2010) and Green turtle nesting is widely Sarawak and Terengganu in Malaysia, Malaysia (Jensen, 2010) with higher dispersed throughout the range of the nesting appears to be stable, although contributions from nearby large nesting East Indian–West Pacific DPS, with Terengganu might be decreasing. sites. There is evidence of low important nesting sites occurring in Nesting has remained stable in the frequency contribution from nesting Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia Philippine Turtle Islands and may have sites outside the range of the DPS at (Sabah and Sarawak Turtle Islands), increased at the Sabah Turtle Islands, some foraging areas. Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are The demography of green turtles in Turtle Islands. The in-water range of the not sufficient to draw any conclusions the East Indian-West Pacific DPS varies East Indian-West Pacific DPS is regarding long-term trends, although throughout the nesting assemblages. similarly widespread with shared these sites, together with the Wellesley This variation in parameters such as foraging sites throughout the range of Group in Northern Australia (the largest mean nesting size, remigration interval, the DPS. The largest nesting site lies nesting site), may constitute the most internesting interval, clutch size, within Northern Australia, which important green turtle nesting hatching success, and clutch frequency supports approximately 25,000 nesting concentration in the Indian Ocean. suggests a high level of population females (Limpus, 2009). Nonetheless, When examining spatial structure for structuring in this DPS. populations are substantially depleted the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the With regard to diversity and from historical levels. SRT examined three lines of evidence: resilience, nesting and foraging areas are There are 58 known nesting sites, genetic data, flipper and satellite widespread within the range of this although we note that the nesting female tagging, and demographic data. Genetic DPS, providing a level of population estimates for many of these sites are sampling in the East Indian-West Pacific resilience through habitat diversity. The over a decade old. The largest, DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites. nesting season varies throughout the Wellesley Group, lies in northern There appears to be a complex range of the DPS, with nesting from June Australia and supports approximately population structure, even though there to August in the inner Gulf of Thailand, 25,000 nesting females (EPA are gaps in sampling relative to peak nesting from March to July on Queensland Turtle Conservation Project distribution. Overall, this region is Derawan Island (Charuchinda and unpublished data cited in Limpus, dominated by a few common and Monanunsap, 1998; Abe et al., 2003; 2009). Five sites have 5,001–10,000 widespread haplotypes and has varying Aureggi et al., 2004; Adnyana et al., nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan, levels of spatial structure characterized 2008), year-round nesting in Thameela Indonesia (7,156; Reischig et al., 2012); by the presence of rare/unique Island, Myanmar and Aru, Indonesia Sabah Turtle Island Park, Malaysia haplotypes at most nesting sites. There (although peaking from November to (7,011; de Silva, 1982; Basintal, 2002; P. is significant population substructuring. March; (Dethmers, 2010; Lwin, 2009),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

and peak nesting from November to b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). March in Aru, Indonesia (Dethmers, Green turtles forage in the seagrass On St. Martins Island, Bangladesh, over- 2010), Sukamade, southeastern Java beds around the Andaman and Nicobar exploitation has brought the nesting (Arinal, 1997), Barrow Island, and Islands in India. Some of these seagrass turtles to near extinction (Hasan, 2009). western Australia (Pendoley, 2005). beds in the South Andaman group are Nesting females continue to be killed in Nesting occurs on both insular and no longer viable foraging habitat countries within Southeast Asia and the continental sites, yielding a degree of because of siltation and degradation due Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001; Fretey, nesting diversity. Limited information to waste disposal, a byproduct of the 2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial declines in green turtle nesting also suggests that there are two types of rapid increase in tourism (Andrews, numbers, egg harvest remains legal in nesting females within the DPS: Those 2000). Green turtles that forage off the several of the countries within the range with high site fidelity which nest waters of the Bay of Bengal in south of this DPS. Some countries have regularly at one site, such as the Sabah Bangladesh also face depleted foraging protections in place; however, harvest Turtle Islands; and those with low site habitat from divers collecting seagrass fidelity such as at Ishigaki Island which continues due to lack of enforcement. for commercial purposes and by In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries select different nesting sites allowing for anchoring of commercial ships, ferries, increased diversity and resilience for are set up to protect a portion of the and boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001). eggs. However, these hatcheries retain the DPS (Basintal, 2002; Abe et al., In the nearshore waters of Thailand, 2003). hatchlings for several days for tourism seagrass beds are partially protected purposes, thus reducing the likelihood B. Summary of Factors Affecting the since fishing gear such as trawls are of hatchling survival (Charuchinda et East Indian-West Pacific DPS prohibited (Charuchinda et al., 2002). In al., 2002). the waters surrounding the islands of 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Turtle nesting numbers have Togean and Banggai in Indonesia, the decreased in peninsular Malaysia and Destruction, Modification, or use of dynamite and potassium cyanide Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range the Philippines due to more than 40 are common, and this type of fishing years of overharvesting of eggs and a. Terrestrial Zone method destroys green turtle foraging females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva, habitat (Surjadi and Anwar, 2001). 1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz, 2002). In In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, Seagrass beds are found throughout the majority of green turtle nesting order to provide some protection for the nearshore areas of Vietnam’s turtles, all three Sabah Turtle Islands beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting mainland coast and islands (Ministry of habitat is degraded due to a variety of were acquired and protected by the Fisheries, 2003). Destructive fishing Sabah State Government in the 1970s human activities largely related to practices have been and possibly tourism. Coastal development and (de Silva, 1982). After more than 20 continue to be a major threat to this years of conservation efforts (1970– associated artificial lighting, sand habitat in 21 of Vietnam’s 29 provinces mining, and marine debris affect the 1990), the population had still not (Asia Development Bank, 1999 as cited shown signs of recovery (Limpus et al., amount and quality of habitat that is in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and available to nesting green turtles. 2001). in the waters of Indonesia (Cruz, 2002; Local islanders in Indonesia have However, there are sanctuaries and Dethmers, 2010). Although these traditionally considered turtles, parks throughout the region where nests destructive fishing practices are especially green turtles, as part of their are protected to various degrees. prohibited by legislation passed in 1989, diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-Soede, 2004 as Most of the beaches in Vietnam have enforcement may not be sufficient to cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg a large amount of marine debris, which prevent these practices from occurring. harvesting continues, but there is an includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes, Green turtle foraging habitat is under increased effort to fully protect green floats, nets, and light bulbs. This debris increased threat from decreased water turtles from harvest on the islands of can entrap turtles and impede nesting quality through river run-off and Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in activity. development (Ministry of Fisheries, Indonesia (Reischig et al., 2012). In Australia, the majority of green 2003). Despite legal protections for sea turtle nesting along the beaches of the In summary, within Factor A, we find turtles, at-sea poaching of turtles is a Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the that coastal development, beachfront continuing problem in Southeast Asia, protection of the National Park. Other lighting, erosion resulting from sand especially by Hainanese and Vietnamese minor nesting sites lie within the mining, and sea level rise, are a vessels. The poaching occurs in a wide- protected lands of the Indigenous significant threat to a large portion of ranging area of the region, and has Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In this DPS. The extent of fishing practices, moved as turtle stocks have been Western Australia, the impacts to depleted seagrass beds, and marine depleted, with vessels being nesting and hatchling green turtles by pollution is broad with high levels apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia, independent turtle watchers as well as occurring in waters where high numbers and the Philippines (Pilcher et al., 2009 off-road vehicles has increased in the of green turtles are known to forage and as cited in Lam et al., 2011). Ningaloo region as the number of migrate are significant threats to the In Australia, green turtles are visitors has increased over the years persistence of this DPS. harvested by Aboriginal and Torres (Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and Strait Islanders for subsistence hatchlings are routinely disturbed by 2. Factor B: Overutilization for purposes. There is a widespread use of people with their cars and flashlights Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or motorized aluminum boats in contrast (Kelliher et al., 2011). Burn-off flares Educational Purposes to the traditional dugout canoes associated with oil and gas production The green turtle populations within powered by paddles or sail. The total on the Northwest shelf of Australia are this DPS have been declining harvest of green turtles by indigenous in sufficiently close proximity to the throughout their range. Populations people across northern and Western green turtle nesting beaches to possibly throughout Asia have been depleted by Australia is probably several thousand cause hatchling disorientation long-term harvests of eggs and adults, annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and (Pendoley, 2000) and by by-catch in the ever-growing Lyle, 2003 as cited in Limpus, 2009).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15309

The indigenous harvest of eggs may be dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and governmental entities in the East Indian- unsustainable in northeast Arnhem weasels (Mustela itatsi) are a threat to West Pacific DPS are currently working Land (Kennett and Yunupingu, 1998). nests (Kamezaki et al., 2003). In Taiwan, toward reducing green turtle bycatch as Current legal and illegal collection of snakes predate the nests (Cheng et al., well as egg and turtle harvest, it is eggs and harvest of turtles occur 2009). On the North West Cape and the unlikely that this source of mortality throughout the East Indian-West Pacific beaches of the Ningaloo coast of can be sufficiently reduced across the DPS and persists as a significant threat mainland Australia, a long established range of the DPS in the near future. This to this DPS. The harvest of nesting feral European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is due to the lack of bycatch reduction females continues to threaten the population historically preyed heavily in commercial and artisanal fisheries stability of green turtle populations in on eggs and is thought to be responsible operating within the range of this DPS, many areas affecting the DPS by for the lower numbers of nesting turtles the lack of comprehensive information reducing adult abundance and reducing on the mainland beaches (Baldwin et on fishing distribution and effort, egg production. al., 2003; Kelliher et al., 2011). limitations on implementing Although disease and predation are 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation demonstrated effective conservation known to occur, quantitative data are measures, geopolitical complexities, FP has been found in green turtles in not sufficient to assess the degree of limitations on enforcement capacity, Indonesia (Adnyana et al., 1997), Japan impact of these threats on the and lack of availability of (Y. Matsuzawa, Japanese Sea Turtle persistence of this DPS. comprehensive bycatch reduction Association, pers. comm., 2004), the technologies. Beaches and in-water Philippines (Nalo-Ochona, 2000), 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms habitat throughout the range of the DPS Western Australia (Raidal and Prince, are under various levels of protection, 1996; Aguirre and Lutz, 2004), and on Although conservation efforts to depending in part on the clarity of PhuQuoc in Vietnam (Ministry of protect some nesting beaches and regulations and consistency of funding Fisheries, 2003). Epidemiological marine habitat are underway, more for enforcement. studies indicate rising incidence of this widespread and consistent protection is In summary, although regulatory disease (George, 1997), thus the above needed. There are at least 16 national mechanisms are in place that should list will likely grow in the future. and international treaties and/or address direct and incidental take of The best available data suggest that regulatory mechanisms that pertain to green turtles within this DPS, these current nest and hatchling predation on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. The regulatory mechanisms are not the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is analysis of these existing regulatory implemented throughout the range of prevalent and may be an increasing mechanisms assumed that all would this DPS. These mechanisms are not threat without nest protection and remain in place at their current levels. sufficiently implemented to address the predatory control programs in place. The following countries have laws to direct harvest of green turtles and are Depredation of nests by feral animals is protect green turtles: Australia, insufficient to address the major threat also widespread in many South Asian Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, areas (Sunderraj et al., 2001; Islam, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, of bycatch which remains a significant 2002). Nest predation by feral pigs and Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, risk to this DPS. dogs is a major threat on the Andaman Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade and Nicobar Islands of India (Fatima et Vietnam. In addition, at least 17 Factors Affecting its Continued al., 2011). Monitor lizards are also a international treaties and/or regulatory Existence significant and widespread predator in mechanisms apply to the conservation a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear some areas (Andrews et al., 2006). Dog of green turtles in the East Indian-West predation is a major threat to the green Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory Incidental capture in artisanal and turtle nests on Sonadia Island in mechanisms, including laws and commercial fisheries is a significant Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011). Jackals, international treaties, are not realizing threat to the survival of green turtles in foxes, wild boars, and monitor lizards their full potential because they are not the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Green also predate green turtle nests and enforced, or do not apply in all turtles may be caught in drift and set gill hatchlings along the beaches of countries occupied by the DPS. nets, bottom and mid-water trawling, Bangladesh, and dogs also kill or injure Regulatory mechanisms are in place fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, nesting females in Bangladesh (Andrews throughout the range of the DPS that and haul and purse seines. et al., 2006). Lizards and ghost crabs are address the direct capture of green Bycatch in fisheries using gears such the natural predators of green turtle turtles for most of the countries within as trawlers, drift nets, and purse seines nests in Thailand (Chantrapornsyl, this DPS. These are implemented to is thought to be one of the main causes 1993). In Malaysia, crabs (Ocypode spp.) various degrees throughout the range of of decline in the green turtle population predate green turtle eggs (Ali and the DPS. There are some national in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid Ibrahim, 2000), and gold-ringed cat regulations within this DPS that expansion of fishing operations is snakes or mangrove snakes specially address the harvest of green largely responsible for the increase in (Boigadendrophila), (Asiatic) reticulated turtles, while a few regulations are adult turtle mortality due to bycatch pythons (Python reticulatus), monitor limited in that they only apply to (Settle, 1995). The most used fishing lizards (Varanus sp.), and house mice certain size classes, or times of year, or gears in the waters of Thailand are (Mus musculus) predate hatchlings allowed for traditional use. trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy (Hendrickson, 1958). Monitor lizards, Fishery bycatch throughout the range fishing is the main threat to foraging sea crabs, and ants predate eggs and of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS (see turtles (Chan et al., 1988; hatchlings on the beaches of Vietnam Factor E), as well as anthropogenic Chantrapornsyl, 1993; Liew, 2002). (as cited in ‘‘Sea Turtle Migration- threats to nesting beaches and foraging Gill nets and set bag nets are the two Tracking and Coastal Habitat Education grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and major fishing gears used in the Bay of Program—An Educator’s Guide’’ http:// foraging (Factors A, B, C, and E), are Bengal, and green turtles are likely www.ioseaturtles.org/Education/ substantial. Although national and captured during these fishing operations seaturtlebooklet.pdf). In Japan, raccoon international governmental and non- (Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

coast of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, (iron, manganese, zinc, copper, lead, the region to protect a portion of the the main type of fishery is gill nets and nickel, cadmium, cobalt, and mercury) eggs laid and prevent complete egg purse seines with thousands of turtles and other trace elements were found in harvesting. In addition, bycatch killed annually by fisheries operations liver, kidney, and muscle tissues of reduction efforts have been made in including the shark fishery (Chandi et green turtles collected from Yaeyama some areas, protected areas are al., 2012; Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In Islands, Okinawa, Japan (Anan et al., established throughout the region, and 1994, Bhaskar estimated at least 600 2001). The accumulation of cadmium monitoring, outreach and enforcement green turtles were killed as a result of found in the green turtles is likely due efforts have made progress in sea turtle the shark fishery in this area. Over the to accumulations of this heavy metal in conservation. Despite these last decade, there has been an increase the plant materials on which they forage conservation efforts, considerable in the large predator fishing industry. (Sakai et al., 2000). uncertainty in the status of this DPS lies Green turtle mortality can be expected In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, with inadequate efforts to measure to be much higher than that estimated discarded fishing nets have been found bycatch in the region, a short time-series in the 1990s as a result of these current to cause a high number of turtle deaths of monitoring on nesting beaches, and operations (Namboothri et al., 2012). with the majority being green turtles missing vital rates data necessary for Trawl fishing is also common in (Chatto et al., 1995). population assessments. Bangladesh. No green turtle stranding In India, since 1978, the Centre for c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural information is available to determine Herpetology/Madras Crocodile Bank Disasters the fishery threat level to the green Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys turtle population; however, it is Effects of climate change include, and studies in the islands. In a bilateral expected to be high as TEDs are not among other things, increased sea agreement, the Governments of the used and the population has declined surface temperatures, the alteration of Philippines and Malaysia established (Ahmed et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2006). thermal sand characteristics of beaches The Turtle Island Heritage Protected On the Turtle Islands in the Philippines, (from warming temperatures), which Area (TIHPA), made up of nine islands there have been an increased number of could result in the reduction or (six in the Philippines and three in dead turtles as a result of fishing cessation of male hatchling production Malaysia). The TIHPA is one of the activities, such as shrimp trawlers and (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., world’s major nesting grounds for green demersal nets (Cruz, 2002). 2009), and a significant rise in sea level, turtles. Management of the TIHPA is One of the main threats to green which could significantly restrict green shared by both countries. One of the turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia is the turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia’s incidental capture from gill and trawl have survived past eras that have Dirk Hartog Island, is part of the Shark nets and the opportunistic capture by included significant temperature Bay World Heritage Area and recently fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are fluctuations, future climate change is became part of Australia’s National Park captured by fisheries per year in expected to happen at unprecedented System. This designation may facilitate Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003; rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly monitoring of nesting beaches and Hamann et al., 2006a; Dethmers, 2010). they may face local to widespread enforcement of prohibitions on direct In Indonesia, green turtles were extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). take of green turtles and their eggs. recorded as one of the main species Impacts from global climate change Conservation efforts on nesting beaches caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl induced by human activities are likely have included invasive predator control. gear is still allowed in the Arafura Sea, to become more apparent in future years Illegal trade of turtle parts continues posing a major threat to green turtles (IPCC, 2007). to be a problem in the East Indian-West (Dethmers, 2010). Shrimp trawl captures Natural environmental events, such as Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this in Indonesia are high because of the cyclones and hurricanes, may affect threat, the Vietnamese Government, limited use of TEDs (Zainudin et al., green turtles in the East Indian-West with assistance from IUCN, WWF, 2008). Pacific DPS. Typhoons have been TRAFFIC and the Danish Government, The estimated bycatch of the Japanese shown to cause severe beach erosion formulated a Marine Turtle large-mesh drift net fishery in the North and negatively affect hatching success at Conservation Action Plan in 2010 to Pacific Ocean in 1990–1991 was 1,501 green turtle nesting beaches in Japan, expand awareness to fishers and turtles, of which 248 were estimated to especially in areas already prone to enforcement officers, and to confiscate be green turtles (Wetherall et al., 1993). erosion. sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009; Wetherall et al. (1993) report that the In summary, within Factor E, we find Ministry of Fisheries 2010). The level of actual mortality of sea turtles taken in that fishery bycatch, particularly from effectiveness and progress of this the Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur program is not known. fisheries may have been between 2,500 throughout the East Indian-West Pacific TEDs are now in use in Thailand, and 9,000 per year. DPS, with localized high levels of Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia mortality in waters where juvenile to and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of b. Marine Debris and Pollution adult turtles are known to forage and the South East Asian Fisheries Pollution from oil spills, as well as migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS. Development Center (Food and from agricultural and organic chemicals, In addition, vessel collisions, marine Agriculture Organization of the United is a major threat to the waters used by pollution, changes likely to result from Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs green turtles in the Bay of Bengal climate change, and natural disasters are in the Northern Australian Prawn (Sarkar, 2001). The result of human expected to be an increasing threat to Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to population growth in China has been an the persistence of this DPS. the use of TEDs, this fishery took increased amount of pollutants in the between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as coastal system. Discharges from C. Conservation Efforts for the East bycatch annually, with a mortality rate untreated sewage have occurred in Indian-West Pacific DPS estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and Xisha Archipelago (Li et al., 2004 as There are numerous ongoing Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use cited in Chan et al., 2007). conservation efforts in this region. of TEDs has been in effect, the annual Concentrations of nine heavy metals Hatcheries have been set up throughout bycatch of sea turtles in the Northern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15311

Australian Prawn Fishery has dropped For the above reasons, we propose to the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle to fewer than 200 sea turtles per year, list the East Indian-West Pacific DPS as surveys show that an in-water with a mortality rate of approximately threatened. We do not find the DPS to population exists around Guam 22 percent (based on recent years). be in danger of extinction presently (Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Initial progress has been made to because of high nesting abundance and Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle measure the threat of incidental capture geographically widespread nesting at a density in the Marianas Archipelago is of sea turtles in other artisanal and diversity of sites; however, the low and mostly restricted to juveniles commercial fisheries in the Southeast continued threats are likely to endanger (Pultz et al., 1999; Kolinski et al., 2005; Indo-Pacific Ocean (Lewison et al., the DPS within the foreseeable future. Kolinski et al., 2006; Palacios, 2012a). 2004; Limpus, 2009); however, the data In-water information in this DPS overall remain inadequate for population XIII. Central West Pacific DPS is particularly limited. assessments. A. Discussion of Population Parameters There is insufficient long-term and As in other DPSs, persistent marine for the Central West Pacific DPS standardized monitoring information to debris poses entanglement and ingestion adequately describe abundance and The range of the Central West Pacific hazards to green turtles. In 2009, population trends for many areas of the DPS has a northern boundary of 41° N. Australia’s Department of the ° ° Central West Pacific DPS. The available Environment, Water, Heritage and the latitude and is bounded by 41 N., 169 information suggests a nesting Arts published a threat abatement plan E. in the northeast corner, going population decrease in some portions of southeast to 9° N., 175° W., then for the impacts of marine debris on ° ° the DPS like the Marshall Islands, or vertebrate marine life (http:// southwest to 13 S., 171 E., west and unknown trends in other areas such as www.environment.gov.au/system/files/ slightly north to the eastern tip of Papua Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Marianas, resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4- New Guinea, along the northern shore of Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison et the Island of New Guinea to West Papua 914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threat- ° ° al., 2010). There is only one site for abatement-plan.pdf). in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5 N., 129 which 15 or more years of recent data E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then are available for annual nesting female D. Extinction Risk Assessment and ° ° north to 41 N., 146 E. It encompasses abundance, one of the standards for Findings for the East Indian-West the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM, performing a PVA. This is at Chichijima, Pacific DPS New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Japan, one of the major green turtle The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a portion nesting concentrations in Japan characterized by a relatively large of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2). (Horikoshi et al.,1994). Although the geographic area with widespread Green turtle nesting occurs at low PVA has limitations, it shows a nesting reported in 58 different levels throughout the geographic continuing upward trend for the locations throughout the range of the distribution of the DPS (approximately population. The population has DPS. Although the numerous nesting 51 sites), with isolated locations having increased in abundance from a mean of sites have relatively high abundance of higher nesting activity. Only two approximately 100 annual nesting nesting females, decades of harvesting populations are known to have >1,000 females in the late 1970s/early 1980s to and habitat degradation have led to a nesting turtles, with all the rest having a mean of approximately 500 annual drastic decline in the sea turtle fewer than 400 nesting females, for a nesting females since 2000. Chaloupka populations within this DPS in the last total number of known nesting females et al. (2008a) reports an estimated century. Population trends at many of of approximately 6,500. The highest annual population growth rate of 6.8 the higher abundance rookeries are numbers of females nesting in this DPS percent per year for the Chichijima decreasing, though there appears to be are located in Gielop and Iar Island, nesting site. an increasing trend on Sabah in Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated States of With regard to spatial structure, Malaysia and on Baguan in the Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent genetic sampling in the Central West Philippines, presumably due to effective of the population 2013); Chichijima Pacific has recently improved, but conservation efforts. (1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara, remains challenging given the large Continued harvest, coastal Japan; Bikar Atoll, Marshall Islands number of small islands and atoll development, beachfront lighting, (300); and Merir Island, Palau (441; nesting sites. Stock structure analysis erosion, fishing practices, and marine (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Bureau of indicated that nesting sites separated by pollution both at nesting beaches and Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; more than 1,000 km were significantly important foraging grounds are all Palau Bureau of Marine Resources, differentiated from each other while continuing concerns across the range of 2008; Maison et al., 2010; H. Suganuma, neighboring nesting sites within 500 km the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm., showed no genetic differentiation human consumption continues as a high 2012; J. Cruce, Ocean Society, pers. (Dutton et al., 2014). Based on mtDNA threat to this East Indian-West Pacific comm., 2013). There are numerous other analyses, there are four independent DPS. Coastal development, largely due populations in the FSM, Solomon stocks within the DPS (Dethmers et al. to tourism, is an increasing threat in Islands, Palau, Guam, and the CNMI. 2006; Jensen 2010; Dutton et al. 2014). many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs Historical baseline nesting information With respect to tagging and telemetry, throughout the range of the DPS, in general is not widely available in this there are records of turtles flipper tagged particularly bycatch mortality of green region, but exploitation and trade of in the Philippines nesting in the FSM; turtles from pelagic longline, set net, green turtles throughout the region is a turtle tagged in Japan was recorded and trawl fisheries. Additional threats well-known (Groombridge and nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the due to climate change, such as loss of Luxmoore, 1989). Japan Archipelago and China were habitat due to sea level rise and Green turtles departing nesting recorded nesting in the Ogasawara increased ratio of female to male turtles, grounds within the range of this DPS islands (Suganuma, pers. comm., negatively impact this DPS. travel throughout the western Pacific Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting Conservation efforts have been effective Ocean. Green turtles are found in Nature of Asia, unpublished data); and in a few areas but are lacking or not coastal waters in low to moderate turtles tagged in the FSM were effective in most. densities at foraging areas throughout recaptured in the Philippines, Marshall

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Islands, and Papua New Guinea (Palau along the coastline, particularly when it increased aborted nesting attempts BMR, 2008; Cruce, 2009). Satellite is associated with a sandy beach. For (Ishizaki et al., 2011). telemetry shows that nesting females instance, construction (and associated b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones migrate to areas both within and outside lighting) on the islands of Saipan, of the range of the Central West Pacific Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is Fishing methods not only incidentally DPS. For example, satellite tracks show occurring at a rapid rate in some areas capture green turtles and destroy bottom turtles moving from the Mariana Islands and is resulting in loss or degradation of habitat (including seagrasses) but may to the Philippines and Japan, and others green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and also deplete invertebrate and fish moving from the Chichijima Islands of USFWS, 1998). populations and thus alter ecosystem Ogasawara to the main islands of Japan In the FSM, construction of houses dynamics. Dynamite fishing occurs in (Hatase et al., 2006; Japan Fisheries and pig pens on Oroluk beaches in the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Resource Conservation Association, Pohnpei State interferes with turtle Government of the Federated States of 1999). Green turtles have also been nesting by creating barriers to nesting Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall shown to move from the FSM to the habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Islands (Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005). Philippines and to the west (G. Balazs, Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish NMFS, unpublished data; Kolinski, et destruction is also a major threat to poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea, al., unpublished data.) Guam turtles and has resulted mainly although these practices are small scale Demographic data availability is from construction and development due and relatively isolated (Berdach and limited and somewhat variable for many to increased tourism (NMFS and Mandeakali, 2004). Coral reefs and nesting sites in the range of this DPS. USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a). seagrass beds within the urban centers Variability in parameters such as Coastal construction is a moderate of the four states of the FSM (Pohnpei, remigration interval, clutch size, problem on Majuro Atoll in the Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and hatching success, and clutch frequency Republic of the Marshall Islands (NMFS USFWS, 1998) and Saipan have been reported as being degraded by hotels, is not separated out regionally within and USFWS, 1998); however, it is golf courses, and general tourist the DPS and, therefore, does not unknown to what extent nesting activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b), necessarily suggest a high level of beaches are being affected. On the outer presumably as a result of runoff and population structuring. atolls of the Marshall Islands, beach other impacts. Coastal development in With regard to diversity and erosion has been aggravated by airfield Guam has resulted in sedimentation, resilience, the overall range of the DPS and dock development, and by urban which has damaged Guam’s coral reefs is relatively widespread, which lends development on Majuro and Kwajalein and, presumably, food sources for some resilience. However, nesting Atolls. In the Republic of Palau, turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral generally occurs at what appear to be increasing nesting habitat degradation low numbers, except in several reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon from tourism and coastal development shoreline of the Kwajalein Atoll islands locations, and only on islands and atolls has been identified as a threat to sea throughout the range of the DPS. and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008; coastal construction, dredging, boat Nesting information is limited for some Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although areas, but occurs from November to anchoring, and/or eutrophication from the extent and significance of the sewage and runoff from landfills, grave August in Palau; from March through impacts are unknown. September in the FSM; and May to sites, and pig and chicken pens (NMFS Also in the CNMI, the majority of the August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some and USFWS, 1998; Hay and Sablan- nesting beaches on Tinian are on turtles travel outside the bounds of the Zebedy, 2005). military-leased land, where the range of this DPS, into the East Indian/ Dredging and filling as well as sand potential for construction impacts exists West Pacific DPS presumably to forage. extraction have contributed to changes (CNMI Coastal Resources Management to longshore processes and coastal B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Office, 2011). Increased public use of erosion in the Marshall Islands, FSM, Central West Pacific DPS nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle Kiribati’s Gilbert Islands chain, and nesting habitat throughout the CNMI. 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Palau (Smith et al., 1997; NMFS and Public use of beaches includes a variety Destruction, Modification, or USFWS, 1998; Government of the of recreational activities, including Curtailment of its Habitat or Range Federated States of Micronesia, 2004; picnicking, swimming, surfing, playing Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; Pacific a. Terrestrial Zone sports, scuba diving and snorkeling News Center, 2012). In the Central West Pacific Ocean, access (CNMI Coastal Resources Marine pollution, including direct some nesting beaches have become Management Office, 2011). Beach contamination and structural habitat severely degraded from a variety of driving is a pastime on Saipan and degradation, can affect green turtle activities. Destruction and modification could threaten green turtle nesting neritic and oceanic habitat. In Palau, of green turtle nesting habitat results habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; environmental contamination in the from coastal development and Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012). form of sewage effluent is a problem construction, placement of barriers to Expected U.S. military expansion around Koror State, particularly Malakal nesting, beachfront lighting, vehicular plans for this region are likely to Harbor, and nearby urban areas (NMFS and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, include relocation of thousands of and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon beach erosion, beach pollution, removal military personnel to Guam and Islands, sewage discharges from land of native vegetation, and presence of increased training exercises in the CNMI and discharges of garbage, bilge water, non-native vegetation. (CNMI Coastal Resources Management and other pollutants from ships have Human populations are growing Office, 2011). been identified as sources of pollution rapidly in many areas of the insular In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, to the coastal and marine environments Pacific and this expansion is exerting nighttime tourist and resident activity (Solomon Islands Ministry of increased pressure on limited island on beaches to view and photograph Environment Conservation and resources. The most valuable land on nesting turtles is a problem, resulting in Meteorology, 2008). Land-based most Pacific islands is often located harassment of nesting turtles and activities, including logging, plantation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15313

development, and mining, often cause 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation cutters and dehookers to release turtles. excessive sedimentation of nearshore The potential effects of FP and However, enforcement mechanisms are waters (Sulu et al., 2000). endoparasites also exist for green turtles not explicit, and the level of compliance Environmental contamination was found in the Central West Pacific Ocean, is uncertain. identified as a minor problem in the but the impacts to the population are Additional regulatory mechanisms are Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and unknown. not in place in many countries within USFWS, 1998) and around Wake Island The loss of eggs to non-human this DPS to address the major threat of (Defense Environmental Network and predators is a severe problem in some bycatch within this DPS. It is unlikely Information Exchange, undated). areas. These predators include domestic that bycatch mortality can be Rudrud et al. (2007) found that there is animals, such as cats, dogs, and pigs, as sufficiently reduced across the range of a high probability of green turtles being well as wild species such as rats, the DPS in the near future because of exposed to toxicants remaining in the mongoose, birds, monitor lizards, the diversity and magnitude of the Marshall Islands from past wars and snakes, and crabs, ants, and other fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack weapons testing (e.g., foraging on algae invertebrates (Suganuma et al., 1996; of comprehensive information on growing on toxic surfaces, resting near NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Maturbongs, fishing distribution and effort, irradiated shipwrecks). 2000; Cummings, 2002; Wilson et al., limitations on implementing In summary, we find that the Central 2004; Cruce, 2008). demonstrated effective conservation West Pacific DPS of the green turtle is Although disease and predation are measures, geopolitical complexities, negatively affected by ongoing changes known to occur, quantitative data are limitations on enforcement capacity, in both its terrestrial and marine not sufficient to assess the degree of and lack of availability of habitats as a result of land and water use impact of these threats on the comprehensive bycatch reduction practices as considered above in Factor persistence of this DPS. technologies. Although conservation A. Destruction and modification of efforts to protect some nesting beaches green turtle nesting habitat resulting 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing are underway, more widespread and from coastal development and Regulatory Mechanisms consistent protection would speed construction, beachfront lighting, Regional and national legislation to recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach conserve green turtles (often all sea including laws and international erosion, and pollution are significant turtles) exists throughout the range of treaties, are not realizing their full threats to the persistence of this DPS. the DPS. National protective legislation potential because they are not enforced adequately, or do not apply in all 2. Factor B: Overutilization for generally prohibits intentional killing, harassment, possession, trade, or countries occupied by the DPS. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or The Status Review revealed a lack of Educational Purposes attempts at these; however, a lack of or inadequate enforcement of these laws existing regulatory mechanisms to Directed take of eggs is a known appears to be pervasive. The following address coastal development, pollution, ongoing problem in the Central West countries have laws to protect green sea level rise, and effects of climate Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam, turtles: CNMI, FSM, Guam, Japan change that continue to contribute to the Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain), Papua, (Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall extinction risk of this DPS. Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua, Papua 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade and Palau (Eckert, 1993; Guilbeaux, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Factors Affecting its Continued 2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; United States (Wake Island). In Existence Philip, 2002). In addition to the addition, at least 17 international collection of eggs from nesting beaches, treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear the killing of nesting females continues apply to the conservation of green Incidental capture in artisanal and to threaten the stability of green turtle turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. commercial fisheries is a threat to the populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting These are implemented to various survival of green turtles in the Central adults has been documented in the degrees throughout the range of the West Pacific. Sea turtles may be caught CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce, DPS. There are some national in longline, pole and line, and purse 2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002), Papua regulations, within this DPS, that seine fisheries. (Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002), specially address the harvest of green Within the Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea (Maison et al., 2010), turtles while a few regulations are the FSM, and the Solomon Islands, a and Palau (Guilbeaux, 2001). Mortality limited in that they only apply to turtles purse-seine fishery for tuna and a of turtles in foraging habitats is also of certain sizes, times of years, or allow significant longline fishery operate, and problematic for recovery efforts. for harvest for tradition use. sea turtles have been captured in both Ongoing intentional capture of green On December 12, 2008, the Western fisheries with green turtle mortality turtles in their marine habitats has been and Central Pacific Fisheries occurring (Oceanic Fisheries documented in southern and eastern Commission issued a Conservation and Programme, 2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al., 2002) Management Measure (2008–03; and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy, and the Solomon Islands (D. Broderick, https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2008- 2007a; McCoy, 2007b; Western and 1998; Pita and Broderick, 2005). 03/conservation-and-management-sea- Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Green turtles have long been turtles) to reduce sea turtle mortality 2008). harvested for their meat in the during fishing operations, collect and Numerous subsistence and small- Ogasawara Islands, and records show a report information on fisheries scale commercial fishing operations rapid decline in the sea turtle interactions with turtles, and encourage occur along Saipan’s western coast and population between 1880 and 1920 safe handling and resuscitation of along both the Rota and Tinian coasts (Horikoshi et al., 1994; Ishizaki, 2007). turtles. This measure requires purse (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Currently, sea turtle harvest is strictly seine vessels to avoid encircling turtles Office, 2011). Incidental catch of turtles regulated with a harvest limit of 135 and to release entangled turtles. It also in Guam’s coastal waters by commercial mature turtles per year (Ishizaki, 2007). requires longline vessels to use line fishing vessels likely also occurs (NMFS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

and USFWS, 1998). In 2007, 222 fishing habitat in the Central West Pacific. C. Conservation Efforts for the Central vessels (200 purse-seiners and 22 Coastal erosion has been identified as a West Pacific DPS longliners) had access to Papua New high risk in the CNMI due to the Very few areas that host important Guinea waters (Kumoru, 2008). existence of concentrated human green turtle nesting or foraging Although no official reports have been population centers near erosion-prone aggregations have been designated as released on sea turtle bycatch within zones, coupled with the potential protected areas within the Central West these fisheries (Project GloBAL, 2009c), increasing threat of erosion from sea Pacific. However, at least one country, sea turtle interactions with both level rise (CNMI Coastal Resources Palau, has site-specific conservation for fisheries have been commonly observed Management Office, 2011). In the FSM, sea turtle habitat protection. Two (Kumoru, 2008). However, the level of Yap State’s low coralline atolls are nationally mandated protected areas, mortality is unknown. extremely vulnerable to rises in sea Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve levels and will be adversely affected if b. Vessel Strikes and Ngerumekaol Spawning Area, exist rises occur (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). within Koror State, and restrictions are The impacts of vessel strikes in the These risks are high for all beaches in placed on entry and fishing within Central West Pacific are unknown, but the Central West Pacific. Interestingly, established boundaries. not thought to be of great consequence, Barnett and Adger (2003) identified Marine debris is a problem on some except possibly in Palau where high projected increases in sea-surface green turtle nesting beaches and speed skiffs constantly travel temperature, and not sea level rise, as foraging areas in the Central West throughout the lagoon south of the main the greatest long-term risk of climate Pacific, in particular on the nesting islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). change to atoll morphology and thus to However, green turtles have been atoll countries like those in the Central beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a; documented as occasionally being hit by West Pacific. They state that coral reefs, 2012b) and in the nearshore foraging boats in Guam (Guam Division of which are essential to the formation and areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012). maintenance of the islets located around Palau (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized c. Pollution the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive to sudden changes in sea-surface beach clean-ups on some CMNI beaches In the FSM, debris is dumped freely temperature. Thus, climate change have been conducted to help mitigate and frequently off boats and ships impacts could have profound long-term this impact (Palacios, 2012b). (including government ships). Landfill impacts on green turtle nesting in the Overall, it appears that international areas are practically nonexistent in the Central West Pacific, but it is not and national laws to protect green outer islands and have not been possible to project the impacts at this turtles may be insufficient or not addressed adequately on Yap proper or point in time. implemented effectively to address the on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of Natural environmental events such as needs of green turtles in the Central imported goods (including plastic and cyclones and hurricanes may affect West Pacific. This minimizes the paper packaging) appears to be green turtles in the Central West Pacific potential success of existing increasing (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). DPS. These storm events have been conservation efforts. In Palau, entanglement in abandoned shown to cause severe beach erosion D. Extinction Risk Assessment and fishing nets has been identified as a with likely negative effects on hatching Findings for the Central West Pacific threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and success at many green turtle nesting DPS Klain, 2008). In the Marshall Islands, beaches, especially in areas already debris and garbage disposal in coastal prone to erosion. Shoreline erosion The Central West Pacific DPS is waters is a serious problem on Majuro occurs naturally on many islands in the characterized by a relatively small Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll), atolls of the Marshall Islands due to nesting population spread across a both of which have inadequate space, storms, sea level rise from the El Nin˜ o– relatively expansive area roughly 2,500 earth cover, and shore protection for Southern Oscillation, and currents miles wide (Palau to the Marshall sanitary landfills. This problem also (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some Islands) and 2,500 miles long exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll erosion of nesting beaches at Oroluk (Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). was reported in 1990 after passage of Islands). This DPS is dominated by A study of the gastrointestinal tracts Typhoon Owen (NMFS and USFWS, insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting of 36 slaughtered green turtles in the 1998). However, effects of these natural sites were analyzed, although many had Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001 events may be exacerbated by climate very old data (20–30 years old). Sixteen revealed the presence of marine debris change. While sea turtles have survived sites were identified but numbers of (e.g., plastic bag pieces, plastic blocks, past eras that have included significant nesting females were ‘‘unquantified,’’ monofilament lines, Styrofoam pieces) temperature fluctuations, future climate and another 21 had fewer than 100 in the majority of the turtles (Sako and change is expected to happen at nesting females. Only two sites had Horikoshi, 2003). unprecedented rates, and if turtles more than 1,000 nesting females (1,412 cannot adapt quickly they may face and 1,301). Further study of this DPS d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural local to widespread extirpations would improve our understanding of it. Disasters (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from The limited available information on Over the long term, Central West global climate change induced by trends suggests a nesting population Pacific turtle populations could be human activities are likely to become decrease in some areas, an increase in affected by the alteration of thermal more apparent in future years (IPCC, one Japanese nesting site, and unknown sand characteristics (from global 2007). trends in others. The second largest warming), resulting in the reduction or In summary, within Factor E, we find nesting site in this DPS (Chichijima, cessation of male hatchling production that fishery bycatch continues to Japan) shows positive growth. The (Camin˜ as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009; threaten this DPS. In addition, changes dispersed location of nesting sites and Kasparek et al., 2001; Poloczanska et al., likely to result from climate change and lack of concentration of nesting 2009). Further, a significant rise in sea natural disasters are increasing threats provides a level of habitat diversity and level would restrict green turtle nesting to this DPS. population resilience which reduces

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15315

overall extinction risk, as does widely Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites, variability and slightly increasing linear varied nesting seasons; however, the although it should be noted that, trends. These were the only two nesting contribution of this characteristic to perhaps more so than in other DPSs, areas for which 15 or more years of such diversity and resilience is reduced proximate nesting beaches were recent data are available for annual by the small size of many of these sites grouped for analysis because nesting nesting female abundance, one of the and the threats faced in each of the populations are small, with the standards for performing a PVA in the nesting and foraging areas. exception of a few sites, including Raine Status Review. Both show a continued Human populations are growing Island, where the majority (>90 percent) increasing trend, though the Raine rapidly in many areas of the insular of the nesting in the northern GBR Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1 Pacific and this expansion is occurs. While it would be possible to percent probability that this population accompanied by threats to green turtle split the nesting aggregations into more will fall below the trend reference point nesting habitat resulting from coastal than 100 different sites, because many (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 development and construction, of the most recent estimates are years, and a 0.4 percent probability that beachfront lighting, degradation of aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed it will fall below the absolute waters and seagrass beds off of this tendency and aggregated nesting abundance reference (100 females per populated areas, and sand extraction. within broad regional areas. The bulk of year) at the end of 100 years. However, Destructive fishing methods (use of this DPS nests within Australia’s Great extra caution must be used when dynamite and poisons) not only Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and interpreting results of the Raine Island incidentally capture green turtles, but eastern Torres Strait. The northern GBR PVA, because it only represents females also deplete invertebrate and fish and Torres Strait support some of the observed during one sampling event on populations and thus alter ecosystem world’s highest concentrations of one night. The Heron Island PVA dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly nesting (Chaloupka et al., 2008a). indicates that there is a 17.5 percent bycatch mortality of green turtles from Nesting abundance in the northern GBR probability that the magnitude of adult longline, pole and line, and purse seine is not directly counted throughout the females associated with Heron Island fisheries, continue as threats to this nesting season largely because of the nesting will fall below the trend DPS. In addition, legal and illegal remoteness of the site and the sheer reference point (50 percent decline) at harvest of green turtles and eggs for numbers of turtles that may nest on any the end of 100 years, and an 8.3 percent human consumption remains a given night. Raine Island, with estimates probability that this population will fall significant threat in many areas of this of annual nesting females varying from below the absolute abundance reference DPS. Finally, changes likely to result 4,000–89,000 (Seminoff et al., 2004; (100 females per year) at the end of 100 from climate change and natural NMFS and U.S. FWS, 2007; Chaloupka years. It should be noted that PVA disasters could have profound long-term et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009) (note the modeling has important limitations, and impacts on green turtle nesting in the Status Review used an estimate of does not fully incorporate other key Central West Pacific. 25,000 nesting females), Moulter Cay, elements critical to the decision making Although regulatory mechanisms are with 15,965 nesting females (Limpus et process such as spatial structure or in place that should address direct and al., 2003; Limpus, 2009), and the rest of threats. It assumes all environmental incidental take of Central West Pacific the Capricorn Bunker Group with and anthropogenic pressures will green turtles, these regulatory 31,249 nesting females (Limpus, 2009) remain constant in the forecast period mechanisms are insufficient or are not represent the three sites with >10,000 and it relies on nesting data alone. Although long robust time series are being implemented effectively to nesting females. Heron Island is the not available for New Caledonia, recent address the population trajectories of index nesting beach for the southern and historical accounts do not suggest a green turtles. GBR, and nearly every nesting female on significant decline in abundance of For the above reasons, we propose to Heron Island has been tagged since 1974 green turtles nesting in New Caledonia list the Central West Pacific DPS as (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000). Heron (Maison et al., 2010). The trend at endangered. Based on its low nesting Island (4,891 nesting females; Vanuatu has not been documented abundance and exposure to increasing Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009), threats, we find that this DPS is (Maison et al., 2010). Bramble Cay in the northern GBR With regard to spatial structure, presently in danger of extinction (1,660; Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus genetic sampling in the Southwest throughout its range. 2009), and Huon, Leleizour and Fabre in Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS New Caledonia (1,777; Limpus, 2009) nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral represent the sites with 1,001–5,000 Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there A. Discussion of Population Parameters nesting females. There are three sites are several smaller nesting sites in this in the Southwest Pacific DPS with 501–1,000: The Coral Sea (all sites; region that still need to be sampled (e.g. The range of the Southwest Pacific 1,000; Limpus, 2009), No. 8 Sandbank Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and DPS extends from the western boundary in northern GBR (637; Limpus et al., Papua New Guinea). Within this DPS, of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of 2003; Limpus 2009), and other northern four regional genetic stocks have been Papua New Guinea and out to the GBR sites, including Murray Islands, identified in the Southwest Pacific offshore coordinate of 13° S., 171° E.; other outer islands, most inner shelf Ocean; northern GBR, southern GBR, the eastern boundary runs from this cays and the mainland coast (535; Coral Sea (Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen, point southeast to 40° S., 176° E.; the Limpus 2009). Bamboo Bay in Vanuatu 2010), and New Caledonia (Dethmers et southern boundary runs along 40° S. (165; MacKay and Petro, 2013) and No. al., 2006; Dutton et al., 2014). Mixed from 142° E. to 176° E.; and the western 7 Sandbank in the northern GBR stock analysis of foraging grounds boundary runs from 40° S., 142° E north represent the two sites with nesting shows that green turtles from multiple to Australian coast then follows the females in the 101–500 category. The nesting beach origins commonly mix in coast northward to Torres Strait (Figure rest of the southern GBR (represented foraging grounds along the GBR and 2). here as one site) is unquantified. Torres Strait regions (Jensen, 2010), but Green turtle nesting is widely The Raine Island and Heron Island with the vast majority originating from dispersed throughout the Southwest sites both have high inter-annual nesting sites within the GBR. There is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

evidence of low frequency contribution recruitment can be caused by flooding Australia may be in the tens of from nesting sites outside the range of of egg chambers by ground water, dry thousands, and it appears likely that the DPS at some foraging areas. collapsing sand around egg chambers, historical native harvest may have been With regard to diversity and and underlying rock which prevents in the same order of magnitude resilience, nesting beach monitoring appropriately deep egg chambers (Limpus, 2009). The Australian Native along with flipper and satellite tagging (Limpus et al., 2003). In the 1996 to Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and show the spatial structure of this DPS is 1997 breeding season, for example, Torres Strait Islanders a legal right to largely consistent with viable flooding of nests caused a near total loss hunt sea turtles in Australia for populations. Nesting can occur year- of viable eggs, and flooding has been a traditional, communal, non-commercial round in the most northerly nesting regular event in subsequent years purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although sites, but a distinct peak occurs in late (Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus, 2009). indigenous groups, governments, December to early January for all Death of nesting females occurs on wildlife managers and scientists work Australian nesting sites. Foraging is Raine Island when they enter the together with the aim of sustainably widely dispersed throughout the range elevated interior of the island due to managing turtle resources (Maison et al., of this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are crowding on the beach and return along 2010 citing K. Dobbs, Queensland Parks various factors that lead to resilience in a different route, encountering hazards Authority, pers. comm., 2010), nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it such as small cliffs, over which they traditional harvest remains a threat to is widely dispersed throughout the wander and roll onto their backs. green turtle populations. However, region, there is more than one major Nightly mortality ranges from 0 to over quantitative data are not sufficient to nesting site, there is evidence of some 70 per night and is highest when nesting assess the degree of impact of harvest on connectivity between nesting sites the previous night exceeds 1,000 the persistence of this DPS. within each of the four regional stocks (Limpus et al., 2003). Understanding the 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation but no connectivity among regional root cause of changes to Raine Island stocks, and there is continental and nesting habitat is challenging and is the Low levels of FP-associated turtle insular nesting. Nesting, however, is not aim of several Australian and State herpes virus is common in green turtles evenly distributed throughout the range Government research and monitoring in some but not all semi-enclosed of the DPS, and some of the densest projects. These habitat-based threats waters like Moreton Bay and Repulse nesting occurs on Raine Island, which (particularly related to hatchling Bay in Australia, more infrequent in has habitat-based threats. production) constitute serious threats to nearshore open waters, and rare in off- shore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009). B. Summary of Factors Affecting the this DPS, given the large abundance of turtles nesting in the northern GBR. Mortality and recovery rates from this Southwest Pacific DPS virus are not quantified but stranded, 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones infected turtles are regularly Destruction, Modification, or Threats to habitat in the neritic and/ encountered in south Queensland Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range or oceanic zones in the Southwest (Limpus, 2009). Pacific DPS include fishing practices, Primary hatchling and egg predators a. Terrestrial Zone channel dredging, and marine pollution, of this DPS include crabs, birds, fish, Destruction and modification of green although the internesting habitat and mammals. The magnitude of egg turtle nesting habitat in the Southwest adjacent to the nesting sites with the predation is not well documented, but Pacific DPS result from beach erosion, highest documented nesting levels in within Australia the highest levels of beach pollution, removal of native this DPS is protected by the Great vertebrate predation on eggs occur in vegetation, and planting of non-native Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the other species, primarily loggerheads vegetation, as well as natural adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Environment Australia, 2003). In environmental change (Limpus, 2009). (Limpus, 2009). Protection for marine Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs is Coastal development and construction, turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World a primary threat (Maison et al., 2010). placement of erosion control structures Heritage area has been increasing since Survivorship of hatchlings in the and other barriers to nesting, and the mid-1990s (Dryden et al., 2008). southern GBR during the transition from vehicular traffic minimally impact green In summary, we find that the nest to sea (accounting for crab and bird turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009). Southwest Pacific DPS of the green predation) may be quite high (Limpus, Artificial light levels have increased turtle is negatively affected by ongoing 1971), but survivorship of hatchlings as significantly for green turtles in minor changes in both its terrestrial and they transition across the reef flat from nesting sites of the northern GBR and marine habitats as a result of land and the water’s edge to deep water is likely remained relatively constant for the water use practices as considered above considerably lower (Gyuris, 1994 as mainland of Australia (part of southern in Factor A. Groundwater intrusion on cited in Limpus, 2009). Similar GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski et high density beaches, artificial lighting, survivorship estimates are not available al., 2014). Most of the nests at the fishery practices, channel dredging, and for the northern GBR, but survival documented nesting sites within this marine pollution are continual threats to during the nest to sea transition is DPS occur within the protected habitat, the persistence of this DPS. expected to be low and variable, but there is still concern about the depending on the predator assemblage. viability of nesting habitat (Limpus, 2. Factor B: Overutilization for Although many birds co-occur with sea 2009). Total productivity is limited by Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or turtle hatchlings in the northern GBR, reduced nesting and hatching success, Educational Purposes only some birds, like the rufous night which at Raine Island appear to be Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), are depressed due to habitat issues. At vulnerable to harvest throughout important predators (Limpus et al., Raine Island, mean nesting success (i.e., Australia and neighboring countries 2003). Terrestrial crabs that occur probability that a clutch will be laid such as New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu, throughout the northern GBR have been when a turtle comes ashore for a nesting Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia observed feeding on turtle hatchlings attempt) can be as low as 3.3 percent (Limpus, 2009). Cumulative annual and eggs, but crabs are generally of low (Limpus et al., 2007). Reduced harvest of green turtles that nest in density (Limpus et al., 2003). Shark

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15317

predation on hatchlings as well as were expanded in 2008 to include the include trawl fisheries, longlines, drift adults has been documented (Limpus et EEZ, the Main Island, and remote nets, and set nets. These are employed al., 2003). islands (Maison et al., 2010). In by both artisanal and industrial fleets, Although disease and predation are Vanuatu, new fisheries regulations in and target a wide variety of species known to occur, quantitative data are 2009 prohibit the take, harm, capture, including prawns, crabs, sardines, and not sufficient to assess the degree of disturbance, possession, sale, purchase large pelagic fish. impact of these threats on the of or interference, import, or export of Nesting turtles of the Southwest persistence of this DPS. green turtles Maison et al., 2010). Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing There are several regulatory and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery, and Regulatory Mechanisms mechanisms in place that should address incidental take of green turtles to the extent other turtles forage west of Regulatory mechanisms are in place within this DPS; however, these Torres Strait, they are also vulnerable throughout the range of the DPS that regulatory mechanisms are not realizing (Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs address the direct capture of green their full potential because they are not in the Northern Australian Prawn turtles within this DPS. There are enforced at the local level. The analysis Fishery became mandatory, due in part regulations, within this DPS, that of these existing regulatory mechanisms to several factors: (1) Objectives of the specially address the harvest of green assumed that all would remain in place Australian Recovery Plan for Marine turtles while a few regulations are at their current levels. Turtles, (2) requirements of the limited in that they only apply to The inadequacy of existing regulatory Australian Environment Protection and certain times of year or allow for mechanisms to address impacts to Biodiversity Conservation Act for traditional use. Australia, New nesting beach habitat and Commonwealth fisheries to become Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only overutilization is a continuing concern ecologically sustainable, and (3) the countries with nesting aside from the for this DPS. Other threats with 1996 U.S. import embargo on wild- Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory inadequate regulatory mechanisms caught prawns taken in a fishery of Australia, have laws to protect green include incidental bycatch in fishing without adequate turtle bycatch turtles. National protective legislation gear, boat strikes, port dredging, debris, management practices (Robins et al., generally regulates intentional killing, national defense, and toxic compounds. 2002). possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009; Lack of implementation or enforcement Australian and international longline Maison et al., 2010). In addition, at least by some nations renders regulatory fisheries capture green turtles. Precise 17 international treaties and/or mechanisms less effective than if they estimates of international capture of regulatory mechanisms apply to the were implemented in a more consistent Southwest Pacific Ocean DPS green conservation of green turtles in the manner across the target region. It is turtles by the international longline fleet Southwest Pacific DPS. unlikely that bycatch mortality can be are not available, but they are thought The majority of nesting beaches (and to be larger than the Australian often the associated internesting habitat) sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future because of component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition are protected in Australia, which is the to threats from prawn trawls, green country with the vast majority of the the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the DPS, the lack turtles may face threats from other known nesting. fishing gear (summarized from Limpus, of comprehensive information on In Australia, the conservation of green 2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets fishing distribution and effort, turtles is governed by a variety of (targeting barramundi, salmon, limitations on implementing national and territorial legislation. mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and demonstrated effective conservation Conservation began with 1932 harvest the Northern Territory has been measures, geopolitical complexities, restrictions on turtles and eggs in observed but not quantified. Untended limitations on enforcement capacity, Queensland in October and November, ‘‘ghost’’ fishing gear that has been and lack of availability of south of 17° S., and by 1968 the intentionally discarded or lost due to comprehensive bycatch reduction restriction extended all year long for all weather conditions may entangle and technologies. of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As kill many hundreds of green turtles The Status Review did not reveal described in the preceding section, annually. other conservation efforts include regulatory mechanisms in place to sweeping take prohibitions, specifically address threats to nesting b. Shark Control Programs implementation of bycatch reduction beaches, eggs, hatchlings, juveniles, and Green turtles are captured in shark devices and safer dredging practices, adults through harvest and incidental control programs, but protocols are in improvement of shark control devices, harm occur throughout the range of the place to reduce the impact. The and safer dredging practices, and the Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats, Queensland Shark Control Program is development of community based such as inundation of nests at Raine managed by the Queensland Department management plans with Indigenous Island and sea level rise, cannot be of Primary Industries and Fisheries groups. Australia has undertaken controlled through individual national (Limpus, 2009) and has been operating extensive marine spatial planning to legislation and persist as a threat to this since 1962 (Gribble et al., 1998). In protect nesting turtles and internesting DPS. 1992, their operations began to be habitat surrounding important nesting 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade modified to reduce mortality of non- sites. The GBR’s listing on the United Factors Affecting Its Continued target species (Gribble et al., 1998). Nations Educational, Scientific and Existence Observed green turtle annual mortality Cultural Organization’s World Heritage during 1998–2003 was 2.7 per year a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear List in 1981 has increased the protection (Limpus, 2009). Green turtles have been of habitats within the GBR World Incidental capture in artisanal and captured in the New South Wales shark- Heritage Area (Dryden et al., 2008). commercial fisheries is a threat to the meshing program since 1937, but total In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery survival of green turtles in the capture for all turtle species from 1950 regulations contained some regional sea Southwest Pacific Ocean. The primary through 1993 is roughly five or fewer turtle conservation measures, and these gear types involved in these interactions turtles per year (Krogh and Reid, 1996).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Post-release survival does not appear to more apparent in future years (IPCC, and population resilience. This region have been monitored in any of the 2007). has high genetic diversity resulting from monitoring programs. In a study of the northern GBR nesting a mix of highly divergent lineages, some assemblages, Bramble Cay and Milman of which are among the oldest lineages c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise, found in C. mydas. There are concerns The magnitude of mortality from boat and almost all sites in the study were about climate change in general and the strikes may be in the high tens to low expected to be vulnerable to increased nesting habitat at Raine Island in hundreds per year in Queensland temperatures by 2070 (Fuentes et al., particular, where nests are sometimes (Limpus, 2009). This threat affects 2011). Similar data are not available for flooded and nesting female mortality juvenile and adult turtles and may other nesting sites. can range from 1–70 per night due to increase with increasing high-speed The Southwest Pacific DPS contains overcrowding. boat traffic in coastal waters. The some atolls, as well as coral reef areas The threats to this Southwest Pacific magnitude of mortality from port that share some ecological DPS include directed harvest, incidental dredging in Queensland may be in the characteristics with atolls. Barnett and bycatch in fisheries, shark control order of tens of turtles or less per year Adger (2003) state that coral reefs, programs, boat strikes, port dredging, (Limpus, 2009). which are essential to the formation and debris, activities associated with maintenance of the islets located around national defense, disease, predation, d. Toxic Compounds and Marine Debris the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive toxic compounds, and climate change. to sudden changes in sea-surface Toxic compounds and Conservation efforts have resulted in temperature. Thus, climate change bioaccumulative chemicals threaten sweeping take prohibitions, impacts could have long-term impacts green turtles in the Southwest Pacific implementation of bycatch reduction on green turtle ecology in the Southwest DPS. Poor health conditions devices, improvement of shark control Pacific DPS, but it is not possible to (debilitation and death) have been devices, and safer dredging practices. project the impacts at this point in time. reported in the southern Gulf of Australia, in particular, has undertaken In summary, within Factor E, we find Carpentaria for green turtles, many of extensive marine spatial planning to that fishery bycatch that occurs which had unusual black fat (Kwan and protect nesting turtles and internesting throughout the range of the DPS, Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal habitat surrounding important nesting particularly bycatch mortality of green concentrations have also been reported sites. In the southern GBR threats are turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets, in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994; well managed, harvest is low, and the set net, and trawl fisheries, is a Reiner, 1994; Gordon et al., 1998; population increasing; however, in the continued risk to this DPS. Additional Limpus, 2009), but the health impact northern GBR there are concerns for threats from boat strikes, marine has not been quantified. The magnitude Raine Island and harvest is a cause for pollution, changes likely to result from of mortality from ingestion of synthetic concern. In the Coral Sea there are few climate change, and cyclonic storm material in Queensland is expected to known threats and it is remote and well events are pose an increasing risk to the be at least tens of turtles annually managed from human threats. Although persistence of this DPS. (Limpus, 2009). the DPS shows strength in many of the C. Conservation Efforts for the critical elements, there are still concerns e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Southwest Pacific DPS about numerous threats including Disasters climate change and habitat degradation. Conservation efforts for the Southwest For the above reasons, we propose to Green turtle populations could be Pacific DPS have resulted in sweeping list the Southwest Pacific DPS as affected by the effects of climate change take prohibitions, implementation of threatened. We do not find the DPS to on nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2011) bycatch reduction devices, be in danger of extinction presently as well as in marine habitats (Hamann improvement of shark control devices, because of high nesting abundance and et al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009). and safer dredging practices. Australia, geographically widespread nesting at a Potential effects of climate change in particular, has undertaken extensive diversity of sites; however, the include changes in nest site selection, marine spatial planning to protect continued threats are likely to endanger range shifts, diet shifts, and loss of nesting turtles and internesting habitat the DPS within the foreseeable future. nesting habitat due to sea level rise surrounding some of the largest and (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., most important nesting sites in the DPS. XV. Central South Pacific DPS 2009). Climate change will likely also cause higher sand temperatures leading D. Extinction Risk Assessment and A. Discussion of Population Parameters to increased feminization of surviving Findings for the Southwest Pacific DPS for the Central South Pacific DPS hatchlings (i.e., changes in sex ratio), The Southwest Pacific DPS is The range of the Central South Pacific and some beaches will likely experience characterized by relatively high levels of DPS extends north and east of New lethal incubation temperatures that will green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000 Zealand to include a longitudinal result in losses of complete hatchling nesting females) and contains the GBR, expanse of 7,500 km—from Easter cohorts (Glen and Mrosovsky, 2004; the largest coral reef system in the Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., world, as well as continental coastline, west, and encompasses American 2011). While sea turtles have survived islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands, past eras that have included significant female abundance at the two index Fiji, Kiribati, Tokelau, Tonga, and temperature fluctuations, future climate beaches (Raine Island and Heron Island, Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal change is expected to happen at Australia) are stable or increasing. The boundary endpoints are (clockwise from unprecedented rates, and if turtles spatial structure of this DPS extends the northwest-most extent): 9° N., 175° cannot adapt quickly they may face over a large geographic area, with W. to 9° N., 125° W. to 40° S., 96° W. local to widespread extirpations several large nesting sites spread within to 40° S., 176° E., to 13° S., 171° E., and (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from the range of this DPS, and includes both back to 9° N., 175° W. (Figure 2). global climate change induced by continental and insular nesting, thereby Nesting occurs sporadically human activities are likely to become providing a level of habitat diversity throughout the geographic distribution

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15319

of the DPS at low levels. Green turtles (Balazs, 1975b) but, as of 2002, it had an The largest nesting site for this DPS is departing nesting grounds within the estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting believed to be at Scilly Atoll in French range of this DPS travel throughout the abundance is reported to be stable to Polynesia. Balazs et al. (1995) report South Pacific Ocean. Post-nesting green increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White that the earliest human settlement at turtles tagged in the early 1990s from and Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia appears Rose Atoll returned to foraging grounds to be stable to increasing at Rose Atoll, to have occurred around 1952. It is in Fiji and French Polynesia (Craig et Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and unclear how much of an effect human al., 2004). Nesting females tagged in Maiao. However, these sites are of habitation of the atoll has had, or is French Polynesia migrated west after relatively low abundance and in sum having, on the nesting habitat for the nesting to various sites in the western represent less than 16 percent of the turtle. South Pacific (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., population abundance at Scilly Atoll In the populated islands of American 1993). In addition to nesting beaches, alone. Samoa, such as Tutuila, continuous green turtles are found in coastal waters With regard to spatial structure, incremental loss of habitat has occurred (White and Galbraith, 2013; White, genetic sampling in the Central South due to varied activities of human 2013), but in-water information for this Pacific is limited and many of the small populations (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., DPS is particularly limited. isolated nesting sites that characterize 1993; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Saili, Based on available data, we estimate this region have not been covered. 2005). Indeed, human population there are approximately 2,800 nesting Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate growth and attendant village expansion females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites. there are at least two genetic stocks in and development on Tutuila Island have The most abundant nesting area was American Samoa and French Polynesia resulted in decreasing usage of some Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in (Dutton et al., 2014), which have unique Tutuila beaches by nesting turtles and the early 1990s was estimated to host haplotypes (Dutton et al., 2014). Flipper pre-emption of some green turtle nesting 300–400 nesting females annually tag returns and satellite tracking studies beaches (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993). (Balazs et al., 1995), and has an demonstrate that post-nesting turtles Turtles on Tutuila, possibly disoriented estimated total nesting female travel the complete geographic breadth by land-based lights, are subject to abundance of 1,050 breeding females, of the range of this DPS, from French mortality from cars (A. Tagarino, roughly one-third of all nesting females Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., in the DPS (although this number is and sometimes even slightly beyond 2013). Lighting is a potential problem dated, it is used in the Status Review as (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., affecting the quality of the nesting it is the most recent data and the best 2004; Maison et al., 2010; White, 2012), habitat on Ofu nesting beach as well available). However, Scilly Atoll was even as far as the Philippines (Trevor, (Tagarino, 2012). The main nesting site last monitored in the early 1990s (Balazs 2009). Limited demographic in American Samoa is Rose Atoll, which et al., 1995), and abundance has information suggests a low level of is uninhabited and therefore without reportedly declined as a result of population structuring within this DPS current threats to terrestrial habitat. commercial exploitation (Conservation (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., In Samoa, degradation of habitat International Pacific Islands Program, 2004; White, 2012; White and Galbraith, through coastal development and 2013). There are six other sites with 2013). natural disasters as cited in SPREP 101–500 nesting females according to With regard to diversity and (SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J. Ward, the best available data, although the resilience, the Central South Pacific has Ministry of Natural Resources and estimate for Nukunonu, Tokelau is from a broad geographical area, but the Environment, Samoa, pers. comm., the 1970s. Many nesting areas (21 of 58, nesting sites themselves exhibit little 2013). or 36 percent) only have qualitative diversity. Most nesting sites are located In Kiribati, historical destruction information that nesting is present, in low-lying coral atolls or oceanic (bulldozing) of the vegetation zone next indicating that there is still much to islands and thus are subject to loss of to the nesting beach on Canton Island in learn about green turtle nesting in this habitat due to sea level rise. Local the Phoenix Islands occurred during region. As these unquantified nesting nesting density is sparse spatially, World War II and may have negatively sites most likely each have a female typically spread over >10 km stretches affected the availability of a portion of abundance in the 1–100 range, their of beach and is also low in terms of nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The collective sum is probably fewer than abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly remoteness of these islands and 700 nesting females. Historical baseline Atoll with 1,050 females; Balazs et al., minimal amount of study of sea turtles nesting information in general is not 1995) has a nesting female abundance in this area makes recent information on widely available in this region, but exceeding 250, and this estimate is 20 nesting beach condition and threats exploitation and trade of green turtles years old. Foraging areas are mostly difficult to obtain. throughout the region is well-known coral reef ecosystems, with seagrass In the Cook Islands, the major nesting (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989). beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable site for green turtles, Tongareva Atoll, is No long-term monitoring programs are exception. uninhabited and there are not likely currently available at beaches in this threats related to development or population, and no single site has had B. Summary of Factors Affecting the human disturbance (White, 2012b). standardized surveys for even 5 Central South Pacific DPS However, elsewhere in the Cook Islands, continuous years. Most nesting areas are 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened sand extraction (for building purposes) in remote, low-lying atolls that are Destruction, Modification, or and building developments are reported logistically difficult to access. Partial Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range as potential threats to sea turtles; for and inconsistent monitoring from the instance, the best potential site at largest nesting site in this DPS, Scilly a. Terrestrial Zone Tauhunu motu on Manihiki appears to Atoll, suggests significant nesting Nesting in the Central South Pacific be no longer used for nesting (White, declines from persistent and illegal DPS is geographically widespread with 2012a). Weaver (1996) notes that sea commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013). the majority of nesting sites being turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by Historically, 100–500 females nested remote and not easily accessed, and at modification of nesting beaches. Coastal annually at Canton Island, Kiribati low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls. erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is reported

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

as a major problem for turtle nesting 2. Factor B: Overutilization for shells as a significant threat for sea (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Bell et al., Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or turtles. This includes commercial 2010). Educational Purposes harvest, as well as subsistence and ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (e.g., b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Human consumption has had a significant impact on green turtles in the Phoenix Islands), an unknown number Little is known regarding the status of Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and of turtles are caught as bycatch on longlines and eaten (Obura and Stone, the foraging habitat and threats found in Rohovit (1992) report that exploitation 2002). Poaching has been reported for French Polynesia (Balazs et al., 1995). of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts has occurred throughout the South Caroline Atoll, but to what extent it NMFS and USFWS (1998) noted that currently occurs is unknown (Teeb’aki, Pacific Region, including American degradation of coral reef habitats on the 1992). Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, south side of Tutuila Island, American In Tonga, Bell et al. (1994) report that Samoa is occurring due to French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen collection of eggs for subsistence occurs. sedimentation from erosion on (2007) notes that in Remote Oceania Prescott et al. (2004) and Havea and agricultural slopes and natural disasters. (which includes this DPS) sea turtles MacKay (2009) also note that it is still Ship groundings are also potential were important in traditional societies a practice on islands where turtles nest. threats to habitat in American Samoa. but, despite this, have experienced Bell et al. (2009) report that in Tonga sea severe declines since human For example, a ship grounded at Rose turtles are harvested and live turtles are colonization approximately 2,800 years Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat and often seen transported from outer ago. At western contact, some of the spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and islands to the main island, Tongatapu. islands supported sizable human other contaminants (USFWS, 2014). In It is unclear if this harvest is populations resulting in intense sustainable, especially given the the nearby neighboring country of pressures on local coastal fisheries. Samoa, coastal and marine areas have increased catch rates in Tungua for the At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia commercial market (Havea and MacKay, been negatively impacted by pollution local residents (approximately 20 to 40 (Government of Samoa, 1998). 2009). people) are allowed to take 50 adults per In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for Fiji appears to be an important year from a nesting population that their meat has been cited as a major foraging area for green turtles of this could be as low as 300–400 (M. S. Allen, threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively 2007; Balazs et al., 1995). Balazs et al. and Addison, 2009). In the Cook affected by alteration and degradation of (1995) reported that declines in nesting Islands, turtles are sometimes killed foraging habitat and to some extent green turtles at the important areas of during nesting at Palmerston and pollution or degradation of nearshore Scilly, Motu-one, and Mopelia, among Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on ecosystems (Batibasaga et al., 2006). Jit the highest density nesting sites in the Nassau, and while nesting at Manihiki, (2007) also suggests that sea turtles in DPS, have occurred due to commercial Tongareva, and probably at other atolls Fiji are threatened by degradation of exploitation for markets in Tahiti, as (White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983) well as exploitation due to human reefs and seagrass beds. Given that reported human take of both sea turtle habitation. Illegal harvest of sea turtles turtles outside of Fiji appear to use this eggs from nests and adult males and has been reported for French Polynesia foraging habitat, negative effects to this females while copulating, nesting, or by Te Honu Tea (2007). Brikke (2009) foraging area have important swimming (by harpoon). conducted a study on Bora Bora and In summary, within Factor B current implications for the entire DPS. Tourism Maupiti islands and reported that sea legal and illegal collection of eggs and development on the eastern coast of Viti turtle meat remains in high demand and harvest of turtles throughout the Central Levu could negatively impact sea turtle that fines are rarely imposed. South Pacific DPS persist as a threat to foraging sites (Jit, 2007). Directed take in the marine this DPS. The threat to the stability of In Tonga, marine habitat is being environment has been a significant green turtle populations posed by affected by anthropogenic activities. source of mortality in American Samoa, harvesting nesting females is Heavy sedimentation and poor water and turtle populations have seriously particularly significant due to the small quality have killed patch reefs; high declined (Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993; number of nesting females within this nutrients and high turbidity are NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Although DPS. take of sea turtle eggs or sea turtles is negatively impacting seagrasses; and 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation human activities are negatively illegal (the ESA applies in this territory), impacting mangroves (Prescott et al., turtles from American Samoa migrate to While FP is recorded elsewhere in the 2004). other countries (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, French Pacific, it does not appear to be a threat Polynesia) where turtle consumption is in the Central South Pacific DPS Although Palmyra Atoll is now legal or occurs illegally (Craig, 1993; (Utzurrum, 2002; A. Tagarino, American protected, it was altered by U.S. military Tuato’o-Bartley et al., 1993). Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The activities during World War II through Turtles have been traditionally best available data suggest that current dredging, connection, and expansion of harvested for food and shells in the nest and hatchling predation on several islets (Sterling et al., 2013). country of Samoa, and over-exploitation Central South Pacific DPS nesting In summary, as to Factor A, we find of turtles has negatively affected local beaches and in-water habitats is a that the Central South Pacific DPS of the populations (Government of Samoa, potential threat to this DPS. green turtle is negatively affected by 1998). Unsustainable harvest (direct Predation of green turtles (e.g., by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial take for meat) remains a major threat to sharks) occurs in French Polynesia; however, the extent of such predation is and marine habitats as a result of land green turtles in Samoa (J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm. unknown. In American Samoa, and water use practices. Pollution 2013). Polynesian rats (Rattus exultans) were persists and loss of beach due to coastal In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the an issue at Rose Atoll prior to a 1993 development is significant threats to contemporary harvest and consumption eradication (USFWS, 2014), but no this DPS. of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and longer appear to be a problem. Crabs are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15321

reported to eat hatchlings at Rose Atoll protecting turtles. These include the limiting negative effects of harvest on (Ponwith, 1990; Balazs, 1993; Pendleton foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French sea turtles. pers. comm., USFWS, 2013). On Swains Polynesia, Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands, There are protected areas, within this Island, feral pig activity has been Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S. DPS, that should provide some level of documented and may be a threat to territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and protection for green turtles and their nests on the island (Tagarino and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef and habitat; however the effectiveness of Utzurrum, 2010). Predation of green Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as these monuments for this species is turtles by sharks has been reported at Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna, unknown. The Status Review did not Rose Atoll and Palmyra Atoll; however, information on turtle protection was reveal regulatory mechanisms in place the extent of such predation is unknown either unclear or could not be found. At to specifically address coastal (Graeffe, 1873; Sachet, 1954; Balazs, least 17 international treaties and/or development, marine pollution, sea 1999; Sterling et al., 2013). The main regulatory mechanisms apply to the level rise, and effects of climate change threat to wildlife on Rose Atoll is conservation of green turtles in the that continue to contribute to the thought to be the introduction (or Central South Pacific DPS. extinction risk of this DPS. possible reintroduction) of exotic Green turtles in American Samoa are species (K. Van Houtan, NMFS, pers. fully protected under the ESA. Green 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade comm., 2013). turtles are also protected by the Fishing Factors Affecting its Continued In Samoa, feral animal predation on and Hunting Regulations for American Existence turtle nests and eggs remains a threat Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear (SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of import, export, sale, possession, Samoa, pers. comm., 2013). In other transport, or trade of sea turtles or their Incidental capture in artisanal and areas, predation is likely a contributing parts and take (as defined by the ESA) commercial fisheries is a significant threat to green turtles. Introduced and carry additional penalties for threat to the survival of green sea turtles animals, including feral cats, rats, and violations at the local government level throughout the Central South Pacific feral pigs, are reported problems for (Maison et al., 2010). Additionally, an DPS. The primary gear types involved in wildlife (Teeb’aki, 1992) and may American Samoa Executive Order in these interactions include longlines and threaten green turtles on certain islands 2003 established the territorial waters of nets. in Kiribati such as Kiritimati. In American Samoa as a sanctuary for sea Incidental capture in line, trap, or net Tokelau, identified predators that may turtles and marine mammals, in 2003; fisheries presents a threat to sea turtles constitute a terrestrial threat to turtles American Samoa declared its in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011). include hermit crabs, ghost crabs, submerged lands a Whale and Turtle Subsistence gill nets have been known Polynesian rats, frigate birds (Fregata Sanctuary. It is not known how effective to occasionally catch green turtles. ariel, F. minor), and reef herons (Egretta implementation of these protections is Additionally, longline fishing is sacra; Balazs, 1983). Feral pigs, rats, in American Samoa. The NOAA considered a threat to Central South crabs, possibly some sea birds, and large National Marine Sanctuary of American Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the fish are potential predators of sea turtles Samoa is comprised of six protected American Samoa longline fishery was (eggs and hatchlings) in the Cook areas, covering 35,175 km2 of nearshore estimated to have interacted with an Islands (White, 2012). Pigs are reported coral reef and offshore open ocean average of 33 green turtles annually, on Mauke, although their impact on sea waters across the Samoan Archipelago. with a 92 percent mortality rate, turtles is unquantified (Bradshaw and Additionally, Rose Atoll Marine triggering reinitiation of a section 7 Bradshaw, 2012). National Monument was established in consultation; the current incidental take Although predation is known to 2009 and encompasses the Rose Atoll statement allows 45 green sea turtle occur, quantitative data are not National Wildlife Refuge. These interactions (41 mortalities) every three sufficient to assess the degree of impact protected areas should provide some years (http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/ of these threats on the persistence of level of protection for green turtles and PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/622- this DPS. their habitat; however the effectiveness NMFS-ASLL_Am_to_Pelagics_FMP_ of these monuments for this species is 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Biop_FINAL_9-16-10.pdf). unknown. Regulatory Mechanisms Regulatory mechanisms are In Fiji, green turtles are killed in Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or apparently inadequate to curb a commercial fishing nets; however, the adequate implementation and continued loss of nesting habitat and exact extent and intensity of this threat enforcement is a threat to the Central degradation of foraging habitat due to is unknown (Rupeni et al. 2002). Jit South Pacific DPS. The analysis of these human activities and coastal (2007) and McCoy (2008) report that existing regulatory mechanisms development on populated islands of green turtle bycatch is occurring in assumed that all would remain in place American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga, longline tuna fisheries in Fiji. The exact at their current levels. Regulatory Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands. level of interaction with green turtles is mechanisms that address the direct Turtles continue to be harvested for unclear. capture of green turtles for most of the food and shells, and are used in In the Cook Islands, longline fishery countries within this DPS specifically commercial, subsistence, and regulations require fishers to adopt the address the harvest of green turtles, ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010) use of circle hooks and to follow while a few regulations are limited in suggests that traditional laws in ‘‘releasing hooked turtles’’ guidelines that they only apply during certain Polynesia may have historically limited (Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear times of the year or allow for traditional green turtle consumption to certain how effective these regulations are. harvest. people (chiefs, priests) or special McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle Numerous countries have reserves ceremonies. However, as the societies of bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in (French Polynesia, Kiribati, Samoa, and this region have been affected by the Cook Islands; however, no the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine Western culture and modernization of information is provided on possible National Monument), national traditions have been altered; traditional extent of sea turtle take or the species legislation, and/or local regulations laws have lost their effectiveness in that are possibly taken.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

b. Marine Debris and Pollution Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., have been active in this DPS for even a Direct or indirect disposal of 2009). Impacts from global climate 5-year period. While the dispersed anthropogenic waste introduces change induced by human activities are location of nesting sites might provide potentially lethal materials into green likely to become more apparent in a level of habitat diversity and turtle foraging habitats. Green turtles future years (IPCC, 2007). population resilience which reduces A recent study of 27 atoll islands in will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing overall extinction risk, this contribution the central Pacific (including Kiribati line, and other marine debris (Bjorndal is reduced by the low population size of and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14 et al., 1994), and the effects may be these sites (only Scilly Atoll has over percent of islands decreased in area over lethal or non-lethal, resulting in varying 225 nesting females) and overall a 19–60 year time span (Webb and effects that may increase the probability population size of fewer than 3,000 Kench, 2010). This occurred in a region of death (Balazs, 1985; Carr, 1987; nesting females. considered most vulnerable to sea-level McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999). Marine Chronic and persistent illegal harvest rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010) debris presents a threat to green turtles is a concern in the Central South Pacific during a period in which sea-levels rose in American Samoa (Aeby et al., 2008; DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that 2 mm per year. is expected to increase in the future. USFWS, 2014; Tagarino et al., 2008). It Catastrophic natural environmental is potentially hazardous to adults and Indeed, climate change may affect this events, such as cyclones or hurricanes, DPS more than any other because nearly hatchlings and is present at Rose Atoll may affect green turtles in the Central (USFWS, 2014). It is also a threat at all nesting sites exist on low-lying South Pacific Ocean, and may atolls. Sea level rise is expected to nearby inhabited islands. exacerbate issues such as decreased Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa exacerbate beach erosion, inundations, available habitat due to sea level rise. and storm surge on small islands (IPCC, is seriously polluted, and uncontrolled These types of events may disrupt green effluent contaminants have impaired 2007). The loss of habitat as a result of turtle nesting activity (Van Houtan and climate change could be accelerated due water quality in some coastal waters Bass, 2007), even if just on a temporary (Aeby et al., 2008). Effects to coastal to a combination of other environmental scale. and oceanographic changes such as an habitat (e.g., reefs) from sedimentation In summary, within Factor E, we find related to development and runoff are increase in the intensity of storms and/ that incidental fishery bycatch, or changes in prevailing currents, both significant potential threats in American interactions with recreational and Samoa, and human population of which could lead to increased beach commercial vessels, marine pollution as loss via erosion (Kennedy et al., 2002; pressures place strains on shoreline well as the increasing threat of climate resources (Aeby et al., 2008). Meehl et al., 2007). change, and major storm events are For the above reasons, we propose to Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in expected to be an increasing threat to list the Central South Pacific DPS as 1993) that damage reef habitat and spill the persistence of this DPS. endangered. Based on its low nesting fuel and other contaminants, abundance and exposure to increasing degradation of coastal waters due to silt- C. Conservation Efforts for the Central threats, we find that this DPS is laden runoff from land and nutrient South Pacific DPS presently in danger of extinction enrichment from human discharges and There are many islands and atolls in throughout its range. wastes, and contamination by heavy the range of this DPS spread across an metals and other contaminants are expansive area. Conservation efforts, XVI. Central North Pacific DPS threats to green turtles in American such as establishment of protected A. Discussion of Population Parameters Samoa (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; areas, exist that are beneficial to green for the Central North Pacific DPS USFWS, 2014). turtles. In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified It is unclear how well conservation The range of the Central North Pacific potential threats to sea turtles from efforts such as protected areas and the DPS covers the Hawaiian Archipelago heavy metals and industrial waste, national legislation relating to green and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a organic loadings in coastal areas, plastic turtles are working. It appears that the four-sided polygon with open ocean bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass remoteness of some of the areas is extents reaching to 41° N., 169° E. in the foraging areas. In the Cook Islands, providing the most conservation northwest corner, 41° N., 143° W. in the White (2012) noted possible issues with protection for certain threats. northeast, 9° N., 125° W. in southeast, oil, tar, or toxic chemicals and terrestrial and 9° N., 175° W. in the southwest run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga, and D. Extinction Risk Assessment and (Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note Findings for the Central South Pacific the most geographically isolated island pollution (e.g., accumulation of plastics DPS group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013, on the beach) on Mauke (M.White, The Central South Pacific DPS is 17,536 green turtles were tagged, unpubl. data, www.honucookislands characterized by geographically including all post-pelagic size classes .com). widespread nesting at very low levels of from juveniles to adults. With only three abundance, mostly in remote low-lying exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57 tagged turtles have been made within Disasters different locations, although some the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three Climate change has the potential to abundance numbers are 20 years old or outliers involved a recovery in Japan, greatly affect green turtles. Potential older. By far the highest nesting one in the Marshall Islands and one in impacts of climate change on green abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll, the Philippines. turtles include loss of beach habitat French Polynesia (1,050 nesting The principal nesting site for green from rising sea levels, repeated females), but this estimate is from 1991 turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS inundation of nests, skewed hatchling data and abundance of nesting females is FFS, where 96 percent of the sex ratios from rising incubation has reportedly significantly declined in population (3,710 of 3,846 nesting temperatures, and abrupt disruption of the past 30 years as a result of females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980; ocean currents used for natural commercial exploitation. There are also Lipman and Balazs, 1983). However, dispersal (Fish et al., 2005, 2008; no long-term monitoring programs that nesting was historically abundant at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15323

various sites across the archipelago as to minor nesting around the MHI and nesting beaches critical to this DPS recently as 1920 (Kittinger et al., 2013), the NWHI, and the same haplotypes (Baker et al., 2006). Baker et al. (2006) and remnant nesting aggregations may occur throughout the range of the DPS. examined the potential effects of sea have existed in the MHIs as recently as Within the NWHI, studies show no level rise in the NWHI and found that the 1930s, but were no longer present in significant differentiation (based on the primary nesting area for the Central the 1970s (Balazs, 1976). Current mtDNA haplotype frequency) between North Pacific population will be nesting by green turtles occurs in low FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, negatively impacted by sea level rise numbers (3–36 nesting females at any NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An analysis through possible loss of nesting habitat. one site) throughout the Northwest by Frey et al. (2013) of the low level of For example, Whale-Skate Island at Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) at Laysan, scattered nesting on the MHI (Moloka‘i, French Frigate Shoals was formerly a Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and Maui, O‘ahu, Lana‘i and Kaua‘i; mtDNA primary green turtle nesting site for this very uncommonly at Midway. Since and nDNA) showed that nesting in the DPS, but the island has subsided and is 2000, green turtle nesting on the MHI MHI might be attributed to a relatively no longer available for nesting (Kittinger has been identified in low numbers (1– small number of females that appear to et al., 2013). Trig, Gin, and Little Gin 24) on seven islands (Frey et al., 2013; be related to each other, and could lose large portions of their area, Kittinger et al., 2013; NMFS Pacific demographically isolated from FFS. concentrating nesting even further at Islands Fisheries Science Center, Frey et al. (2013) suggest that the East Island (Baker et al., 2006). unpublished data, 2013). Green turtles nesting population at the MHI may be b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones in the Central North Pacific DPS bask on the result of a few recent founders that beaches throughout the NWHI and in originated from the FFS breeding Impacts to the quality of coastal the MHI. population. Demographic studies of habitats in the MHI are a threat to this Since nesting surveys were initiated green turtles do not reveal any DPS and are expected to continue and in 1973, there has been a marked structuring of traits within the DPS. possibly increase with an increasing increase in annual green turtle nesting With regard to diversity and human population and annual influx of at East Island, FFS, where resilience, because nesting in the millions of tourists. Loss of foraging approximately 50 percent of the nesting Central North Pacific DPS is unusually habitat or reduction in habitat quality in on FFS occurs (Balazs and Chaloupka, concentrated at one site, there is little the MHI due to nearshore development 2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of diversity in nesting areas. Balazs is a threat to this DPS. Marina monitoring (1973–1977), the mean (Balazs, 1980) reported that the construction, beach development, annual nesting abundance was 83 distribution of green turtles in the siltation of forage areas, contamination females, and during the most recent 5 Hawaiian Archipelago has been reduced of forage areas from anthropogenic years of monitoring (2009–2012), the within historical times, and Kittinger et activities, resort development or mean annual nesting abundance was al. (2013) suggest that a significant activities, increased vessel traffic, and 464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka, constriction in the spatial distribution of other activities are all considered threats 2006; G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished important reproduction sites presents a to this population and its habitat data). This increase over the last 40 challenge to the population’s future and (Bowen et al., 1992; NMFS and USFWS, years corresponds to an annual increase makes this DPS highly vulnerable. 1998; Friedlander et al., 2006; Wedding of 4.8 percent. Further, the primary nesting site, FFS, is and Friedlander, 2008; Wedding et al., Information on in-water abundance a low-lying coral atoll that is susceptible 2008; Van Houtan et al., 2010). Seagrass trends is consistent with the increase in to erosion, geomorphological changes and coral reef habitat of Moloka‘i has nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs et al., and sea level rise, and has already lost been degraded from upland soil erosion 2005; Balazs et al., 1996). This linkage significant nesting area (Baker et al., and siltation, and coral reefs of Hawai‘i, is to be expected since genetics, satellite 2006). Kaua‘i, Lana‘i, Maui, and O‘ahu have telemetry, and direct observation show been degraded by sedimentation, that green turtles from the nesting B. Summary of Factors Affecting the sewage, or coastal construction (NMFS beaches in the FFS nesting site remain Central North Pacific DPS and USFWS, 1998). In general, MHI resident to foraging pastures throughout 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened coral reefs have suffered from land- the archipelago (Balazs, 1976; Craig and Destruction, Modification, or based sources of pollution, overfishing, Balazs, 1995; Keuper-Bennett and Curtailment of its Habitat or Range recreational overuse, and alien and Bennet, 2000; P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. invasive species (Friedlander et al., comm., 2013). The number of immature a. Terrestrial Zone 2005). Vessel groundings (mechanical green turtles residing in foraging areas In Hawai‘i, most nesting currently damage to habitat and reef-associated of the eight MHI has increased (Balazs occurs in the NWHI, although nesting is organisms) and related release of et al., 1996). In addition, although the increasing in the MHI, as is basking of contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous causes are not totally clear, there has green turtles. Coastal development and substances, etc.) are a threat to Central been a dramatic increase in the number construction, vehicular and pedestrian North Pacific green turtle habitat (Keller of basking turtles in the Hawaiian traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and et al., 2009). It is difficult to predict the Islands over the last 2 decades, both in other human related activities are exact number or severity of vessel the southern foraging areas of the main current threats to nesting and basking groundings expected in any future year, islands (Balazs et al., 1996) as well as habitat in the MHI. These threats will but key nesting and foraging habitat for at northern foraging areas at Midway affect more green turtles in this DPS if green sea turtles occurs in the areas of Atoll (Balazs et al., 2005). nesting increases in the MHI. Human the MHI and the NWHI where With regard to spatial structure, populations are growing rapidly in commercial and recreational boating genetic sampling in the Central North many areas of the insular Pacific, occurs (Keller et al., 2009). Pacific DPS has been extensive and including Hawai‘i, and this expansion is During the last century, habitat on representative, given that there are few exerting increased pressure on limited Johnston Atoll was affected by military nesting populations in this region. island resources. activities such as nuclear testing and Results of mtDNA analysis indicate a Climatic changes in the NWHI pose chemical weapons incineration. The low level of spatial structure with regard threats through reduction in area of lingering effects of these activities

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

include water contamination from predators of green turtles in Hawai‘i; Economic Zone (EEZ). Proclamation nutrients, dioxins, plutonium, and a however, the extent of predation is 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in subsurface plume of PCB-contaminated unknown (Balazs, 1995; Balazs and expanded areas of the Monument, and petroleum product (Balazs, 1985). Kubis, 2007; Francke, 2013). directs the Secretaries of Interior and In summary, within Factor A, we find Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and Commerce to ensure that recreational that the loss of nesting beach habitat is cats—all introduced species—that exist and non-commercial fishing continue to a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We on the MHI are known to prey on eggs be managed as sustainable activities in find that coastal development and and hatchlings, although the impact on the Monument. The protected areas construction, vehicular and pedestrian the current low level of nesting is provide some protection to sea turtles traffic, beach pollution, tourism, and unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely and their habitat through permitted other human related activities are low compared to historical levels). If access and its remoteness. threats in the MHI. Climate change, nesting in the MHI increases, the A commercial ban on turtle harvest marina construction, contamination of importance of the threat from these was put into place by the State of forage areas from anthropogenic potential predators would increase. Hawai‘i in 1974, 4 years before the green activities, resort development or turtle was listed under the ESA. Since 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing activities, increased vessel traffic are 1978, green turtles have been protected Regulatory Mechanisms significant, increasing threats posing a by the ESA. They are also protected by risk to the persistence of this DPS. Regulatory mechanisms that protect the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter green turtles are in place and include 195D (Hawai‘i State Legislature, 2. Factor B: Overutilization for State, Federal, and international laws. accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai‘i Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or The analysis of these existing regulatory Administrative Rules, 13–124 (Hawai‘i Educational Purposes mechanisms assumed that all would Administrative Rules, accessed Sept. 10, Harvest of green turtles has been remain in place at their current levels. 2010), which adopt the same illegal since green turtles were listed Numerous Federal and State definitions, status designations, and under the ESA in 1978. It is possible governmental and non-governmental prohibitions as the ESA and carry that human take today is underreported, efforts at public education, protection additional penalties for violations at the as anecdotal information suggests that and monitoring of green turtles State government level. These two some degree of illegal take occurs contribute to the conservation of the statutes have been, and currently are, throughout the MHI. The extent of such Central North Pacific DPS. At least 16 key tools in efforts to recover and take is unknown; however, it is believed international treaties and/or regulatory protect this DPS, and both have that current illegal harvest of green mechanisms apply to the conservation provided for comprehensive protection turtles for human consumption of green turtles in the Central North and recovery activities that have been continues in a limited way, although Pacific. sufficiently effective to improve the Federal and State cooperative efforts Nesting occurs exclusively within the status of green turtles in Hawai‘i and existing legislation appear to be United States. Monitoring and significantly. The ESA and Hawai‘i minimizing the threat. protective efforts are ongoing for both statutes are not, however, redundant. nesting areas (in the NWHI and where 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation For example, the ESA requires Federal nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in agencies to consult with the Services on The FP disease affects green turtles nearshore waters. Regulatory their actions that may affect green found in the Central North Pacific mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in turtles. Ocean (Francke et al., 2013). This place through the ESA, MSA and the Current monitoring, conservation disease results in internal and/or State of Hawai‘i that currently address efforts, and legal enforcement have been external tumors (fibropapillomas) that direct and incidental take of Central effective and promote the persistence of may grow large enough to hamper North Pacific green turtles, and these the Central North Pacific DPS, which swimming, vision, feeding, and regulatory mechanisms have been an occurs almost exclusively in U.S. potential escape from predators. FP important factor in the encouraging waters. It is important to note, however, appears to have peaked in some areas of trend in this DPS. that the analysis by the SRT did not Hawai‘i, remained the same in some The Pacific Remote Islands Marine consider the scenario in which current regions, and increased in others (Van National Monument was established in laws or regulatory mechanisms were not Houtan et al., 2010). Environmental January 2009, and is cooperatively continued. Under the ESA, regulatory factors may be significant in promoting managed by the Secretary of Commerce measures provide protections that are FP, and eutrophication (increase in (NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior not provided entirely by State nutrients) of coastal marine ecosystems (USFWS), with the exception of Wake protections. For instance, if the DPS was may promote this disease (Van Houtan Island and Johnston Atoll, which are delisted and the protections of the ESA et al., 2010). FP remains an important currently managed by the Department of were no longer in place, many on-the- concern in some green turtle Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from ground conservation and monitoring populations. This is particularly true the mean low water lines around actions and, importantly, financial given the continued, and possibly future emergent islands and atolls and include resources that are afforded by the ESA increasing, human impacts to, and green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing (e.g., section 6) would not continue. In eutrophication of, coastal marine is prohibited within the limits of the addition, the taking of green turtles in ecosystems that may promote this Monument, and recreational fishing the United States requires authorization disease. However, its effects on requires a permit. On September 27, under sections 7 or 10 of the ESA and reproductive effort are uncertain. 2014, President Obama issued their implementing regulations. For Ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.) prey on Presidential Proclamation 9173 to example, activities that affect green hatchlings at FFS (Niethammer et al., expand the Pacific Remote Islands turtles and do not involve Federal 1997) at approximately 5 percent Monument to incorporate waters and agencies, such as coastal development, (Balazs, 1980). Large grouper submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake construction, and research, must (Epinephelus tauvina), sea birds, and Island, and Johnston Atoll to the comply with section 10 of the ESA to sharks are documented natural seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive avoid violating the statute. Section 10

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15325

permits require avoiding, minimizing, in fishing gear over 25 years ago in percent of green turtle strandings (N = and mitigating impacts to green turtles Hawai‘i. While gill nets are regulated by 3,745) were caused by boat strike in the to the extent possible. Federal actions the state of Hawai‘i, fishers are only Hawaiian Archipelago from 1982 to (i.e., those authorized, funded, or required to inspect them completely 2003. Additionally, boat traffic has been carried out by Federal agencies), are every two hours, so entanglement and shown to exclude green turtles from subject to consultation with the Services drowning does occur (NMFS, 2012). preferred coastal foraging pastures under section 7 of the ESA; those Each year green sea turtles are (Seminoff et al., 2002c), which may resulting in take of green turtles are incidentally entangled in net gear, some negatively affect their nutritional intake. required to minimize effects. These of these resulting in mortality (e.g., Vessel groundings (mechanical actions include, but are not limited to, Francke, 2013); however the reported damage to habitat and reef-associated federally regulated fisheries and strandings in the MHI are believed to be organisms) and related release of management and research activities a smaller subset of the actual level of contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous within the federally-protected interaction with this gear. substances, etc.) are a threat not only to Papaha¯naumokua¯kea Marine National Central North Pacific green turtle iii. Other Gear Types Monument in the NWHI. habitat, but directly to the turtles The threat of bycatch in international Hook-and-line fishing from shore or themselves. Thirteen reported vessel fisheries is not adequately regulated, boats also hooks and entangles green groundings have occurred in the NWHI although bycatch in domestic Federal turtles (Francke et al., 2013; NMFS, in the last 60 years (Keller et al., 2009). fisheries has been addressed to a greater 2012). Interactions with nearshore Vessel traffic and presence can also extent. In addition, some threats to the recreational fisheries are identified in have negative effects through habitat species, such as climate change, are the NMFS stranding database as those damage from anchors, waste discharge, either not able to be regulated under the turtles that strand as a result of light and noise (Keller et al., 2009). ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to interactions with fish hooks and fishing d. Effects of Climate Change control or even slow the threat. line. Nearshore fishery interactions have The Status Review did not reveal increased over time (Francke, 2013; As in other areas of the world, climate regulatory mechanisms in place to Francke et al., 2013; Ikonomopoulou et change and sea level rise have the specifically address marine pollution, al., 2013). While current public potential to negatively affect green sea level rise, and effects of climate outreach efforts by NMFS and its turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. change that continue to contribute to the partners attempt to reduce the Climate change influences on water extinction risk of this DPS. magnitude of impact on green turtles temperatures, ocean acidification, sea from hook-and-line fishing, injury or level and related changes in coral reef 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade mortality from the hooking or from the habitat, wave climate and coastal Factors Affecting its Continued shorelines are expected to continue Existence effects of line remaining on turtles that are cut free or break the line remains an (Friedlander et al., 2008). Keller et al. a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear issue (http://pifscblog.wordpress.com/ (2009) suggest that sea level rise, The SRT identified incidental capture 2013/06/07/marine-turtle-response- changing storm dynamics, sea surface in fisheries as a significant threat to achieves-significant-milestone/). temperatures, and ocean acidification are key threats for the NWHI, and that green turtles of the Central North Pacific b. Marine Debris and Pollution DPS. The primary gear types involved in evidence of sea level rise has already these interactions include longlines and The ingestion of and entanglement in begun to adversely affect terrestrial and nets. These are employed by both marine debris is another anthropogenic ocean habitat. Tiwari et al. (2010) artisanal and industrial fleets, and target threat to Central North Pacific green argued that East Island itself is still not a variety of species. turtles throughout their range. Marine yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of debris is common in the MHI and a crude nesting area and current nesting i. Longline Fisheries direct threat to sea turtles (Wedding and densities. Yet entire islands have been Pacific longline fisheries capture Friedlander, 2008). Stranding submerged in recent history (i.e., Whale- green turtles as bycatch in longline gear information for this DPS shows that Skate in the late 1990s), resulting in the (line, hooks), and these interactions can entanglement in lost or discarded loss of a primary nesting site at FFS result in mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S. fishing line is one of the causes of green (Baker et al., 2006). It is likely that sea longline fisheries are required to comply turtle strandings and mortality in the level rise will lead to increased erosion with sea turtle mitigation measures (50 MHI. In the NWHI, marine debris is also of nesting beaches and significant loss CFR 665.812), including the use of a threat in the terrestrial and marine of habitat (Baker et al., 2006; IPCC, circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers, environment. In 1996, it was estimated 2007); however, it remains unclear how and crewmember training, that have that between 750 and 1,000 tons of nesting habitat loss and natal homing reduced green sea turtle interactions to marine debris were on reefs and beaches traits will influence future nesting in negligible levels. However, while exact in the NWHI, and the source of much of this DPS. numbers are not available, it is the debris is fishing nets discarded or As temperatures increase, there is estimated that, at a minimum, 100 green lost in the northeastern Pacific Ocean concern that incubation temperatures turtles from the Central North Pacific (Keller et al., 2009). Turtles in the MHI could reach levels that exceed the DPS are captured and killed annually by encounter pollution as a result of coastal thermal tolerance for embryonic foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012). development, runoff, and waste water development, thus increasing embryo (point source and non-point source and hatchling mortality (Balazs and ii. Gillnet Fisheries pollution; Friedlander et al., 2008). Kubis, 2007; Fuller et al., 2010). Interactions between Central North Niethammer et al. (Niethammer 1997) Pacific green turtles and nearshore c. Vessel Interactions note that given that the FFS nesting fisheries in the MHI can result in As in other parts of the world, boating colony is on the northern extreme of entanglement, injury, and mortality. activities are a threat to turtles within green turtle breeding range, small Balazs et al. (1987) documented sea this DPS (Francke et al., 2013). changes in beach conditions (e.g., turtle mortality resulting from bycatch Chaloupka et al. (2008b) report that 2.5 microhabitats of nests) may have severe

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

consequences on nesting. Changes in DPS. The consideration of climate concentrated nesting (96 percent of global temperatures could also affect change, and the fact that the one nesting occurs at one location) and juvenile and adult distribution patterns. isolated atoll, where approximately 96 moderately low levels of abundance Possible changes to ocean currents and percent of green turtles within this DPS (3,846 nesting females). Such a low dynamics may result in negative effects nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level number is the result of chronic to natural dispersal during a complex rise, increase the risk of extinction for historical exploitation, which extirpated life cycle (Van Houtan and Halley, this DPS. 80 percent of historically major nesting 2011), and possible nest mortality C. Conservation Efforts for the Central grounds (Kittinger et al., 2013). The DPS linked to erosion may result from North Pacific DPS is geographically and chronologically increased storm frequency (Van Houtan well-sampled, with no sites where and Bass, 2007) and intensity (Keller et The State of Hawai‘i’s efforts to nesting is unquantified, and very little al., 2009). conserve green turtles include: Wildlife chance there are undocumented nesting While sea turtles have survived past regulations; coordination of stranding locations. Time series analysis of eras that have included significant response and specimen storage on the nesting female abundance over 40 years temperature fluctuations, future climate islands of Maui, Hawai‘i, and Kaua‘i; at FFS shows a marked increase in change is expected to happen at issuance and management of special nesting since surveys were initiated in unprecedented rates, and if turtles activity permits; statewide outreach and 1973, with an encouraging annual rate cannot adapt quickly they may face education activities; and nest of increase of 4.8 percent. However, 96 local to widespread extirpations monitoring on Maui (Department of percent of nesting now occurs at one (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from Land and Natural Resources, 2013). atoll (FFS)—where sea level rise is a global climate change induced by Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources significant concern—and no more than human activities are likely to become staff responds to stranded turtle reports 40 females nest at any of the other 11 more apparent in future years (IPCC, and issues special use permits to sites. Information on in-water 2007). researchers and educators. The Division abundance trends is consistent with the of Conservation and Resources increase in nesting. e. Effects of Spatial Structure Enforcement investigates reports of While the nesting population illegal poaching, provides support and The Status Review indicates that the trajectory in the Central North Pacific security at some nest sites and DPS shows strength in its population DPS is positive and encouraging, the strandings, and addresses complaints trend, but that there are concerns about DPS exhibits moderately low levels of from the public regarding turtle overall abundance, spatial structure, abundance (3,846 nesting females), and disturbances. and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite more than 96 percent of nesting occurs With regard to conservation areas, the of the positive trends in the last few at one site in the NWHI (FFS). Papaha¯naumokua¯kea Marine National decades, the unprecedented Therefore, survival of this DPS is Monument in the NWHI is a concentration of nesting at one site and currently highly dependent on conservation area established in 2006 moderately low population size raise successful nesting at FFS (Niethammer that encompasses coral reefs, islands serious concerns about the resilience of et al., 1992). The concentrated nature and shallow water environments. It this DPS, particularly its ability to adapt and relatively small size of the nesting comprises several previously existing to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight population make it vulnerable to Federal conservation areas, including percent of the population nests are low random variation and stochasticities in the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a the biological and physical Reserve, Midway Atoll National single low-lying atoll), making them environment, including natural Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian Islands extremely vulnerable to sea level rise— catastrophes, as well as changes in National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine some effects of which have already been climate and resulting effects such as sea Refuge, State Seabird Sanctuary at Kure witnessed. Keller et al. (2009) suggest level rise. This increases its risk of Atoll and the Battle of Midway National that sea level rise, changing storm extinction, even though the DPS may Memorial. The Monument is dynamics, sea surface temperatures, and currently have positive population administered jointly by three co- ocean acidification are key threats for growth (e.g., Meffe et al., 1994; Primack, trustees: NOAA, the USFWS, and the the NWHI. Current and projected maps 1998; Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Hunter State of Hawai‘i. The Monument’s of four islands in the NWHI predicted and Gibbs, 2007). That said, aside from mission is to carry out seamless a sea level rise ranging from 9 cm to 88 sea level rise, FFS is relatively isolated integrated management to ensure cm by 2100, with a projected loss of from anthropogenic threats, as it occurs ecological integrity and achieve strong, nesting beach at approximately 15 to 26 within the Papaha¯naumokua¯kea Marine long-term protection and perpetuation percent (IPCC, 2001). Further, sea level National Monument, a remote of NWHI ecosystems, Native Hawaiian rise is expected to continue at a rate Monument that has controlled access for culture, and heritage resources for exceeding that observed during 1971– activities that occur within it. The current and future generations. 2010 as a result of increased ocean regional range expansion into nesting Commercial fishing is prohibited in the warming and increased loss of glacier areas in the MHI provide increased Monument and all other human and ice sheet mass (IPCC, 2013). Baker spatial diversity and may buffer against activities require a permit. et al. (2006) examined the potential the loss of nesting sites at FFS; however, Overall, conservation efforts have effects of sea level rise in the NWHI and nesting areas in the MHI are exposed to been successful in this DPS, as found that the primary nesting area for anthropogenic threats. exhibited by the increasing trend in the the Central North Pacific population is Within Factor E, we find that green turtle population. threatened by sea level rise through incidental bycatch in fishing gear, possible loss of nesting habitat. They marine pollution, interactions with D. Extinction Risk Assessment and note that one formerly significant recreational and commercial vessels, Findings for the Central North Pacific nesting site—Whale-Skate Island—is climate change, beach driving, and DPS now completely submerged. They major storm events all negatively affect The Central North Pacific DPS is further note that the islets of Trig, Gin green turtles in the Central North Pacific characterized by geographically and Little Gin could lose large portions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15327

of their area, concentrating nesting even the Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico (Cliffton et al., 1982; Alvarado-Dı´az et further at East Island. In contrast, Tiwari and the Gala´pagos Archipelago, Ecuador al., 2001), and growth data from the Gulf et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself (Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also of California suggest that green turtles in is still not yet at carrying capacity, in includes the Mexican Pacific coast this DPS mature at 15–25 years the sense of crude nesting area and breeding population, which is currently (Seminoff et al., 2002a). Although not a current nesting densities. It remains listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, July clear cause of the increasing nesting unclear how catastrophic nesting habitat 28, 1978). trend, the consistency in timing is loss and natal homing traits will Green turtle nesting is widely nonetheless compelling. The influence future nesting in this DPS. dispersed in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. presidential decree protecting all sea Habitat degradation resulting from the We identified 40 total nesting sites for turtles of Mexico (Pesca, 1990) certainly release of contaminants contained in which abundance information is helped the situation, but this occurred landfills and other areas of the NWHI available, although there are sporadic much later than the start of nesting could also occur as the islands erode or nesting events in other areas with beach conservation. It is more likely that are flooded from sea level rise (Keller et undocumented abundance. The largest this national legislation has had its al., 2009). Other effects of climate nesting aggregation is found in Colola, greatest positive impact at the foraging change include increasing temperatures Michoaca´n, Mexico, with 11,588 nesting areas, where green turtle hunting was at nesting beaches that may affect females, or nearly 58 percent of the total once rampant. hatchling sex ratios and embryonic nesting population (Delgado-Trejo and With regard to spatial structure, development (Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second genetic sampling in the eastern Pacific Fuller et al., 2010b). Making this an largest site is in the Gala´pagos Islands, has been extensive and the coverage in even greater concern is that climate Ecuador, where nesting at the four this region is substantial considering the change and the resultant sea level rise primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and relatively low population sizes of most are difficult to regulate and certainly Barahona (Isabela Island), Las Bachas eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this cannot be sufficiently regulated through (Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas DPS there is significant population the ESA to slow its effects. (Baltras Island)) has been stable to substructuring. Four regional genetic In summary, despite an upward trend slightly increasing since the late 1970s, stocks have been identified in the in population abundance, the Central and was last estimated at 3,603 nesting eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS, North Pacific DPS is characterized by females in 2005 (Za`rate et al., 2006; unpubl. data): Revillagigedos geographically concentrated nesting and Za`rate, unpubl. data). Other nesting Archipelago (Mexico), Michoaca´n low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting areas are found in Michoa´can, including (Mexico), Costa Rica, and the Gala´pagos females). The lack of redundancy in Bahia Maruata (1,149; Delgado-Trejo Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively nesting sites and the low nesting and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012) and high level of spatial structure and the numbers at these sites lead to low Motin de Oro (240; Delgado-Trejo and presence of rare/unique haplotypes at resilience within this DPS. The Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012); Clarion and each nesting site stock. Green turtles consideration of climate change, and the Socorro Islands in the Revillagigedos from multiple nesting beach origins fact that the one isolated atoll, where Archipelago, Mexico (500; Blanco and commonly mix at feeding areas in the approximately 96 percent of green Santidria´n, 2011); and 26 sites Gulf of California (Nichols, 2003; P. turtles within this DPS nest, is throughout the Pacific Coast of Costa Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, Rica, including Playa San Jose in the Bat study using nuclear single nucleotide increase the risk of extinction. Islands (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl. data), polymorphisms (a DNA sequence For the above reasons, we propose to Playa Colorada (498; L. Fonseca, variation occurring commonly within a list the Central North Pacific DPS as unpubl. data), Nombre Jesus (450; population) and microsatellite markers threatened. We do not find the DPS to Blanco and Santidria´n, 2011), Playa investigated the genetic stock structure be in danger of extinction presently Cabuyal (273; P. Santidria´n-Tomillo, among five Pacific green turtle nesting because of the increasing nesting trend; Leatherback Trust, pers. comm., 2013), populations. They found significant however, the continued threats coupled Playa Zapotillal (150; Blanco and structure between their two eastern with a small and narrowly distributed Santidria´n, 2011) and Playa Nancite Pacific sample sites (Gala´pagos and nesting population are likely to (123; Fonseca et al., 2011). Low level Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated endanger the DPS within the foreseeable nesting (fewer than 100 nesting females) gene flow between regional nesting future. occurs elsewhere in Mexico, Costa Rica, stocks is limited (Roden et al., 2013). mainland Ecuador, Colombia, Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag XVII. East Pacific DPS Guatemala, and Peru, although the last returns from foraging areas that were two are unquantified (G. Tiburcios- applied at two primary nesting sites, A. Discussion of Population Parameters Pintos, Minicipio de Los Cabos, pers. Michoaca´n Mexico and the Gala´pagos for the East Pacific DPS comm., 2012; S. Kelez, ecOceanica, Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent The range of the East Pacific DPS pers. comm., 2012). groupings suggest some North/South extends from the California/Oregon Nesting at the largest beach in the structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of border (41 °N) southward along the range of this DPS (Colola, Michoaca´n, green turtles in the eastern Pacific show Pacific coast of the Americas to central Mexico) has shown an upward trend apparent track clustering in Northwest Chile (40 °S). Green turtles originating since 1996. The observed increase at Mexico to Southern United States, and from this DPS regularly strand along the Colola may have resulted from the onset in the Southeast Pacific, from the shoreline of Oregon and Washington. of nesting beach protection in 1979—as Gala´pagos Islands to the high seas and The northern and southern boundaries is suggested by the similarity in timing to the Central American mainland. of this DPS extend from the between the onset of beach conservation There are too few satellite tracks to aforementioned locations in the United and the age-to-maturity for green turtles provide solid information on spatial States and Chile to 142 °W and 96 °W, in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward structure. Within-region variation in respectively. The offshore boundary of turn in annual nesting was seen in 1996, demographic features also suggests a this DPS is a straight line between these about 17 years after the initiation of a level of spatial structure for the East two coordinates. This DPS encompasses nesting beach protection program Pacific DPS. Among all nesting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

assemblages in the East Pacific DPS, the traffic during the nesting season Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90 Revillagigedos Islands stands out as (Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due percent of the eggs were taken by egg uniquely different from the remaining to human presence is also a threat to collectors during one particular study areas. nesting beaches in the Galapa´gos Islands (Blanco, 2010). Egg harvest is also With regard to diversity and (Za´rate et al., 2006). However, such believed to occur at unprotected nesting resilience, the East Pacific DPS has threats vary by site (Za´rate, 2012). sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, substantial nesting at both insular and Insular sites have very low levels of and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS, continental nesting sites. The presence human interference at nesting beaches, 2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted of year round nesting at some sites, and although turtles may be affected in in many areas of northwest Mexico non-overlapping nesting seasons at foraging areas. The low impacts at despite legal protection (Nichols et al., others, suggest that the nesting insular nesting sites suggest that these 2002; Seminoff et al., 2003; J. Seminoff, phenology of green turtles in this DPS areas may serve as nesting refugia if NMFS, pers. obs., 2012). Mancini and may help buffer in geologic time against management regimes change and/or Koch (2009) describe a black market that climate change, both in terms of poaching at continental sites increases. killed tens of thousands of green turtles increased mean incubation temperatures each year in the Eastern Pacific Region. on beaches and in terms of impact to b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones Sea turtles were, and continue to be, storms and other seasonal events. The With respect to environmental harvested primarily for their meat, nesting season in Michoaca´n runs from degradation in the marine environment, although other products have served October through January (Alvarado-Dı´az coastal habitats along the continental important non-food uses. Sea turtle oil and Figueroa, 1990); in the and insular shores of the eastern Pacific was for many years used as a cold Revillagigedos Islands nesting occurs are relatively pristine, although green remedy and the meat, eggs and other from March through November with a turtles in San Diego Bay, at the north products have been highly-valued for peak in April/May (Awbrey et al., 1984; edge of their range, have high levels of their aphrodisiacal qualities, beliefs that Brattstrom, 1982) and in the Gala´pagos, contaminants (Komoroske et al., 2011; strongly persist in the countries nesting occurs year-round with a peak 2012). However, the nutrient flow and bordering the East Pacific DPS. from January to March (Za´rate et al., structure within seagrass communities 3. Factor C: Disease or Predation 2013). Year-round nesting has also been in many coastal areas are likely confirmed for some areas in Costa Rica. modified today due to the depletion of FP is virtually non-existent in green There is a range of beach shade levels green turtles which, during times of turtles within the East Pacific DPS depending on the nesting beach. At higher abundance, would have been (Koch et al., 2007), and predation occurs some sites such as those in the keystone consumers in these habitats at low levels. In the Gala´pagos Islands Revillagigedos Islands and beaches in (Bjorndal, 1980; Thayer et al., 1992; there is depredation on eggs and Mexico, the beaches have little Seminoff et al., 2012b). Although the hatchlings by feral pigs (Sus sp.) and vegetation and nests are commonly laid impacts of ongoing and proposed beetles (order Coleoptera), although in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the human activities are difficult to predation levels are not reported (Za´rate beaches in Costa Rica are highly shaded quantify, recent human population et al., 2003; 2006). There are accounts of and nests are commonly deposited deep increases in many areas underscore the jaguars (Panthera onca) killing adult in the coastal scrub bushes and trees. need to develop and implement female green turtles (L. Fonseca, There are also intermediate sites, such management strategies that balance National University of Costa Rica, as those in the Gala´pagos, which have development and economic activities unpubl. data, 2009) at beaches in Costa a mix of full sun and shade sites on any with the needs of green turtles. Rica, but this is not a major problem for given beach. While the exposed beaches In summary, within Factor A we find the DPS. that the East Pacific DPS of the green are more likely to suffer from the 4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing turtle is negatively affected by ongoing impacts of climate change, those in Regulatory Mechanisms shaded areas may be subjected to less changes in both its terrestrial and heating. marine habitats as a result of land and The following countries have laws to water use practices. We also find that protect green turtles: Chile, Colombia, B. Summary of Factors Affecting the coastal development, beachfront Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, East Pacific DPS lighting, and heavy foot traffic Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, 1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened consistently affect hatchlings and Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the Destruction, Modification, or nesting turtles on a small portion of this United States. In addition, at least 10 Curtailment of its Habitat or Range DPS. international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation a. Terrestrial Zone 2. Factor B: Overutilization for of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS. The largest threat on nesting beaches Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Overall, regulatory mechanisms for in the East Pacific DPS is reduced Educational Purposes green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are availability of habitat due to heavy In some countries and localities inconsistent. While there are numerous armament and subsequent erosion. In within the range of the East Pacific DPS, substantive and/or improving addition, while nesting beaches in Costa harvest of green turtle eggs is legal, conservation efforts, especially on the Rica, Revillagigedos Islands, and the while in others it is illegal but persistent primary nesting beaches, and this may Gala´pagos Islands are less affected by due to lack of enforcement. The impact be reflected in the recent increases in coastal development than green turtle of egg harvest is exacerbated by the high the number of nesting females, many nesting beaches in other regions around monetary value of eggs, consistent concerns remain due to limited the Pacific, several of the secondary market demand, and severe poverty in enforcement of existing laws and marine green turtle nesting beaches in Me´xico many of the countries in the Eastern protected areas as well as extensive suffer from coastal development. For Pacific Region where sea turtles are fishery bycatch, especially in coastal example, effects of coastal development found. Egg harvest is a major waters. The analysis of existing are especially acute at Maruata, a site conservation challenge at several sites regulatory mechanisms assumed that all with heavy tourist activity and foot in Costa Rica, including Nombre de would remain in place at their current

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15329

levels; however, some regulatory 5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Additionally, TEDs are not required mechanisms, including laws and Factors Affecting Its Continued for artisanal shrimping boats, which international treaties, are not realizing Existence with today’s technology, are becoming their full potential because they are not a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear more ‘industrial’ in ability and have enforced adequately in all countries been reported to catch large numbers of occupied by the DPS. Incidental capture in artisanal and sea turtles (A. Zavala, Universidad de While most of the major nesting commercial fisheries is a significant Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set beaches are monitored, some of the threat to the survival of green turtles longlines and gill nets, both artisanal management measures in place are throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean. and industrial, also interact frequently inadequate and may be inappropriate. The primary gear types involved in with sea turtles, and can have On some beaches, hatchling releases are these interactions include longlines, devastating mortality rates, such as has coordinated with the tourist industry or drift nets, set nets, and trawl fisheries. been the case in artisanal fisheries of nests are being trampled on or are These are employed by both artisanal Baja California, Mexico (Peckham et al., unprotected. The largest threat on the and industrial fleets, and target a wide 2007). In purse seine fisheries, which nesting beaches, reduced availability of variety of species including tunas typically target tuna and other large habitat due to heavy armament and (Thunnus sp.), sharks (class pelagic fish species, the highest rate of subsequent erosion, is just beginning to Chondrichthyes), sardines (Sardinella turtles are captured with ‘‘log sets’’ be addressed, but without immediate sp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and around natural floating objects or Fish attention may ultimately result in the mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Aggregation Devices (Hall, 1998). demise of the highest density beaches. In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Further, it is suspected that there are particularly areas in the southern b. Pollution substantial impacts from illegal, portion of the range of this DPS, significant bycatch has been reported in Other threats such as debris ingestion unreported, and unregulated fishing, (Seminoff et al., 2002c) and boat strikes which we are unable to mitigate without artisanal gill net and longline shark and mahi mahi fisheries operating out of (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2012; additional fisheries management efforts NMFS stranding records, unpubl.) also and international collaborations. While Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2006) and, to a lesser extent, Chile affect green turtles in the Eastern conservation projects for this population Pacific. Red tide poisoning is also a have been in place since 1978 for some (Donoso and Dutton, 2010). The fishing industry in Peru is the second largest threat to this species (Delgado-Trejo and important areas, efforts in other areas Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). are still being developed to address economic activity in the country and, major threats, including fisheries over the past few years, the longline c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural bycatch and long-term nesting habitat fishery has rapidly increased. During an Disasters protection. observer program in 2003/2004, 588 sets Bycatch has not been thoroughly were observed during 60 trips, and 154 Effects of climate change include, evaluated but it is largely known that sea turtles were taken as bycatch. Green among other things, sea surface most fishermen either improperly turtles were the second most common temperature increases, the alteration of implement TEDs or remove them sea turtle species in these interactions. thermal sand characteristics of beaches entirely from their trawls. As was the In many cases, green turtles are kept on (from warming temperatures), which case with sea turtle meat and egg board for human consumption; could result in the reduction or collection, an almost total lack of therefore, the mortality rate in this cessation of male hatchling production enforcement of bycatch mitigation artisanal longline fishery is likely high (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., measures by local authorities only helps because sea turtles are retained for 2009), and a significant rise in sea level, to confound the problem. Additionally, future consumption or sale. which could significantly restrict green TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal Koch et al. (2006) reported green turtle nesting habitat. While sea turtles shrimping boats which, with today’s turtle bycatch-related dead strandings have survived past eras that have technology, are becoming more numbering in the hundreds in Bahia included significant temperature ‘industrial’ in ability and have been Magdalena. In Baja California Sur, fluctuations, future climate change is reported to catch large numbers of sea Mexico, from 2006–2009 small-scale expected to happen at unprecedented turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch gill-net fisheries caused massive green rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly mortality can be sufficiently reduced turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio, they may face local to widespread across the range of the DPS in the near where Mancini et al. (2012) estimated extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). future because of the diversity and that over 1,000 turtles were killed each Impacts from global climate change magnitude of the fisheries operating in year in nets set for guitarfish. induced by human activities are likely the DPS, the lack of comprehensive Bycatch in coastal areas occurs to become more apparent in future years information on fishing distribution and principally in shrimp trawlers, gill nets (IPCC, 2007). However, at the primary effort, limitations on implementing and bottom longlines (e.g., Orrego and nesting beach in Michoaca´n, Mexico demonstrated effective conservation Arauz, 2004). However, since 1996, all (Colola), the beach slope aspect is measures, geopolitical complexities, countries from Mexico to Ecuador extremely steep and the dune surface at limitations on enforcement capacity, declared the use of TEDs as mandatory which the vast majority of nests are laid and lack of availability of for all industrial fleets to meet the is well-elevated. This site is likely comprehensive bycatch reduction requirements to export shrimp to the buffered against short-term sea level rise technologies. United States under the U.S. Magnuson- as a result of climate change. In The Status Review did not reveal Stevens Fishery Conservation and addition, many nesting sites are along regulatory mechanisms in place to Management Act (Helvey and Fahy, protected beach faces, out of tidal surge specifically address impacts to the 2012). Since then, bycatch has not been pathways. For example, multiple nesting beach, marine pollution, sea thoroughly evaluated but it is widely nesting sites in Costa Rica and in the level rise, and effects of climate change believed that most fishers either Gala´pagos Islands are on beaches that that continue to contribute to the improperly implement TEDs or remove are protected from major swell coming extinction risk of this DPS. them entirely from their trawls. in from the ocean.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Within Factor E, we find that fishery the Gala´pagos Archipelago suggest a For the above reasons, we propose to bycatch that occurs throughout the stable trend, and the largest-ever nesting list the East Pacific DPS as threatened. eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest We do not find the DPS to be in danger bycatch mortality of green turtles from this site may be on the increase as well. of extinction presently because of high nearshore gill net fisheries, is a Genetic and demographic data show nesting abundance and increasing significant threat to the persistence of some substructuring among the trends; however, the continued threats this DPS. populations, and nesting is well- from coastal and offshore fisheries are likely to endanger the DPS within the C. Conservation Efforts for the East distributed in the East Pacific DPS, foreseeable future. Pacific DPS occurring from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to northern Peru. XVIII. Proposed Determinations There are a multitude of NGOs and Such a broad latitudinal range may be conservation networks whose efforts are advantageous to green turtles in this Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires raising awareness about sea turtle DPS in the face of global climate change. that the Services make listing conservation. Likewise, with year round nesting at determinations based solely on the best Protection of green turtles is provided several sites and non-overlapping scientific and commercial data available by local marine reserves throughout the nesting seasons at others, it appears that after conducting a review of the status region. In addition, sea turtles may this DPS may benefit from nesting of the species and taking into account benefit from the following broader season temporal diversity in relation to those efforts, if any, being made by any regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical population resilience. Lastly, nesting at state or foreign nation, or political Pacific (ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR) both continental and insular sites subdivisions thereof, to protect and Initiative supported by the governments provides a degree of diversity as well as conserve the species (16 U.S.C. of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and 1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best resilience, with some insular sites Ecuador, which is a voluntary available scientific and commercial providing relatively threat-free nesting agreement to work towards sustainable information, including information refugia within this DPS’s range. use and conservation of marine included in the petition, the status resources in these countries’ waters; (2) Nevertheless, green turtles continue to review report, and other published and the ETP Seascape Program managed by be affected by a variety of threats within unpublished information; and we have Conservation International that supports the range of the East Pacific DPS. These consulted with species experts and cooperative marine management in the include harvest of eggs and turtles for individuals familiar with green turtles ETP, including implementation of the food and non-food uses, bycatch in and their habitat. CMAR; (3) the IATTC and its bycatch coastal and offshore marine fisheries Based on the best available scientific reduction efforts that are among the gear, coastal development, beachfront and commercial information, we world’s finest for regional fisheries lighting, and heavy foot traffic. identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central management organizations; (4) the IAC, Although the situation has improved to North Pacific, North Atlantic, which is designed to lessen impacts on some extent, the harvest of turtles and Mediterranean, South Atlantic, sea turtles from fisheries and other their eggs continues throughout much of Southwest Indian, North Indian, East human impacts; and (5) the Permanent the range, although more problematic Indian-West Pacific, Central West Commission of the South Pacific (Lima outside of the Gala´pagos Islands, Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central Convention), which has developed an particularly in Central America (egg South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find ‘‘Action Plan for Sea Turtles in the harvest) and Mexico (harvest of foraging that the purposes of the Act would be Southeast Pacific.’’ turtles). Mortality from diseases such as furthered by managing this wide- There are indications that wildlife FP is not a problem in the Eastern ranging species as separate units under enforcement branches of local and Pacific, but depredation by natural the DPS authority, in order to allow for national governments are stepping up predators is a very large concern, enhanced protections where needed. their efforts to enforce existing laws, particularly in the Gala´pagos and, to a Based on a review of the five factors although successes in stemming sea lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we turtle exploitation through legal interactions and mortalities with coastal find that the best available science channels are few and far between. and offshore fisheries in the eastern supports the listing status of Pacific region are of concern and are ‘‘endangered’’ for three of the DPSs and D. Extinction Risk Assessment and considered an impediment to green therefore conclude that the species as a Findings for the East Pacific DPS turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS. whole no longer meets the definition of The East Pacific DPS is characterized Yet despite these concerns, the largest a ‘‘threatened species’’ throughout its by moderate levels of green turtle nesting sites appear to be increasing. range. We propose to remove the current nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting Conservation actions, national laws, species-wide listing and to list 11 DPSs females) occurring in three primary and international instruments have as threatened or endangered. We regions, with Mexico having the largest provided the foundation for what propose to list the North Atlantic, South number of nesting females at several appears to be an ongoing population Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North sites (13,664 nesting females), followed recovery in the region, particularly in Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, by the Gala´pagos, Ecuador (3,603 Mexico, although work remains to Southwest Pacific, Central North nesting females), and Costa Rica (2,826 ensure continued recovery. Further, our Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs as nesting females distributed among 26 analysis did not consider the scenario in threatened, and the Mediterranean, nesting sites). Although trend which current laws or regulatory Central West Pacific, and Central South information is lacking for the vast mechanisms were not continued. Given Pacific DPSs as endangered for the majority of sites, 25 years of monitoring the conservation dependence of the reasons described above for each DPS. at Michoaca´n, Mexico—the largest species, without mechanisms in place to Regarding the February 16, 2012 nesting aggregation in this DPS—shows continue conservation efforts and petition from the Association of an increasing trend since the funding streams in this DPS, some Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the population’s low point in the mid- threats could increase and population Hawaiian green turtle population as a 1980s. In addition to Mexico, data from trends could be affected. DPS and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15331

ESA, as described above we conclude continued existence of species proposed specifying any particular area as critical that the petitioned entity qualifies as a for listing, or that result in the habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The DPS (Central North Pacific DPS), but destruction or adverse modification of Services’ regulations (50 CFR that the DPS should be listed as proposed critical habitat. If a proposed 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation threatened for the reasons discussed species is ultimately listed, section of critical habitat is not prudent when above. We therefore deny the petition 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to one or both of the following situations seeking its delisting. consult with the Services on any action exist: (1) The species is threatened by they authorize, fund, or carry out if taking or other human activity, and XIX. Significant Portion of the Range those actions may affect the listed identification of critical habitat can be Under the ESA and our implementing species or its critical habitat; Federal expected to increase the degree of threat regulations, a species may warrant agencies must insure that such actions to the species, or (2) such designation of listing if it is endangered or threatened are not likely to jeopardize the critical habitat would not be beneficial throughout all or a significant portion of continued existence of the species or to the species. its range. See the Final Policy on result in destruction or adverse The identification and mapping of Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant modification of designated critical critical habitat is not expected to Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR increase the degree of threat from Species Act’s Definitions of 402). Because green turtles are currently human activity, such as take of turtles ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened listed throughout their range, or eggs. In the absence of finding that Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). requirements for initiating consultation the designation of critical habitat would Under that policy, we only need to will not change if the current listing is increase threats to a species, a finding consider whether listing may be reclassified and revised to reflect that designation may be prudent is appropriate on the basis of the recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples warranted if there are any benefits to a ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ of Federal actions that affect green critical habitat designation. Here, the language if the rangewide analysis does turtles include, but are not limited to: potential benefits of designation would not lead to a determination to list as Dredging and channelization, beach and include (1) Triggering consultation threatened or endangered. Because we nearshore construction, pile-driving, under section 7 of the ESA for Federal have determined that each DPS of green water quality standards, power plants, actions in unoccupied designated turtle is either threatened or endangered vessel traffic, military activities, and critical habitat; (2) focusing throughout all of its range, no portion of fisheries management practices. conservation activities on the most its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for essential features and areas; (3) purposes of the definitions of B. Critical Habitat providing educational benefits to State ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines or county governments or private species.’’ critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas entities; and (4) preventing people from within the geographical area occupied causing inadvertent harm to the species. XX. Effects of Listing by the species, at the time it is listed Because we have determined that the Conservation measures provided for . . . on which are found those physical designation of critical habitat will not species listed as endangered or or biological features (I) essential to the likely increase the degree of threat to the threatened under the ESA include, but conservation of the species and (II) species and may provide some measure are not limited to, recovery plans and which may require special management of benefit, we determine that actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. considerations or protection; and (ii) designation of critical habitat may be 1536(f)) and the actions recommended specific areas outside the geographical prudent for the green turtle, subject to in them; designation of critical habitat if area occupied by the species at the time review of information in connection prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. it is listed . . . upon a determination by with the designation. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency the Secretary that such areas are Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) requirements to consult with the essential for the conservation of the state that critical habitat is not Services and to ensure its actions are species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).’’ Section determinable when one or both of the not likely to jeopardize the continued 3(3) of the ESA also defines the terms following situations exists: (1) existence of the species or result in the ‘‘conserve,’’ ‘‘conserving,’’ and Information sufficient to perform destruction or adverse modification of ‘‘conservation’’ to mean ‘‘to use and the required analysis of the impacts of the designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. use of all methods and procedures designation is lacking; or (2) the 1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking which are necessary to bring any biological needs of the species are not (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the endangered species or threatened sufficiently well known to permit species’ plight through listing promotes species to the point at which the identification of an area as critical conservation actions by Federal and measures provided pursuant to this habitat. At this point, we are still in the state agencies, foreign entities, private chapter Act are no longer necessary (16 process of acquiring the information groups, and individuals. Should the U.S.C. 1532(3)).’’ needed to assess the critical habitat proposed listings be made final, a Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as designation. Accordingly, we find recovery plan or plans may be amended, and implementing regulations designation of critical habitat to be not developed, unless we find that such (50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the determinable at this time. plan would not promote the maximum extent prudent and A final regulation designating critical conservation of the species. determinable, the Secretary shall habitat is generally due concurrently designate critical habitat at the time the with a final regulation listing a species A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and species is determined to be an as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. Consultation Requirements endangered or threatened species. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) Designations of critical habitat must be mandate that the proposed rule to of the ESA and its implementing based on the best scientific data designate critical habitat has to be regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal available and must take into published concurrent with the proposed agencies to confer with the Services on consideration the economic, national listing rule, and thus a proposed rule actions likely to jeopardize the security, and other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat may be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

published following the proposed these circumstances for keeping existing endangered and threatened wildlife listing rule (but at least 90 days before critical habitat designation in place as a under certain circumstances. the intended effective date of the rule transitional matter until the designation Regulations governing permits are (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(A)). Upon a is re-promulgated or amended through a codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR finding that designation of critical further rulemaking. Therefore, critical 223.206. With regard to endangered habitat is not determinable, the Services habitat remains in effect for the listed wildlife, a permit may be issued for the have an additional year to finalize a North Atlantic DPS in order to preserve following purposes: For scientific proposed critical habitat designation (16 its conservation value, as the designated purposes, to enhance the propagation or U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In effect, then, critical habitat continues to support the survival of the species, and for the Services have up to one year DPS’s important biological functions incidental take in connection with following final listing of the species to (e.g., foraging habitat, developmental otherwise lawful activities. There are finalize a critical habitat designation habitat, and shelter/refuge from also certain statutory exemptions from where such habitat is initially not predators). The Services have not the prohibitions, which are found in determinable. To ensure that the designated critical habitat within the sections 9 and 10 of the ESA. Services may make a timely proposal range of the other ten green turtle DPSs. D. Identification of Those Activities based on the best scientific and C. Take Prohibitions That Would Constitute a Violation of commercial information available, we Section 9 of the ESA invite public input on features and areas All of the take prohibitions of section that may meet the definition of critical 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. On July 1, 1994, the Services habitat for the DPSs proposed for listing § 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to published a policy (59 FR 34272) that that occur in U.S. waters or its the three DPSs proposed to be listed as requires us to identify, to the maximum territories. These include the North endangered, the Mediterranean, Central extent practicable at the time a species Atlantic (southeastern United States and West Pacific and Central South Pacific, is listed, those activities that would or Puerto Rico), South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin if the proposal to list them as would not constitute a violation of Islands), Central South Pacific endangered is finalized. These include section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this (American Samoa), Central West Pacific prohibitions against importing, policy is to increase public awareness of (CNMI and Guam), Central North exporting, engaging in foreign or the effect of a listing on proposed and Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs interstate commerce, or ‘‘taking’’ of the ongoing activities within a species’ (California). species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined under the range. We will identify, to the extent The Services previously designated ESA as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, known at the time of the final rule, critical habitat for green turtles in shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or those specific activities that, although waters surrounding Culebra Island, collect, or attempt to engage in any such they may appear to pose impacts to the Puerto Rico from the mean high water conduct (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)).’’ These species, will not be considered likely to line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; prohibitions apply to any ‘‘person’’ (as result in violation of section 9, as well 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). These defined by the ESA) subject to the as activities that will be considered waters include Culebra’s outlying Keys, jurisdiction of the United States, likely to result in violation. Based on including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, including in the United States, its currently available information, we Cayos Geniquı´, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife territorial sea, or on the high seas. conclude that the activities most likely Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pen˜ a, Las Certain exceptions apply to employees to violate the section 9 prohibitions Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo of the Services, other Federal land against ‘‘take’’ of endangered green Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los management agencies, and State turtle DPSs include, but are not limited Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are conservation agencies. In addition, 50 to, the following: (1) Importation or within the range of the North Atlantic CFR part 224.104 would apply to the exportation of any part of a green turtle DPS. proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take of The ESA does not speak directly to current provisions apply only to areas in green turtles, including fishing for, the status of designated critical habitat the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic; capturing, handling, or possessing green when the agency later amends a species however, future provisions may apply to turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green listing by dividing it into constituent any endangered DPS, without regard to turtles, eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not its geographic boundaries. modification of green turtle habitat, lose its biological and conservation In the case of threatened species, ESA including nesting beaches, beaches used relevance to the relevant listed DPS section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary to for basking, and developmental, (here, the North Atlantic) simply issue regulations deemed necessary and foraging habitat, and migratory habitat because the species listing is amended. appropriate for the conservation of that actually kills or injures green turtles Moreover, carrying forward an existing species. The Services already have in (50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take critical habitat designation can enhance place take prohibitions and exceptions of green turtles in the course of the protection provided to the listed that apply to threatened species of sea otherwise lawful activities, such as DPS because the carried-forward turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b), fishing, dredging, coastal construction, designation protects habitat features 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207. These vessel traffic, and discharge of essential to the species’ recovery from existing take prohibitions and pollutants. We emphasize that whether destruction or adverse modification in exceptions will continue to remain in a violation results from a particular section 7 consultations. Given that effect and apply to those DPSs listed as activity depends upon the facts and Congress has not spoken directly to this threatened, which are the North circumstances of each incident. The issue in the statute, we find that the Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest mere fact that an activity may fall benefits of designated critical habitat, Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West within one of these categories does not the ESA’s broad purpose to conserve the Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central mean that the specific activity will ecosystems upon which endangered and North Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs. cause a violation; due to such factors as threatened species depend, and taking a Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we location and scope, specific actions may reasonable precautionary approach, the may issue permits to carry out otherwise not result in direct or indirect adverse ESA should be construed to provide in prohibited activities involving effects on the species. Further, an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15333

activity not listed may in fact result in when assessing species for listing. Based believed to occur, and those states will a violation. We also emphasize that on this limitation of criteria for a listing be invited to comment on this proposal. because the green turtle is currently decision and the opinion in Pacific We have considered, among other listed, we do not anticipate changes in Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d things, Federal, State, and local the activities that would constitute a 829 (6th Cir. 1981), NOAA has conservation measures. As we proceed, violation of section 9. Possible concluded that ESA listing actions are we intend to continue engaging in exceptions include those actions not subject to the environmental informal and formal contacts with the affecting the breeding populations in assessment requirements of the National State, and other affected local or Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA regional entities, giving careful which were heretofore listed as Administrative Order 216–6). Similarly, consideration to all written and oral endangered. Under the final rule, these USFWS has determined that comments received. populations would become part of the environmental assessments and List of Subjects threatened North Atlantic and East environmental impact statements, as Pacific DPSs, respectively, and therefore defined under the authority of the 50 CFR Part 17 will be protected by the existing National Environmental Policy Act, protective regulations. Endangered and threatened wildlife need not be prepared in connection and plants. XXI. Peer Review with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. USFWS published a notice 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 The intent of the peer review policy outlining its reasons for this is to ensure that listings are based on the Endangered and threatened species, determination in the Federal Register Exports, Imports, Transportation. best scientific and commercial data on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). available. In December 2004, the Office Dated: March 11, 2015. of Management and Budget (OMB) B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Samuel D. Rauch III, issued a Final Information Quality Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Deputy Assistant Administrator for Bulletin for Peer Review establishing Reduction Act Regulatory Programs, National Marine minimum peer review standards, a As noted in the Conference Report on Fisheries Service. transparent process for public the 1982 amendments to the ESA, Dated: February 25, 2015. disclosure of peer review planning, and economic impacts cannot be considered Stephen Guertin, opportunities for public participation. when assessing the status of a species. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife The OMB Bulletin, implemented under Therefore, the economic analysis Service. the Information Quality Act (Public Law requirements of the Regulatory For the reasons set out in the 106–554), is intended to enhance the Flexibility Act are not applicable to the quality and credibility of the Federal preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and 224 listing process. In addition, this are proposed to be amended as follows: government’s scientific information, and proposed rule is exempt from review applies to influential or highly under Executive Order 12866. This PART 17—ENDANGERED AND influential scientific information proposed rule does not contain a THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. collection-of-information requirement To satisfy our requirements under the for the purposes of the Paperwork ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent Reduction Act. continues to read as follows: peer review of the status review report from 15 independent specialists in the C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise academic and scientific community. All In accordance with E.O. 13132, we noted. peer reviewer comments were addressed determined that this proposed rule does ■ prior to dissemination of the final status 2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for not have significant Federalism effects ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’, which is in review report and publication of this and that a Federalism assessment is not proposed rule. alphabetical order under REPTILES, to required. In keeping with the intent of read as follows: XXII. Classification the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful § 17.11 Endangered and threatened A. National Environmental Policy Act dialogue on issues of mutual state and wildlife. The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in Federal interest, this proposed rule will * * * * * section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the be given to the relevant state agencies in (h) The ‘‘List of Endangered and information that may be considered each state in which the species is Threatened Wildlife’’ is provided below:

Species Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When listed Critical Special rules Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened habitat

******* REPTILES

******* Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Central North Pa- Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Central North cific Ocean. from the Central North TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean, bounded PUBLISHED AS by the following coordi- A FINAL RULE]. nates: 41° N., 169° E. in the northwest; 41° N., 143° W. in the northeast; 9° N., 125° W. in the southeast; and 9° N., 175° W. in the southwest.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Species Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When listed Critical Special rules Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened habitat

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Central South Pa- Green sea turtles originating E [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 (Central South cific Ocean. from the Central South TION WHEN Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean, bounded PUBLISHED AS by the following coordi- A FINAL RULE]. nates: 9° N., 175° W. in the northwest; 9° N., 125° W. in the northeast; 40° S., 96° W. in the south- east; 40° S., 176° E. in the southwest; and 13° S., 171° E. in the west. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Central West Pa- Green sea turtles originating E [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 (Central West cific Ocean. from the Central West Pa- TION WHEN Pacific DPS). cific Ocean, bounded by PUBLISHED AS the following coordinates: A FINAL RULE]. 41° N., 146° E. in the northwest; 41° N., 169° E. in the northeast; 9° N., 175° W. in the east; 13° S., 171° E. in the south- east; along the northern coast of the island of New Guinea; and 4.5° N., 129° E. in the west. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Eastern Indian and Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (East Indian-West Western Pacific from the Eastern Indian TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 Pacific DPS). Oceans. and Western Pacific PUBLISHED AS Oceans, bounded by the A FINAL RULE]. following lines and coordi- nates: 41° N. Lat. in the north, 41° N., 146° E. in the northeast; 4.5° N., 129° E. in the southeast; along the southern coast of the island of New Guin- ea; along the western coast of Australia (west of 142° E. Long.); 40° S. Lat. in the south; and 84° E. Long. in the east. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas East Pacific Ocean Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (East Pacific from the East Pacific TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 DPS). Ocean, bounded by the PUBLISHED AS following lines and coordi- A FINAL RULE]. nates: 41° N., 143° W. in the northwest; 41° N. Lat. in the north; along the western coasts of the Americas; 40° S. Lat. in the south; and 40° S., 96° W. in the southwest. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Mediterranean Sea Green sea turtles originating E [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 (Mediterranean from the Mediterranean TION WHEN DPS). Sea, bounded by 5.5° W. PUBLISHED AS Long. in the west. A FINAL RULE]. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas North Atlantic Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- 226.208 17.42(b), 223.205, (North Atlantic Ocean from the North Atlantic TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 DPS). Ocean, bounded by the PUBLISHED AS following lines and coordi- A FINAL RULE]. nates: 48° N. Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of Europe and Afri- ca (west of 5.5° W. Long.); north of 19° N. Lat. in the east; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the south; 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west; and along the east- ern coasts of the Amer- icas (north of 7.5° N., 77° W.). Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas North Indian Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (North Indian Ocean from the North Indian TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 DPS). Ocean, bounded by: Afri- PUBLISHED AS ca and Asia in the west A FINAL RULE]. and north; 84° E. Long. in the east; and the equator in the south.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15335

Species Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When listed Critical Special rules Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened habitat

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas South Atlantic Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (South Atlantic Ocean from the South Atlantic TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 DPS). Ocean, bounded by the PUBLISHED AS following lines and coordi- A FINAL RULE]. nates: along the northern and eastern coasts of South America (east of 7.5° N., 77° W.); 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the north- west; 19° N. Lat. in the northeast; 40° S., 19° E. in the southeast; and 40° S. Lat. in the south. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Southwest Indian Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Southwest In- Ocean from the Southwest Indian TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 dian DPS). Ocean, bounded by the PUBLISHED AS following lines: the equa- A FINAL RULE]. tor to the north; 84° E. Long. to the east; 40° S. Lat. to the south; and 19° E. Long (and along the eastern coast of Africa) in the west. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Southwestern Pa- Green sea turtles originating T [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Southwest Pa- cific Ocean from the Southwestern TION WHEN 223.206, 223.207 cific DPS). Pacific Ocean, bounded PUBLISHED AS by the following lines and A FINAL RULE]. coordinates: along the southern coast of the is- land of New Guinea and the Torres Strait (east of 142° E Long.); 13° S., 171° E. in the northeast; 40° S., 176° E. in the southeast; and 40° S., 142° E. in the southwest.

*******

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES § 223.206(d)(9). marine and anadromous species. * * * * * ■ 3. The authority citation for part 223 ■ 4. Amend the table in § 223.102(e) by continues to read as follows: revising the entry ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’ (e) The threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, under Sea Turtles to read as follows: § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. Commerce are:

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA Rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat

******* SEA TURTLES 2

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Central North Pa- Central North Pacific Ocean, bound- TION WHEN 223.206, cific DPS). ed by the following coordinates: 41° PUBLISHED AS 223.207. N., 169° E. in the northwest; 41° N., A FINAL RULE]. 143° W. in the northeast; 9° N., 125° W. in the southeast; and 9° N., 175° W in the southwest.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 15336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA Rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (East Indian-West Eastern Indian and Western Pacific TION WHEN 223.206, Pacific DPS). Oceans, bounded by the following PUBLISHED AS 223.207. lines and coordinates: 41° N. Lat. in A FINAL RULE]. the north, 41° N., 146° E. in the northeast; 4.5° N., 129° E. in the southeast; along the southern coast of the island of New Guinea; along the western coast of Australia (west of 142° E. Long.); 40° S. Lat. in the south; and 84° E. Long. in the east. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (East Pacific DPS). East Pacific Ocean, bounded by the TION WHEN 223.206, following lines and coordinates: 41° PUBLISHED AS 223.207. N., 143° W. in the northwest; 41° N. A FINAL RULE]. Lat. in the north; along the western coasts of the Americas; 40° S. Lat. in the south; and 40° S., 96° W. in the southwest. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- 226.08 17.42(b), 2223.205, (North Atlantic North Atlantic Ocean, bounded by the TION WHEN 223.206, DPS). following lines and coordinates: 48° PUBLISHED AS 223.207. N. Lat. in the north, along the west- A FINAL RULE]. ern coasts of Europe and Africa (west of 5.5° W. Long.); north of 19° N. Lat. in the east; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the south; 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west; and along the eastern coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5° N., 77° W.). Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (North Indian North Indian Ocean, bounded by: Af- TION WHEN 223.206, DPS). rica and Asia in the west and north; PUBLISHED AS 223.207. 84° E. Long. in the east; and the A FINAL RULE]. equator in the south. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (South Atlantic South Atlantic Ocean, bounded by TION WHEN 223.206, DPS). the following lines and coordinates: PUBLISHED AS 223.207. along the northern and eastern A FINAL RULE]. coasts of South America (east of 7.5° N., 77° W.); 10.5° N., 77° W. in the west; 19° N., 63.5° W. in the north- west; 19° N. Lat. in the northeast; 40° S., 19° E. in the southeast; and 40° S. Lat. in the south. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Southwest Indian Southwest Indian Ocean, bounded by TION WHEN 223.206, DPS). the following lines: the equator to the PUBLISHED AS 223.207. north; 84° E. Long. to the east; 40° S. A FINAL RULE]. Lat. to the south; and 19° E. Long (and along the eastern coast of Afri- ca) in the west. Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas ..... Green sea turtles originating from the [INSERT FR CITA- NA 17.42(b), 223.205, (Southwest Pacific Southwestern Pacific Ocean, bound- TION WHEN 223.206, DPS). ed by the following lines and coordi- PUBLISHED AS 223.207. nates: along the southern coast of A FINAL RULE]. the island of New Guinea and the Torres Strait (east of 142° E Long.); 13° S., 171° E. in the northeast; 40° S., 176° E. in the southeast; and 40° S., 142° E. in the southwest.

******* 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15337

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES U.S.C. 1361 et seq. marine and anadromous species. * * * * * ■ 6. Amend § 224.101(h) by revising the ■ 5. The authority citation for part 224 (h) The endangered species under the entry for ‘‘Sea turtle, green’’ under Sea continues to read as follows: jurisdiction of the Secretary of Turtles to read as follows: Commerce are:

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat

******* SEA TURTLES 2 Sea turtle, green (Cen- Chelonia mydas ...... Green sea turtles originating from the Cen- [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 tral South Pacific tral South Pacific Ocean, bounded by the TION WHEN PUB- DPS). following coordinates: 9° N., 175° W. in LISHED AS A the northwest; 9° N., 125° W. in the north- FINAL RULE]. east; 40° S., 96° W. in the southeast; 40° S., 176° E. in the southwest; and 13° S., 171° E. in the west. Sea turtle, green (Cen- Chelonia mydas ...... Green sea turtles originating from the Cen- [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 tral West Pacific tral West Pacific Ocean, bounded by the TION WHEN PUB- DPS). following coordinates: 41° N., 146° E. in LISHED AS A the northwest; 41° N., 169° E. in the north- FINAL RULE]. east; 9° N., 175° W. in the east; 13° S., 171° E. in the southeast; along the north- ern coast of the island of New Guinea; and 4.5° N., 129° E. in the west. Sea turtle, green (Med- Chelonia mydas ...... Green sea turtles originating from the Medi- [INSERT FR CITA- NA 224.104 iterranean DPS). terranean Sea, bounded by 5.5° W. Long. TION WHEN PUB- in the west. LISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

******* 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

[FR Doc. 2015–06136 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRP2.SGM 23MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 50, 51, and 93 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION full effect if the Office of Management submit an electronic comment, the EPA AGENCY and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of recommends that you include your your comments on or before April 22, name and other contact information in 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, and 93 2015. the body of your comment and with any [EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0691; FRL–9916–08– ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA OAR] identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact RIN 2060–AQ48 OAR–2013–0691, by one of the following methods: you for clarification, the EPA may not Fine Particulate Matter National • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow be able to consider your comment. Ambient Air Quality Standards: State the on-line instructions for submitting Electronic files should avoid the use of Implementation Plan Requirements comments. special characters, any form of • Email: [email protected]. encryption and be free of any defects or AGENCY: Environmental Protection • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and viruses. For additional information Agency (EPA). Information Center, Attention Docket ID about the EPA’s public docket visit the ACTION: Proposed rule. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0691, EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania For additional instructions on Agency (EPA) is proposing requirements Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. In submitting comments, go to the that state, local and tribal air agencies addition, please mail a copy of your SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of would have to meet as they implement comments on the information collection this document. the current and future national ambient (ICR) provisions to the Office of Docket: All documents in the docket air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine Information and Regulatory Affairs, are listed in the http:// particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, Office of Management and Budget www.regulations.gov index. Although this notice provides details on how the (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 listed in the index, some information is EPA proposes that air agencies meet the 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other statutory state implementation plan • Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation information whose disclosure is (SIP) requirements that apply to areas Docket and Information Center, restricted by statute. Certain other designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– material, such as copyrighted material, NAAQS, such as: general requirements OAR–2013–0691, Environmental will be publicly available only in hard for attainment plan due dates and Protection Agency in the EPA copy. Publicly available docket attainment dates; emissions inventories; Headquarters Library, Room No. 3334 in materials are available either attainment demonstrations; provisions the EPA Docket Center, located at electronically in http:// for demonstrating reasonable further William Jefferson Clinton Building www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at progress; quantitative milestones; West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., the Air and Radiation Docket and contingency measures; and Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries Information Center in the EPA nonattainment New Source Review are only accepted during the Docket’s Headquarters Library, Room No. 3334 in (NNSR) permitting programs, among normal hours of operation, and special the William Jefferson Clinton Building other things. This proposed rule arrangements should be made for West, located at 1301 Constitution clarifies the specific attainment delivery of boxed information. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. planning requirements that would apply Instructions: Direct your comments to The Public Reading Room is open from to PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through based on their classification (either 0691. The EPA’s policy is that all Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Moderate or Serious), and the process comments received will be included in phone number for the Public Reading for reclassifying Moderate areas to the public docket without change and Room is (202) 566–1744. Serious. Additionally in this notice, the may be made available online at http:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For EPA is proposing to revoke the 1997 www.regulations.gov, including any general information on this proposed primary annual standard because the personal information provided, unless rule, contact Mr. Rich Damberg, Office EPA revised the primary annual the comment includes information of Air Quality Planning and Standards, standard in 2012. The EPA first claimed to be Confidential Business U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established the PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997, Information (CBI) or other information by phone at (919) 541–5592 or by email completed a review of those standards whose disclosure is restricted by statute. at [email protected]; or Ms. Megan in 2006, and most recently completed a Do not submit information that you Brachtl, Office of Air Quality Planning review of the PM2.5 NAAQS on consider to be CBI or otherwise and Standards, U.S. Environmental December 14, 2012. protected through http:// Protection Agency, by phone at (919) DATES: Comments. Comments must be www.regulations.gov or email. The 541–2648 or by email at brachtl.megan@ received on or before May 22, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov Web site is epa.gov. For information on the public Public Hearing. The EPA plans to hold an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Long, one public hearing concerning the means the EPA will not know your Office of Air Quality Planning and proposed rule in Washington, DC. The identity or contact information unless Standards, U.S. Environmental date, time and location will be you provide it in the body of your Protection Agency, by phone at (919) announced separately. Please refer to comment. If you send an email 541–0641 or by email at long.pam@ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for comment directly to the EPA without epa.gov. For information on the ICR, additional information on the comment going through http:// contact Mr. Butch Stackhouse, Office of period and the public hearing. www.regulations.gov, your email Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Collection Request. Under address will be automatically captured U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and included as part of the comment by phone at (919) 541–5208 or by email comments on the information collection that is placed in the public docket and at [email protected]. provisions are best assured of having made available on the Internet. If you SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15341

I. General Information SIP State Implementation Plan • Describe any assumptions and SOA Secondary Organic Aerosols provide any technical information and/ A. Preamble Glossary of Terms and SO2 Sulfur Dioxide or data that you used to support your Acronyms SO4 Sulfate comment. The following are abbreviations of TAR Tribal Authority Rule • If you estimate potential costs or terms used in the preamble. TIP Tribal Implementation Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program burdens, explain how you arrived at AERR Air Emissions Reporting Rule TSP Total Suspended Particles your estimate in sufficient detail to BACM Best Available Control Measures mm Micrometer (Micron) allow for it to be reproduced. BACT Best Available Control Technology VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled • Provide specific examples to BART Best Available Retrofit Technology VOC Volatile Organic Compounds illustrate your concerns wherever BC Black Carbon possible, and suggest alternatives. B. Does this action apply to me? CAA Clean Air Act • Explain your views as clearly as CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model Entities potentially affected directly possible, avoiding the use of profanity with Extensions by this proposed rule include state, or personal threats. CBI Confidential Business Information local and tribal governments and air • Make sure to submit your CBSA Core-based Statistical Area pollution control agencies responsible comments by the comment period CDD Clean Data Determination for attainment and maintenance of the deadline identified. CFR Code of Federal Regulations NAAQS. Entities potentially affected D. What information should I know CMAQ Community Multi-Scale Air Quality indirectly by this proposed rule as Model about possible public hearings? regulated sources include owners and CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule For information pertaining to the one CSN Chemical Speciation Network operators of sources that emit PM2.5, DOD Department of Defense sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen public hearing on this document, DOT Department of Transportation (NOX), volatile organic compounds contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality EC Elemental Carbon (VOC) and/or ammonia (NH3). Others Policy Division, Office of Air Quality EGU Electric Generating Unit potentially affected indirectly by this Planning and Standards (C504–03), EPA Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule include members of the Environmental Protection Agency, Fe Iron general public who live, work, or Research Triangle Park, North Carolina FEM Federal Equivalent Method 27711; telephone number (919) 541– FIP Federal Implementation Plan recreate in areas affected by elevated 0641; fax number (919) 541–5509; email FRM Federal Reference Method ambient PM2.5 levels in areas designated HCl Hydrogen Chloride nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS. address: [email protected]. ICR Information Collection Request E. Where can I obtain a copy of this LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate C. What should I consider as I prepare MACT Maximum Achievable Control my comments for the EPA? document and other related information? Technology 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards In addition to being available in the MSM Most Stringent Measures information to the EPA through http:// www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly docket, an electronic copy of this MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Register document will be NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality mark the specific information that you Standards claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or posted at http://www.epa.gov/ NAICS North American Industry CD–ROM that you mail to the EPA, airquality/particlepollution/ Classification System mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM actions.html. NAPAP National Acid Precipitation as CBI and then identify electronically F. How is this Federal Register Assessment Program within the disk or CD–ROM the specific NEI National Emissions Inventory document organized? information that is claimed as CBI. In NESHAP National Emissions Standard for The information presented in this addition to one complete version of the Hazardous Air Pollutants document is organized as follows: NH3 Ammonia comment that includes information NH4 Ammonium claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment I. General Information A. Preamble Glossary of Terms and NH4NO3 Ammonium Nitrate that does not contain the information Acronyms NH4HSO4 Ammonium Bi-Sulfate claimed as CBI must be submitted for (NH4)2SO4 Ammonium Sulfate B. Does this action apply to me? inclusion in the public docket. C. What should I consider as I prepare my NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review Information so marked will not be NO Nitrogen Oxides comments for the EPA? X disclosed except in accordance with NO3 Nitrate D. What information should I know about NSPS New Source Performance Standards procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. possible public hearings? O3 Ozone 2. Tips for preparing comments. E. Where can I obtain a copy of this OM Organic Mass When submitting comments, remember document and other related information? OMB Office of Management and Budget to: F. How is this Federal Register document PM Particulate Matter • Identify the rulemaking by docket organized? II. Background for Proposal PM2.5 Particulate Matter Equal to or Less number and other identifying than 2.5 Microns in Diameter (Fine A. Introduction information (subject heading, Federal Particulate Matter) B. Atmospheric Chemistry of PM2.5 and Its PM10 Particulate Matter Equal to or Less Register date and page number). Precursors than 10 Microns in Diameter • Follow directions. The proposed C. Historical Overview of PM2.5 NAAQS PRA Paperwork Reduction Act rule may ask you to respond to specific Setting and Implementation PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration questions or organize comments by D. State Implementation Planning Process RACM Reasonably Available Control referencing a Code of Federal for PM2.5 NAAQS Measures Regulations (CFR) part or section III. What is the EPA proposing with respect RACT Reasonably Available Control to the treatment of PM2.5 precursors in number. Technology • nonattainment area planning and RFP Reasonable Further Progress Explain why you agree or disagree, permitting? RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion suggest alternatives and substitute A. Background Engines language for your requested changes. B. Proposed Precursor Policy Options

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

C. Technical Approaches for J. Improved Stationary Source Emissions elemental carbon from diesel engines or Demonstrating That a Precursor Does Not Monitoring wildfires, or condensable organic Need To Be Subject to Control K. Stationary Source Test Methods for particles from gasoline engines). Requirements Emissions of Condensable PM2.5 IV. What are the EPA’s proposed X. What is the EPA proposing with respect Secondary particles are formed in the requirements for Moderate area to revoking the 1997 primary annual atmosphere as a result of chemical attainment plans? PM2.5 NAAQS? reactions between specific pollutants A. Plan Due Dates A. Background known as PM2.5 precursors (e.g., B. Emissions Inventory Requirements B. History of Revocation of Other NAAQS reactions between NOX and SO2 C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the Plan C. Proposed Options for Revocation and emissions from mobile and stationary D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy Related Anti-Backsliding Requirements sources combined with ammonia to E. Modeling for Attainment for the 1997 Primary Annual PM2.5 Demonstrations NAAQS form NO3 and SO4). F. RFP Requirements D. Discussion of Options The human health effects associated G. Quantitative Milestones XI. Environmental Justice Considerations with long- or short-term exposure to H. Contingency Measures XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews PM2.5 are significant and include I. Attainment Dates A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory J. Attainment Date Extensions Planning and Review and Executive premature mortality, aggravation of V. How would a PM2.5 Moderate Order 13563: Improving Regulation and respiratory and cardiovascular disease nonattainment area be reclassified to Regulatory Review (as indicated by increased hospital Serious? B. Paperwork Reduction Act admissions and emergency room visits) A. Discretionary Authority C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and development of chronic respiratory B. Mandatory Duty D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act disease. In addition, welfare effects VI. What are the EPA’s proposed E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism associated with elevated PM levels requirements for Serious area attainment F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 2.5 plans? and Coordination with Indian Tribal include visibility impairment as well as A. Plan Due Dates Governments effects on sensitive ecosystems, B. Emissions Inventory Requirements G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of materials damage and soiling and C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the Plan Children from Environmental Health and climatic and radiative processes.1 D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy Safety Risks On December 14, 2012, the EPA made E. Modeling for Attainment H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Demonstrations Concerning Regulations That revisions to the suite of NAAQS for PM F. RFP Requirements Significantly Affect Energy Supply, to provide requisite protection of public G. Quantitative Milestones Distribution, or Use health and welfare with an adequate H. Contingency Measures I. National Technology Transfer and margin of safety. The EPA also made I. Attainment Dates Advancement Act corresponding revisions to the data J. Attainment Date Extensions J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions handling conventions for PM and the to Address Environmental Justice in VII. What are the EPA’s proposed ambient air monitoring, reporting and requirements for attainment plans under Minority Populations and Low-Income CAA section 189(d) for Serious areas that Populations network design requirements for PM. fail to attain the NAAQS by the K. Determination Under Section 307(d) Specifically, the agency revised the applicable attainment date? Statutory Authority primary annual PM2.5 standard by A. Plan Due Dates List of Subjects lowering the level from 15.0 to 12.0 mg/ B. Emissions Inventory Requirements 3 II. Background for Proposal m to provide increased protection C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the Plan against health effects associated with D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy A. Introduction long- and short-term PM exposures. E. Modeling for Attainment 2.5 Demonstrations Ambient, or outdoor, air can contain The EPA did not revise the secondary F. RFP Requirements a variety of pollutants, including annual PM2.5 standard which remains at G. Quantitative Milestones particulate matter (PM). Airborne PM 15.0 mg/m3.2 The EPA eliminated spatial H. Contingency Measures can be comprised of either solid or averaging as part of the form of the I. Attainment Dates liquid particles, and can be a complex PM2.5 annual standards to avoid VIII. What are the EPA’s proposed NNSR mixture of particles in both solid and potential disproportionate impacts on permitting requirements? at-risk populations. In addition, the EPA A. Statutory Requirements for NSR liquid form. The most common constituents of airborne PM include: retained the level and form of the B. Federal NNSR Regulations C. What changes is the EPA proposing for sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards to continue to provide NNSR for PM2.5 nonattainment areas? (NH4); elemental carbon (EC); organic D. Plan Due Dates mass (OM); and inorganic material, supplemental protection against health E. Avoidance of Dual Review for PSD and generally referred to as ‘‘crustal’’ effects associated with short-term PM2.5 NNSR for PM2.5 material, which can include metals, exposures. Although not directly IX. What other proposed requirements would dust, sea salt and other trace elements. relevant to this rulemaking with respect apply in PM nonattainment areas? 2.5 Airborne PM can be of different sizes, to the PM2.5 NAAQS, it should be noted A. Waivers Under Section 188(f) that in December 2012, the EPA also did B. Conformity Requirements commonly referred to as ‘‘coarse’’ and C. Clean Data Policy ‘‘fine’’ particles. Fine particles, in not revise the level or form of the D. Section 179B/International Border Areas general terms, are particulate matter E. Enforcement and Compliance with an aerodynamic diameter less than 1 For a complete discussion of the human health F. Efforts To Encourage a Multi-Pollutant or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers and welfare effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of particulate matter, see Approach When Developing PM2.5 (mm). For this reason, particles of this Attainment Plans generally ‘‘Integrated Science Assessment for size are referred to as PM2.5. PM2.5 Particulate Matter.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection G. Measures to Ensure Appropriate particles commonly include ‘‘primary’’ Agency, Office of Research and Development, Protections for Overburdened particles and ‘‘secondary’’ particles. National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP Populations Division, February 10, 2010. EPA/600/R–08/139F. H. Tribal Issues Primary particles, or direct PM2.5, are Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ I. Voluntary Programs for Reducing emitted by sources directly into the air standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html. See Chapter 2. Ambient PM2.5 as solid or liquid particles (e.g., 2 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15343

primary and secondary 24-hour PM10 B. Atmospheric Chemistry of PM2.5 and activities, such as from diesel fuel standards, which remain at 150 mg/m3.3 Its Precursors combustion, wood burning, construction activities or unpaved Estimates show that attainment of the 1. Overview primary PM standards will result in roads, and it includes both filterable and 2.5 In order to determine how to regulate 7 hundreds fewer premature deaths each condensable particles. ‘‘Secondary’’ sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 PM is formed as a result of emissions year, prevent tens of thousands of 2.5 precursors to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in of certain precursor gases that undergo hospital admissions each year and a given nonattainment area, it is chemical reactions in the atmosphere. prevent hundreds of thousands of necessary to understand the basic The principal precursor gases that doctor visits, absences from work and chemical processes that cause or contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation school and respiratory illnesses in contribute to the formation of ambient are SO2, from the combustion of coal or children annually.4 Attainment of the PM2.5. Accordingly, an understanding of other high sulfur fuels; NOX, from many primary PM2.5 standards will have these processes is necessary to design types of fossil fuel combustion; VOC, welfare co-benefits in addition to direct appropriate regulations for from certain fuels, solvents and human health benefits. The term welfare implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. industrial processes; and ammonia, co-benefits covers both environmental Properly designed regulatory from sources such as animal feeding and societal benefits of reducing requirements will help to assure that the operations, wastewater treatment and pollution, such as reductions in PM2.5 NAAQS are attained effectively fertilizer. Table 1 provides National visibility impairment, materials damage and expeditiously in all areas. Emissions Inventory (NEI) data for 2011 5 and ecosystem damage. As noted earlier, the term PM2.5 refers that represent nationwide to particles of solid and liquid material anthropogenic emissions estimates for less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic direct PM2.5 and the four main PM2.5 6 diameter. ‘‘Primary’’ PM2.5 is emitted precursor gases from major source directly from emissions sources or sectors.

TABLE 1—TOTAL EMISSIONS OF PM2.5 AND PRECURSORS FOR MAJOR SECTORS (IN TONS/YEAR) [Source: 2011 National Emissions Inventory (Version 1) a]

Category Direct PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Chemical and allied products ...... 16,464 125,768 49,867 79,236 23,044 Fuel combustion—electric generating utilities (EGUs) ...... 196,685 4,612,641 2,031,855 40,597 24,968 Fuel combustion —other ...... 628,199 987,552 1,856,716 588,346 79,679 Other industrial...... 273,857 185,859 348,561 328,222 53,039 Onroad mobile ...... 208,629 28,969 5,785,570 2,413,026 119,654 Metals processing ...... 48,451 144,630 70,655 34,277 1,140 Miscellaneous (mainly fire emissions, dust and some agri- cultural operations) ...... 4,489,694 219,318 434,547 5,810,566 3,934,405 Offroad mobile ...... 207,543 92,036 3,133,798 2,159,368 3,270 Petroleum & related industries ...... 31,738 116,317 684,808 2,488,123 1,643 Solvent utilization ...... 3,810 107 893 2,814,551 577 Storage and transport ...... 20,098 9,109 19,079 1,221,185 5,734 Waste disposal and recycling ...... 172,144 16,842 83,469 131,777 68,281 a For more details on the definitions of the emission categories listed in Table 1, see Sector/Tier crosswalk table for the 2011 NEI, available at: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011/doc/scc_eis_crosswalk_2011neiv1.xlsx.

2. Composition and Sources of PM2.5 comprised of five constituents: (i) OM; overview of each of the five major Constituents (ii) EC; (iii) crustal material; (iv) components of PM2.5, all of which are ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4); and (v) known to contribute to ambient PM2.5 PM2.5 is a complex and highly 8 9 ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). The levels in areas throughout the U.S. variable mixture of particles, but the discussion that follows provides an Section II.B.3 provides more details on majority of PM2.5 by mass is often

3 This proposed rulemaking is to develop Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 7 Certain commercial or industrial activities implementation regulations with respect to the Quality and Planning Standards, Health and involving high temperature processes (e.g., fuel PM2.5 NAAQS. For the PM10 NAAQS, states and the Environmental Impacts Division, February 28, 2013. combustion, metal processing, cooking operations) EPA will continue to implement those NAAQS in EPA–452/R–12–005. See: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ emit gaseous pollutants into the ambient air which accordance with the applicable statutory naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_ria.html. rapidly condense into particle form. These requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 5 Ibid. ‘‘condensable’’ PM emissions exist almost entirely EPA’s existing guidance in the ‘‘The General 6 in the 2.5 or less micron range and can consist of Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean The regulatory definition of PM2.5 includes particles with an upper 50 percent cut-point of organic material, sulfuric acid and metals. Air Act (CAA) Amendments,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 8 16, 1992); and ‘‘State Implementation Plans for 2.5mm aerodynamic diameter (the 50 percent cut- Seinfeld J.H. and Pandis S.N., 2006. Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas: Addendum to point diameter is the diameter at which the sample Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air the General Preamble for the Implementation of collects 50 percent of the particles and rejects 50 Pollution to Climate Change. 2nd edition, J. Wiley, Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments,’’ percent of the particles). PM2.5 particles have a New York. 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). Throughout this penetration curve as measured by a reference 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. preamble, these documents will be referred to as the method based on Appendix L of 40 CFR part 50 and ‘‘The Particle Pollution Report: Current ‘‘General Preamble’’ and the ‘‘Addendum,’’ designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, by Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions respectively. an equivalent method designed in accordance with through 2003.’’ Office of Air Quality Planning and 4 ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 40 CFR part 53, or by an approved regional method Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality designated in accordance with Appendix C of 40 Division, December 2004. Available at: http:// Standards for Particulate Matter.’’ U.S. CFR part 58. www.epa.gov/airtrends/reports.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the atmospheric chemistry involved in Sources of crustal PM2.5 include one of the five major components of the formation of sulfate, nitrate and OM, windblown dust, dust from mechanical PM2.5. If there is not enough ammonia to illustrate the importance of resuspension (e.g. dust from present to fully neutralize the sulfuric controlling emissions of PM2.5 construction activities or vehicles acid, part of it may convert to NH4HSO4, precursors as part of any comprehensive driving on unpaved roads) and some which is more acidic than (NH4)2SO4, strategy to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels forms of combustion, especially of coal. but less so than sulfuric acid. There is in excess of the NAAQS. Section II.B.4 Crustal PM2.5 comprised of elements, a large amount of emerging scientific presents a brief overview of PM2.5 like iron (Fe), and their oxides can also evidence that SO2 may also contribute composition by region of the U.S. be emitted from industrial sources. to the formation of SOA from biogenic OM is the fraction of ambient PM2.5 The remaining portion of ambient VOC emissions (see section later on with the most diverse chemical PM2.5 is mostly composed of SO4, NO3 SOA). Sulfate levels in the ambient air composition, containing potentially and NH4, which react in the ambient air peak in summer months due to thousands of different organic to form ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4) increased SO2 emissions, generally from compounds (i.e., those compounds and ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). electricity generating units, and from containing carbon) composed primarily Another common PM2.5 particle is meteorological conditions that are of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and ammonium bi-sulfate (NH4HSO4). In conducive to sulfate formation. nitrogen. Both primary particles and some areas, less common ions such as c. NO3 formation. The main sources of secondary particles contribute to chloride are also found in PM2.5 samples NOX emissions are combustion of fossil ambient OM concentrations, with in the form of particles that include fuel in boilers and mobile sources, combustion sources being the dominant sodium chloride and ammonium accounting for more than 80 percent of type of emissions sources. Another chloride. Particle-bound water is often national anthropogenic NOX emissions portion of primary OM particles results also associated with this fraction of (based on the 2011 NEI), with boilers from direct emissions of organic PM2.5. Sulfate, nitrate and ammonium and electric generating units (EGUs) compounds from sources of incomplete particles originate through both primary contributing about 27 percent and combustion, such as gas and diesel and secondary mechanisms, although mobile sources contributing 56 percent. engines. Secondary OM particle the vast majority of these PM2.5 particles Oxides of nitrogen react in the formation involves oxidation of both are formed through secondary atmosphere to form nitric acid, another anthropogenic and biogenic (plant- formation, as described in the following prime contributor to acid deposition in derived) VOC, and can involve other, section. the environment. Nitric acid converts to ammonium nitrate, one of the five main more complex chemical reactions. 3. Secondary Formation of PM2.5 From Further details of the chemistry behind Gaseous Precursors components of PM2.5, in the presence of the formation of secondary OM, known ammonia. Low temperatures and high more commonly as secondary organic a. Overview. The composition of PM2.5 relative humidity create ideal aerosols (SOA), are described in Section is complex and highly variable due in conditions for the formation of II.B.3 of this preamble. part to the large contribution of ammonium nitrate, typically leading to EC refers to particulate carbon that secondary PM2.5 to total fine particle higher atmospheric levels in winter has a graphitic molecular structure, and mass in most locations, and to the months and lower levels in summer is sometimes referred to as ‘‘black complexity of secondary particle months.12 carbon’’ (BC). It is emitted directly from formation processes. A large number of d. SOA formation. As discussed emission sources and does not undergo possible chemical reactions, often non- earlier, the OM component of ambient linear in nature, can convert the gases any significant reactions with other PM2.5 is a complex mixture of hundreds gases in the atmosphere. EC particles SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia to PM2.5. or even thousands of anthropogenic and result from primary emissions involving Thus, these gases are precursors to biogenic organic compounds. These

combustion, especially from diesel- PM2.5. A brief discussion of SO4, NO3 compounds are either emitted directly and SOA formation, as well as the role fueled vehicles, but also from other from sources (i.e., as ‘‘primary’’ PM2.5) processes involving the burning of fossil of ammonia in their formation, follows. or can be formed by reactions in the b. SO4 formation. SO is emitted fuels. The latter includes anthropogenic 2 ambient air to make SOA (i.e., as mostly from the combustion of fossil sources such as boilers and waste ‘‘secondary’’ PM2.5). fuels in boilers operated by electric disposal. In addition, some EC particles VOC (both anthropogenic and utilities and other industries, with less originate from biomass combustion such biogenic) are key precursors to the SOA than 10 percent of SO2 emissions as from prescribed fires, wildfires and component of PM2.5. The relative nationwide coming from other residential wood combustion. importance of these compounds in the industrial sources, such as oil refining Crustal PM is comprised of particles formation of organic particles varies and pulp and paper production.11 When of soil and oxides of metals from some between geographic areas, depending SO oxidizes it forms sulfuric acid, a industrial processes. Compounds 2 upon local emission sources, highly corrosive compound toxic to comprised of elements such as silicon, atmospheric chemistry and season of humans and to ecosystems that aluminum, iron, calcium, titanium, the year. It should be further noted that contributes to acid deposition (acid magnesium and potassium, as well as not all inventoried VOC may be rain). In the presence of ammonia, oxygen, are major components.10 contributing to the formation of organic however, sulfuric acid will react to form particles. For example, chemical (NH ) SO , a less acidic compound and 10 Appel, K.W., Pouliot, G.A., Simon, H., Sarwar, 4 2 4 reactions involving VOC are generally G., Pye, H.O.T., Napelenok, S.L., Akhtar, F., and accelerated in warmer temperatures, Roselle, S.J., 2013. Evaluation of dust and trace interrelationships, Atmospheric Chemistry and and for this reason studies show that metal estimates from the Community Multiscale Air Physics 13, 7361–7379. Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.0, Geoscientific 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. SOA typically comprises a higher Model Development Discussions 61859–1899; ‘‘2008 National Emissions Inventory: Review Sorooshian, A., Shingler, T., Harpold, A., Feagles, Analysis and Highlights.’’ Office of Air Quality 12 Carlton, A.G., Pinder, R.W., Bhave, P.B., C.W., Meixner, T., and Brooks, P.D., 2013. Aerosol Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Pouliout, G.A., 2010. To What Extent Can Biogenic and precipitation chemistry in the southwestern Division, May 2013. EPA–454/R–005. Available at: SOA Be Controlled, Environmental Science and United States: spatiotemporal trends and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008report.pdf. Technology 44(9), 3376–80.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15345

percentage of PM2.5 in the summer than convert NOX to nitrogen (N2); however, and its main components at sites in the in the winter.13 some ammonia is formed as a secondary Chemical Speciation Network (CSN).18 Anthropogenic sources of VOC product during this process. In addition to the mean values for all include mobile sources, petrochemical As indicated earlier, ammonia plays sites in each region, the table includes manufacturing, oil and gas emissions an important role in neutralizing acids, the minimum and maximum observed and solvents.14 In addition, some such as sulfuric acid and nitric acid, in PM2.5 and species concentrations for biogenic VOC, emitted by vegetation clouds, precipitation and particles. On sites within each region. These data such as trees, can also contribute the other hand, deposited ammonia can illustrate broad observed spatial significantly to SOA formation, contribute to problems of eutrophication patterns across the U.S. in PM especially in heavily forested areas, in water bodies due to its nutritive 2.5 concentrations and its composition. For such as the southeastern U.S. It should properties.15 Ammonia would not exist be noted, however, that anthropogenic in particles if not for the presence of example, PM2.5 concentrations are contributions to SOA are likely highest acidic species with which it can highest on average in the Central and in the wintertime when biogenic SOA combine to form a particle. In the West regions. Sulfate mass comprises a levels are lower; conversely, in the eastern U.S., sulfate, nitrate and the larger fraction of PM2.5 than nitrate mass summertime, biogenic contributions to ammonium associated with them can in the northeastern U.S., whereas nitrate SOA are likely higher. Despite together account for between roughly 30 has a greater contribution than that of significant progress that has been made percent and 75 percent of the total PM2.5 sulfate in the West. OM is the dominant in understanding the origins and mass in a given area. The ammonium component in all regions, with the properties of SOA, it remains the least portion by itself roughly accounts for highest concentrations of OM on understood component of PM2.5 and between 5 percent and 20 percent of the average found in the West, Northwest 16 continues to be a significant topic of total PM2.5 mass in the East. and Southeast. On a percentage basis, research and investigation. f. Role of NOX in sulfate, nitrate and the concentrations of EC and crustal e. Role of ammonia in sulfate, nitrate SOA formation. In addition to the material are relatively low throughout and SOA formation. Ammonia is a contribution of NOX emissions to all regions of the U.S. compared to the gaseous pollutant emitted by natural secondary particulate nitrate formation, other major PM2.5 components. and anthropogenic sources. The EPA’s NO also reacts with anthropogenic and X The composition of PM also varies 2011 NEI shows that the two main biogenic VOC that have an impact on 2.5 sources of ammonia emissions are secondary formation of organic between urban and rural areas. This is reflective of the distribution of urban fertilizer application (27 percent) and compounds that make up SOA. NOX is livestock raising (54 percent). It should thus involved in all secondary PM and regional emission sources, be noted that the 2011 NEI indicates chemistry, not just in particulate nitrate atmospheric reactions and transport of that mobile sources in the aggregate formation.17 fine particles. More details about the contribute about 3 percent of spatial distribution and origins of PM2.5 nationwide ammonia emissions. Much 4. Fine Particulate Composition By components can be found in the docket of those emissions comes from catalytic Location for this proposal.19 converters installed on light-duty Table 2 shows regional 3-year mean gasoline vehicles, which are designed to concentrations (2009–2011) of PM2.5

TABLE 2—PM2.5 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION DATA AT 2009–2011 NONATTAINMENT SITES [Source: EPA Speciation Trends Network]

Concentration (μg/m3) Region Statistic SOe NO3 OM EC CrM PM2.5

Central ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 1.46 0 .3 2 .73 0.31 0.01 8 .92 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 2.69 1.49 3 .57 0.68 0 .26 11.63 Max (μg/m3) ...... 4.19 3 .34 4.81 1.1 1.0 13.51 N ...... 61 61 50 50 61 42 East North Central ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0.83 0.38 1 .97 0.19 0 .01 6.03 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 1.68 1.8 2.84 0 .48 0.19 9 .86 Max (μg/m3) ...... 2.51 3 .57 3.69 0.79 0 .61 11.87 N ...... 29 28 20 20 28 23 North East ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0 .58 0.12 1.74 0 .14 0 4 .42 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 2.06 0.97 3 .14 0.69 0 .17 9.33 Max (μg/m3) ...... 5.12 2 .26 5.05 1.69 0 .52 15.05 N ...... 59 59 39 39 59 46 North West ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0.24 0 .05 2.91 0 .42 0.01 6.06 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 0.54 0.4 5.02 0 .81 0.15 8 .33

13 Pandis S.N., Harley R.A., Cass G.R., and 15 Seinfeld, J.H. and Pandis, S.N. (1998), SOA be Controlled, Environmental Science and Seinfeld J.H., 1992. Secondary Organic Aerosol Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Technology 44(9), 3376–3380. Formation and Transport, Atmospheric Pollution to Climate Change, 1st edition, J. Wiley, 18 The organic matter (OM) values in Table 2 were Environment, 26, 2266–82. New York. calculated by multiplying the measured organic 16 14 Carlton, A.G., Bhave, P.B., Napelenok, S.L., NARSTO, 2003. Particulate Matter Science for carbon (OC) concentrations by 1.6 (Turpin and Lim (2001), Aerosol Science and Technology, 35, 602– Edney, E.O., Sarwar, G., Pinder, R.W., Pouliout, Policy Makers. A NARSTO Assessment. Parts 1 and 2. NARSTO. Management Office (Envair), Pasco, 610). PM concentrations come from G.A., and Houyoux, M. (2010), Model 2.5 Washington. Available at: http://narsto.org/pm_ measurements of the Federal Reference/Equivalance Representation of Secondary Organic Aerosol in science_assessment. Methods (FRM/FEM) rather than from the CSN CMAQ4.7, Environmental Science and Technology 17 Carlton, A.G., Pinder, R.W., Bhave, P.B., and PM2.5 measurement. 44(22), 8553–60. Pouliout, G.A., 2010. To what extent can Biogenic 19 Reff and Rao, Memo to the docket, 2013.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—PM2.5 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION DATA AT 2009–2011 NONATTAINMENT SITES—Continued [Source: EPA Speciation Trends Network]

Concentration (μg/m3) Region Statistic SOe NO3 OM EC CrM PM2.5

Max (μg/m3) ...... 1.09 1 .79 8.44 1.25 0 .53 10.96 N ...... 33 33 13 13 33 14 South ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0.88 0 .18 1.36 0.12 0 .02 5.22 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 2.06 0.8 3.32 0 .57 0.5 10.05 Max (μg/m3) ...... 3.08 1 .67 5.1 1.48 2.38 14.27 N ...... 36 27 23 23 36 23 South East ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 1 .6 0 .2 1 .75 0.37 0 .01 6.76 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 2.39 0.53 4 .12 0.63 0 .26 10.77 Max (μg/m3) ...... 4.33 1 .51 5.71 1.2 0.85 13.38 N ...... 44 43 30 30 43 29 South West ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0 .34 0.07 2.34 0 .46 0.02 5 .3 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 0.63 0.49 3 .01 0.7 0.5 7.93 Max (μg/m3) ...... 1.13 2 .65 4.39 1.04 1 .96 9.73 N ...... 46 46 11 11 46 12 West ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0.33 0 .08 1.79 0.52 0 .01 6.84 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 0.9 1.4 5.22 0.85 0 .32 11.49 Max (μg/m3) ...... 2.08 5 .14 10.27 1 .56 1.05 16.57 N ...... 44 44 20 20 44 21 West North Central ...... Min (μg/m3) ...... 0 .29 0.06 1 .22 0.09 0 3 .23 Mean (μg/m3) ...... 0.67 0.48 3 .16 0.44 0 .22 7.25 Max (μg/m3) ...... 1.79 2 .02 8.28 1.21 0 .53 13.72 N ...... 30 30 7 7 30 10

26 C. Historical Overview of PM2.5 NAAQS 2007, the EPA issued a detailed December 2009. In March 2012, the Setting and Implementation implementation rule to assist states with EPA issued a guidance document Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA the development of SIP submissions to specifically to aid states in preparing govern the establishment, review and meet attainment plan requirements for their SIP submissions to meet revision, as appropriate, of NAAQS for the 1997 NAAQS (the ‘‘2007 PM2.5 attainment plan requirements for the widespread pollutants emitted from Implementation Rule’’).23 In May 2008, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 27 numerous and diverse sources the EPA issued another rule to assist designated nonattainment areas. The considered harmful to public health and states with SIP submissions to meet the EPA’s guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 the environment. The CAA requires two specific requirements for permitting NAAQS was based, in large part, on the types of NAAQS: (i) Primary standards, programs for NNSR purposes in requirements finalized in the 2007 PM2.5 which set limits to protect public designated nonattainment areas (the Implementation Rule, which the EPA 24 health, including the health of at-risk ‘‘2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule’’). The EPA based solely upon the statutory populations; and (ii) secondary premised both the 2007 PM2.5 requirements of subpart 1. standards, which set limits to protect Implementation Rule and the 2008 The EPA initiated a review of the PM2.5 NAAQS in June 2007, proposing public welfare, including protection PM2.5 NSR Rule on the EPA’s interpretation of the statute that revisions to the primary and secondary against visibility impairment, damage to 28 PM2.5 NAAQS on June 29, 2012. The animals, crops, vegetation and nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 buildings. NAAQS were subject solely to the EPA issued its final rule on December The EPA first promulgated annual general nonattainment plan 14, 2012, in which it lowered the primary annual PM2.5 standard from and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in July requirements of subpart 1, part D of title 15.0 mg/m3 to 12.0 mg/m3 to provide 1997.20 Prior to that time, the EPA had I of the CAA (‘‘subpart 1’’). increased protection against health addressed ambient particulate matter Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires through other means, first by regulating effects associated with long- and short- the EPA periodically to review the 29 ‘‘total suspended particles’’ (TSP) and term fine particle exposures. The EPA science upon which the standards are also eliminated spatial averaging as part then later by regulating PM10. After based and the standards themselves, protracted litigation, the 1997 NAAQS of the form of the annual standard to and to revise the standards as may be avoid potential disproportionate for PM were upheld by the U.S. Court 2.5 appropriate. In October 2006, the EPA impacts on at-risk populations.30 The of Appeals for the District of Columbia promulgated revisions to the suite of Circuit in March 2002.21 The EPA NAAQS for PM, and in particular the 26 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). subsequently promulgated designations EPA revised the 24-hour PM 27 Memorandum of March 2, 2012 (withdrawn for the 1997 PM NAAQS nationwide, 2.5 2.5 standards.25 In accordance with section June 6, 2013), from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to and designated a number of areas as 107(d), the EPA subsequently EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I–X, nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 designated a number of areas as NAAQS, effective April 2005.22 In April ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour nonattainment for the revised 2006 24- Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ Available at: http://epa.gov/ hour PM2.5 standards, effective 20 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html. 21 For a complete summary of legal challenges 28 77 FR 38890 (June 29, 2012). and related court decisions on the PM NAAQS, see 23 72 FR 20583 (April 25, 2007). 29 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). generally 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 24 73 FR 28231 (May 16, 2008). 30 Spatial averaging of monitored ambient air 22 25 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). quality data was a feature of the prior PM2.5 NAAQS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15347

EPA retained the level (35 mg/m3) and did not have to reach decisions on other D. State Implementation Planning form (98th percentile, averaged over 3 issues concerning the regulation of Process for PM2.5 NAAQS years) of the primary 24-hour PM 2.5 precursors to PM2.5, the court 1. Overview standard, as revised in 2006, to provide nonetheless noted that subpart 4 has supplemental protection against health specific requirements with respect to The CAA establishes important roles effects associated with short-term PM2.5 regulation of such precursors. As a both for state and tribal governments exposures, especially in areas with high result, the court remanded to the EPA and for the EPA in implementing the 31 peak PM2.5 concentrations. This suite both the 2007 PM Implementation NAAQS. In accordance with the 2.5 principle of cooperative federalism, of primary PM2.5 standards provides Rule and the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, both increased public health protection, of which were premised on the EPA’s both state and tribal governments and the EPA have respective authorities and including the health of at-risk interpretation of the statute that subpart responsibilities under the CAA. At the populations which include children, 1 was the only applicable subpart for outset, the EPA has the authority and older adults, persons with pre-existing the implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 responsibility to promulgate the health and lung disease and persons of NAAQS. The court instructed the EPA lower socioeconomic status, against a NAAQS. In turn, state, local and tribal ‘‘to repromulgate these rules pursuant to air agencies have the authority and broad range of PM2.5-related effects that Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ include premature mortality, increased primary responsibility for developing Given the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in hospital admissions and emergency and implementing attainment plans that NRDC v. EPA, the EPA withdrew its department visits and development of contain emission control measures 2012 guidance document for the 2006 chronic respiratory disease.32 With needed to achieve the air quality regard to the secondary (welfare-based) 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in June 2013. standards in each nonattainment area, standards, the EPA retained the existing Because the court had concluded that consistent with the requirements of the 3 the EPA and states must implement the annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0 mg/m CAA. The EPA often assists air agencies PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the and the existing 24-hour PM2.5 standard by promulgating regulations or of 35 mg/m3 to protect against PM- statutory requirements of subpart 4, the providing guidance for meeting related non-visibility welfare effects EPA 2012 guidance for attainment plans implementation requirements and including ecological effects, effects on for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS premised technical tools, including information materials and climate impacts. In solely upon subpart 1 requirements was on control measures.35 For example, the addition, the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 no longer appropriate. EPA intends this rulemaking to clarify standard provides protection for PM- The EPA intends to use this current the specific statutory requirements, and related visibility impairment. rulemaking to accomplish multiple schedule for meeting those On January 4, 2013, shortly after the objectives. First, the EPA is taking this requirements, that state and tribal air EPA promulgated the 2012 revisions to action to clarify how air agencies should pollution control agencies (‘‘air the suite of PM NAAQS, the DC Circuit meet the statutory SIP requirements that agencies’’) must address as they prepare issued its decision in a challenge to the SIP submissions for the PM2.5 standards apply to areas designated nonattainment 36 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and in future. for any PM2.5 NAAQS under subparts 1 The EPA also promulgates nationally the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule. In NRDC v. and 4. To this end, the EPA is proposing EPA, the court held that the EPA erred applicable control requirements and regulatory requirements that will be in implementing the 1997 PM NAAQS emission limits for many sources such 2.5 applicable to attainment plans for the pursuant only to the general as new motor vehicles, certain 2012 PM NAAQS and any future implementation requirements of subpart 2.5 categories of new and modified major revisions of the PM NAAQS, subject 1, rather than also to the 2.5 stationary sources and existing to revisions that may be necessary for implementation requirements specific to stationary sources of toxic air implementation purposes in the future. particulate matter (PM ) in subpart 4, pollutants. These federal actions assist 10 Second, the EPA is taking this action to part D of title I of the CAA (‘‘subpart state and tribal air agencies by achieving provide guidance, in addition to 4’’).33 The court reasoned that the plain emission reductions from certain meaning of the CAA requires regulatory requirements, to assist air categories of sources nationwide, which agencies in developing attainment plans implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 can help with local attainment needs in for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and any NAAQS under subpart 4 because PM2.5 a given nonattainment area. In addition, particles fall within the statutory future revisions of the PM2.5 NAAQS. the EPA has authority to address Finally, the EPA is taking this action in definition of PM10 and are thus subject to the same statutory requirements. In response to the DC Circuit’s remand of 35 It is important to note that the EPA does not the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule have a mandatory duty to promulgate an addition, although the court stated that implementation rule for the PM NAAQS, and the and the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule. Through 2.5 its decision that the EPA must obligations of state and tribal air agencies to this rulemaking, the EPA intends to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant develop and submit an attainment plan are to subpart 4 requirements meant that it address requirements associated with independent obligations and not conditioned upon states’ ongoing implementation efforts the EPA promulgating an implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS. for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In monitoring regulations which had the potential for 36 When the term ‘‘state’’ is used hereafter, it will masking particularly high PM2.5 concentrations at the interim, the EPA will rely on the refer generically to states, local air agencies, and certain monitored locations within nonattainment statutory attainment planning tribal governments electing to be treated as states areas. requirements 34 contained in subparts 1 for the purposes of implementing the CAA. Of 31 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). and 4 and on the EPA’s General additional note is that the 1998 Tribal Authority 32 General information regarding the health Rule (TAR), which is found in 40 CFR part 49, effects associated with PM2.5 exposures is available Preamble and Addendum for guidance which implements section 301(d) of the CAA, at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/ on how to apply those requirements to provides that tribes be treated in the same manner health.html. Additional information, such as the current PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment as a state when implementing certain sections of the EPA’s technical documents supporting the latest areas. CAA. It gives tribes the option of developing tribal review of the standards, is available at: http:// implementation plans (TIPs), but unlike states, www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_ tribes are not required to develop implementation index.html. 34 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, plans. Section IX.I of this preamble provides further 33 NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 1992). discussion of tribal issues.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

interstate transport of pollutants, in the information to promulgate the from the approach for ozone NAAQS event that states fail to do so. Through designations.’’ Thus, the EPA is nonattainment areas under subpart 2 (of this authority, the EPA has addressed required to promulgate the actual part D, title I of the CAA), wherein the regional transport of pollutants from designations for all areas across the U.S. statute includes several area upwind states to downwind states, and by no later than 2 years after the classifications, and initial classifications has previously done so for purposes of promulgation of any new or revised are based on monitored ozone levels. 37 the PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the NAAQS, unless the EPA elects to take Thus, unlike for ozone nonattainment EPA has the authority and responsibility up to one additional year in situations areas, all PM2.5 nonattainment areas to review and take action to approve or where there is insufficient information. initially receive the same disapprove submitted attainment plans Under section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii), the EPA classification—Moderate—and the EPA based upon whether they meet is authorized to modify the designations only reclassifies such areas to Serious applicable statutory and regulatory recommendations from the states, with upon a showing by the state or a requirements, to provide funding and respect to the designation of an area and determination by the agency that the technical assistance to states and to the boundaries of an area, if the EPA area cannot practicably attain by the initiate the process for imposition of deems that necessary. By no later than statutory attainment date, or upon a sanctions and/or issue federal 120 days prior to promulgating final finding that the area in fact failed to implementation plans (FIPs) when designations, the EPA is required to attain the NAAQS by the applicable states fail to fulfill their CAA notify states of any intended Moderate area attainment date. The obligations. More information on area modifications to their statute requires that Moderate designations, the role of ambient air recommendations. States then have an nonattainment areas attain the NAAQS monitoring, the SIP development opportunity to demonstrate to the EPA as expeditiously as practicable, but not process and the role of federal measures why the EPA’s intended modification is later than the end of the sixth calendar in bringing an area into attainment is inappropriate. Regardless of whether a year following designation. States have presented below. state provides an initial designation an incentive to avoid having a Moderate area reclassified to Serious because, as 2. Initial Area Designations and recommendation for any area, the EPA discussed later in this preamble, the Classifications must timely promulgate the designations it deems appropriate.39 specific subpart 4 requirements for areas The NAAQS implementation Under subpart 4, the CAA provides classified as Serious include, among planning process begins with initial area for classification of PM2.5 nonattainment other things, a more stringent level of designations, through which states and areas as either ‘‘Moderate’’ or ‘‘Serious.’’ control for sources of direct PM2.5 and the EPA identify areas of the country As provided in section 188(a) and PM2.5 precursors than for Moderate that either meet or do not meet the new reiterated in the General Preamble, all areas. or revised NAAQS, along with PM10 nonattainment areas and by As of the date of this proposal, the identifying the nearby areas extension all PM2.5 nonattainment areas first round of initial designations for contributing to violations of the are initially classified as Moderate by most areas for the 2012 primary annual NAAQS. Section 107(d)(1) of the CAA operation of law at the time of PM2.5 NAAQS has been completed, and requires that: ‘‘By such date as the designation. Initial classifications are those designations will become effective Administrator may reasonably require, not subject to public notice-and- on April 15, 2015. All areas designated but not later than 1 year after comment pursuant to section as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 promulgation of a new or revised 107(d)(2)(B), although the EPA may NAAQS were classified as Moderate national ambient air quality standard for elect to take comment on designations nonattainment areas.40 any pollutant under section 109, the and classifications and its recent 3. Ambient Air Monitoring for PM Governor of each state shall . . . submit practice has been to do so. 2.5 to the Administrator a list of all areas (or All areas designated as nonattainment Ambient air quality monitoring for portions thereof) in the State’’ that for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and any PM2.5 plays an integral role in designates those areas as nonattainment, future revised PM2.5 NAAQS will be implementation of a NAAQS, including attainment, or unclassifiable.38 Thus, initially classified as Moderate identifying areas violating the NAAQS, states are required to make their initial nonattainment areas upon designation, control strategy development and designation recommendations to the regardless of the severity of the PM2.5 tracking progress toward attainment. EPA by no later than 1 year after the problem in the area. This statutory States are required to monitor PM2.5 promulgation of new or revised approach to classifications for mass concentrations using approved NAAQS. Section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) further nonattainment areas under subpart 4 for methods to determine compliance with 41 provides: ‘‘Upon promulgation or the PM2.5 NAAQS is notably different the NAAQS. The locations of monitors revision of a NAAQS, the Administrator are identified in states’ Annual shall promulgate the designations of all 39 While section 107 of the CAA specifically Monitoring Network Plans, which are areas (or portions thereof) . . . as addresses states, the EPA is following the same required to be submitted to the EPA by expeditiously as practicable, but in no process for tribes that choose to make a July 1 of each year.42 The EPA in turn recommendation to the extent practicable, pursuant case later than 2 years from the date of to section 301(d) of the CAA regarding tribal reviews these annual plans for promulgation. Such period may be authority, and the TAR. 63 FR 7254 (February 12, compliance with applicable regulations extended for up to 1 year in the event 1998). To provide for clarity and consistency, the and consistency with relevant guidance. the Administrator has insufficient EPA issued a 2011 guidance memorandum for Currently there are more than 900 working with tribes during the designations process. Memorandum of December 20, 2011 from 37 See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) and 76 FR Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 40 See the Federal Register notice for the first 48208 (August 8, 2011). Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional round of designations for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 38 While the CAA provides for ‘‘designating’’ with Administrators, Regions I–X re: ‘‘Guidance to at 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015). respect to the Governor’s list, in the full context of Regions for Working with Tribes during the 41 The ambient air monitoring requirements that the CAA section 107 it is clear that the Governor National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS are detailed in 40 CFR actually makes a recommendation, to which the Designations Process.’’ Available at: http:// part 58. These monitoring requirements are EPA must respond using a specified process if the www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/20120117 applicable to state and local air agencies. EPA does not accept the recommendation. naaqsguidance.pdf. 42 See 40 CFR 58.10.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15349

monitoring locations across the country the first 3 years of data available In addition, data suggest that ambient eligible for comparison to the PM2.5 beginning in 2020. PM2.5 concentrations tend to rise and NAAQS. States are required to maintain fall in a consistent manner across very 4. SIP Development Process monitors in designated nonattainment large geographic areas. The transport areas in order to track progress toward In general terms, a SIP is the phenomenon associated with PM2.5 and attainment and ultimately determine compilation of EPA-approved state its precursors has been well whether the area has attained the PM2.5 statutes, regulations and programs that a documented for many years. For standards. In addition to the approved state develops and relies upon to carry example, one significant source of monitors for comparison to the NAAQS, out its NAAQS implementation information on long-range transport is the EPA and states also maintain a responsibilities under the CAA, the National Acid Precipitation chemical speciation network (CSN) of including the attainment, maintenance Assessment Program (NAPAP) research about 200 stations around the country to and enforcement of NAAQS. States use from the 1980s and its associated support analyses of chemical the SIP development process to identify reports published in 1991.45 Additional the emissions sources that contribute to composition of PM2.5 (e.g. sulfate, studies and air quality modeling nitrate and organic carbon). The data the nonattainment problem in a analyses since that time have added to provided by the CSN help states identify particular area, and to select the the body of information documenting required emissions reduction measures 46 contributing source categories and the regional nature of PM2.5. most appropriate for that area, develop control strategies to reach 6. Strategies for Reducing Ambient attainment. considering factors such as technological and economic feasibility. PM2.5 In conjunction with the promulgation As part of developing an attainment of the 2012 PM NAAQS, the EPA The control measures identified and 2.5 plan, the states must meet specific finalized a schedule for deployment of adopted by a state through the SIP requirements of the CAA to attain the PM monitors at near-road monitoring development process for bringing 2.5 NAAQS, e.g., a state with a Moderate locations. Under revised monitoring nonattainment areas into attainment PM nonattainment area must impose requirements, states are required to 2.5 constitute an important component of RACM (including RACT) and additional locate a minimum of one PM monitor the CAA’s overall strategy for meeting 2.5 reasonable measures on sources located in each core-based statistical area the PM2.5 standards, but they are not the in the nonattainment area. Under the (CBSA) with a population of 1 million only component. The CAA also includes CAA, states must develop attainment requirements for national rules or or more, to be phased-in between plans that ensure that areas reach January 2015 and January 2017.43 programs that will reduce emissions and attainment as expeditiously as help achieve cleaner air. Specifically, For initial area designations for any practicable, but no later than the the EPA has adopted a number of PM NAAQS, the EPA relies on 2.5 applicable statutory attainment date. In national rules over the past few years monitoring data to identify areas to be these attainment plans, states may take that require or will require emission designated nonattainment due to into consideration emission reductions reductions from sources of both direct violations of the standard(s). The EPA resulting from federally applicable PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, especially uses other information to identify areas national programs (such as mobile contributing to the monitored violations of SO2 and NOX. The national rules that source regulations, the national acid will help states meet their attainment in those areas.44 The agency’s protocol rain program, or maximum achievable dates include, but are not limited to: for designating areas and determining control technology (MACT) standards The Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicle Rule; the whether an area has attained the PM 2.5 for air toxics), as well as from state or Tier 3 Tailpipe and Evaporative NAAQS is based on monitored air local programs not directly mandated, Emission and Vehicle Fuel Standards; quality data collected over a period of but authorized, under the CAA, if such the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 3 calendar years. Data from the new measures are incorporated into the SIP Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel PM near-road monitors were not 2.5 and thus are made federally enforceable. Sulfur Control Requirements; the Clean available for the EPA to consider within Air Nonroad Diesel Rule; the Regional the timeframe for initial area 5. Geographic Extent of PM2.5 Problem Haze Regulations and Guidelines for designations provided by the CAA for The EPA recognizes the significant Best Available Retrofit Technology the 2012 PM NAAQS; the agency will variability in the nature and sources of 2.5 Determinations; the NO Emission not be able to consider data from a near- PM in different nonattainment areas X 2.5 Standard for New Commercial Aircraft road monitor in the implementation and believes it is important to keep this Engines; the CSAPR; the Emissions process until 3 years of data are variability in mind when providing Standards for Locomotives and Marine available. The initial set of near- guidance to states as they develop roadway PM2.5 monitors are to be fully control strategies to bring their PM2.5 45 National Acid Precipitation Assessment deployed by January 2015, with the first nonattainment areas into attainment Program. Acid Deposition: State of the Science and 3 years of air quality data (2015–2017) with the relevant NAAQS. The Technology. Washington, DC 1991. See also available beginning in 2018; the second variability of PM2.5 concentrations Environmental Protection Agency. (2004) Air set of near-roadway monitors are to have across the country has a substantial Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Research and regional component because the Development; report no. EPA/600/P–99/002a,bF. 43 Near-road monitors for CBSAs larger than 2.5 formation and transport of secondarily Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ million in population are to be operational by 1/1/ formed particles, such as sulfates and standards/pm/s_pm_cr_cd.html. 2015; and monitors for CBSAs with population nitrates, can extend over hundreds of 46 For example, see technical information for the larger than 1 million but less than 2.5 million are Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) at: http:// to be operational by 1/1/2017. CBSA is defined by miles. As a result, monitored violations www.epa.gov/airmarkt/programs/cair/index.html; OMB as a statistical geographic entity consisting of of the PM2.5 NAAQS can often reflect and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) at: the county or counties associated with at least one the impact of the combination of ‘‘local’’ http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/programs/cair/ urbanized area/urban cluster of at least 10,000 sources of emissions located within the index.html. See also: NARSTO (2004) Particulate population, plus adjacent counties having a high Matter Assessment for Policy Makers: A NARSTO degree of social and economic integration. designated nonattainment area and Assessment. P. McMurry, M. Shepherd, and J. 44 See Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. ‘‘regional’’ sources of emissions that Vickery, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cir. 2009). may be located much farther away. Cambridge, England. ISBN 0 52 184287 5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Compression-Ignition Engines; the III. What is the EPA proposing with PM2.5 concentrations in many Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark respect to the treatment of PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Ignition Engines and Equipment; the C3 precursors in nonattainment area Section 302(g) of the CAA indicates Oceangoing Vessels rule; area and major planning and permitting? that the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ includes ‘‘any precursors to the formation of any source Boilers NESHAPs, New Source A. Background Performance Standards and Emission air pollutant, to the extent the The EPA recognizes that a threshold Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/ Administrator has identified such question in developing PM attainment Infectious Waste Incinerators; the 2.5 precursor or precursors for the plans and implementing NNSR particular purpose for which the term Reciprocating Internal Combustion programs is the question of which ‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ In the 2007 Engines (RICE) NESHAPs; and the precursors must be regulated in a given PM Implementation Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 2.5 nonattainment area in order to attain the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, the EPA 47 (MATS). relevant NAAQS and to meet the recognized that the main scientific Additionally, there are PM2.5 statutory requirements of part D, precursors of fine particle formation are reductions that will be achieved as a including subpart 4, of the CAA. Before SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia. Pursuant result of previously adopted state and discussing the specific CAA attainment to the discretionary authority provided local agency regulations and voluntary plan and NNSR requirements in detail under section 302(g) to identify PM2.5 programs to the extent they can be in Sections IV through IX of this precursors for a particular program, the relied on under the EPA’s voluntary preamble, the EPA discusses in this EPA also included requirements measures policies, such as the use of section how a state should evaluate describing which precursor gases states low sulfur fuel for home heating and PM2.5 precursors in order to identify the were to evaluate for potential emission specific precursors to which the PM industrial purposes, curtailment of 2.5 reductions as part of the state’s analysis attainment plan and NNSR residential wood burning and burn of control measures to bring the area requirements will apply in a given into attainment as expeditiously as bans. Furthermore, under the voluntary nonattainment area. This section first practicable. PM Advance program, the EPA works provides a brief overview of the To facilitate the evaluation and with states, tribes and local precursor policies that the agency identification of reasonable control governments to ensure they are aware of included in the 2007 PM2.5 measures, the 2007 PM2.5 the advantages of early action and to Implementation Rule and in the 2008 Implementation Rule included provide assistance in taking steps to PM2.5 NSR Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 nationally applicable presumptions achieve emission reductions in areas NAAQS that were remanded by the regarding the need to evaluate and currently attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS court. It then describes the EPA’s three potentially control emissions of certain but approaching levels that could lead proposed options for addressing PM2.5 precursors. Specifically, in 40 CFR to nonattainment in the future. Early precursors under the attainment 51.1002, the EPA provided that a state reductions may help these areas planning and NNSR programs to meet must evaluate sources of direct PM2.5 maintain the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 the statutory requirements of subpart 4. and SO2 for potential control measures; NAAQS over the long-term. Lastly, this section discusses possible a state presumptively was required to Furthermore, there may be emissions approaches for states to develop an evaluate sources of NOX for potential controls that can be implemented to adequate technical demonstration control measures; and, a state was showing whether emissions of a given presumptively not required to evaluate meet NAAQS for ozone (O3) or SO2 that may have co-benefits for meeting and PM2.5 precursor significantly contribute sources of VOC and ammonia emissions continuing to meet the current PM to ambient concentrations that exceed for potential control measures. The EPA 2.5 the standard. The EPA requests public NAAQS and any future revised PM established these presumptions 2.5 comment on the options and concerning VOC and ammonia in the NAAQS. information presented below. 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule The EPA will continue to work The EPA’s 2007 PM2.5 because of factors such as uncertainties closely with air agencies as they Implementation Rule included regarding the emissions inventories for develop and use an appropriate regulatory presumptions concerning the ammonia, uncertainties concerning the combination of national, regional and need to address certain PM2.5 precursors role of some VOC in the formation of local pollution reduction measures to in attainment plans and through control particles, and uncertainties regarding meet the standards as expeditiously as measures related to those plans.48 The the effectiveness of specific precursor practicable, as required by the CAA. EPA has long recognized the scientific control measures in various regions of basis for concluding that there are the country in reducing PM2.5 multiple scientific precursors to PM10, concentrations. For example, in some 49 and in particular to PM2.5. As areas of the U.S., emission reductions of 47 Compliance with the MATS emission standard described in Section II of this preamble a particular precursor may lead to large for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP) is changes in PM concentrations because demonstrated by direct measurement of either (on technical background issues 2.5 associated with PM2.5 and PM2.5 there are relatively few tons of such hydrogen chloride (HCl) or SO2 as surrogates for all acid gas HAP. Thus, compliance with MATS is precursors), appropriate control of precursor emissions in the area in the expected to result in a substantial amount of new precursors is especially important first place. In other areas, the opposite pollution controls (scrubbers and dry sorbent because secondarily formed particles may be true, where emission reductions injection) and upgrading of existing acid gas comprise a large fraction of ambient of a particular precursor may lead to controls that will significantly reduce acid gas small changes in PM2.5 concentrations emissions, including SO2 emissions, from power 48 See 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 72 FR because the area has an abundance of plants. MATS implementation is projected to 20586, 20589, 20590, 20591, 20592, 20593, 20594, reduce nationwide SO emissions from power emissions of that particular precursor. 2 20595, 20596 and 20597 (April 25, 2007). The rule also included provisions for plants to a level more than 40 percent lower than 49 Ibid. For example, the EPA’s 2007 PM2.5 potentially reversing the EPA’s initial the SO2 emissions projected under CSAPR without Implementation Rule discussed the fact that MATS in place. For more information, see: emissions of SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia are presumptions for certain precursors in a http://www.epa.gov/mats. factual and scientific precursors to PM2.5. nonattainment area where the state or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15351

the EPA had information demonstrating developing strategies to improve air apply to major stationary sources of that the presumption was not valid for quality specifically in nonattainment PM10 precursors, except where the that area. The EPA left open the areas. A more complete discussion of Administrator determines that such possibility in the 2007 PM2.5 the 2008 NNSR program requirements sources do not contribute significantly Implementation Rule for regulation of for the PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed to PM10 levels which exceed the VOC and ammonia emissions as PM2.5 changes concerning the regulation of standard in the area.’’ The court precursors in any nonattainment area PM2.5 precursors from new or modified reasoned that the EPA’s approach to where regulation was necessary for major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors in the 2007 PM2.5 purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5 nonattainment areas Implementation Rule and 2008 PM2.5 NAAQS. Similarly, the EPA left open is provided in Section VIII of this NSR Rule had the effect of reversing the the possibility for not regulating NOX preamble. presumption embodied within subpart 4 where NOX sources from within the The EPA’s approach to the evaluation that a state should address all PM10 state did not have a significant and regulation of PM2.5 precursors in precursors unless the state has made a contribution to PM2.5 concentrations in both the 2007 and 2008 rules for specific showing why regulation of a 55 the nonattainment area. The preamble to implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS particular precursor is not necessary. the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule was called into question in the court’s The provisions of subpart 4 do not discussed that to ‘‘reverse’’ the 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA. As an define the term ‘‘precursor’’ for presumptions in the rule for NOX, VOC example of the distinction between the purposes of PM10, nor do they explicitly or ammonia, the state would need to divergent substantive requirements of require the control of any specifically provide an appropriate technical subpart 1 and subpart 4, the court noted identified particulate matter precursor. demonstration, and it provided that subpart 4 has specific provisions However, as stated above, the statutory examples of the types of analyses that related to regulation of precursors not definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ provides could be included in such a present in subpart 1. Although the court that the term ‘‘includes any precursors demonstration. The EPA intended these stated that it was not reaching a to the formation of any air pollutant, to to be rebuttable presumptions that decision on the issue of regulation of the extent the Administrator has either the state or the EPA might reverse precursors, the court’s decision identified such precursor or precursors through notice-and-comment specifically discussed both the approach for the particular purpose for which the term ‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ CAA rulemaking. These presumptions were to precursors in the 2007 PM2.5 not limited to precursor emissions only Implementation Rule and the 2008 section 302(g). The EPA has determined that SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia are from major stationary sources, but rather PM2.5 NSR Rule and compared those to were presumptions applicable to section 189(e) of the CAA, which factual and scientific precursors to PM, precursor emissions from all sources of contains the sole explicit reference to and thus the attainment plan such emissions within the area.50 the regulation of precursors in subpart requirements of subpart 4 initially apply The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule included 4. The court decision included the equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and similar policies for precursor following statements with regard to all of its identified precursors, except as presumptions in connection with the precursors: otherwise provided in the statute (e.g. NSR requirements for nonattainment CAA section 189(e)). Section 189(e) areas (the NNSR program).51 That rule Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate explicitly requires the control of

provided a discussion of the possibility matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 precursors from all major stationary and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area sources, unless there is a demonstration for the state or the EPA to provide a governed by subpart 4, a precursor is technical demonstration to reverse the presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. to the satisfaction of the Administrator presumptions for NOX, VOC or 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. But under the PM that such major stationary sources do ammonia.52 The one significant rules challenged here, the EPA established a not contribute significantly to PM levels difference between the two rules was rebuttable presumption against regulating that exceed the standards in the area.56 the geographic scope of the ammonia unless a state or the EPA ‘‘provides Section 189(e) contains the only express requirements. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule an appropriate technical demonstration’’ that exception to control requirements under indicated that a precursor presumption shows emissions from ammonia subpart 4. The control requirements for could be rebutted if the emissions of ‘‘significantly contribute to PM concentration major sources referred to in this in the nonattainment area.’’ 40 CFR that precursor from sources within the exception include requirements for 51.1002(c)(4)(i). When Congress enacted RACM and RACT, additional reasonable nonattainment area (emphasis added) subpart 4, it sought to end this administrative did not significantly contribute to PM2.5 gamesmanship.53 measures, BACM and BACT, most concentrations in the nonattainment stringent measures (as applicable) and * * * * * NNSR on all major sources of precursors area. This distinction is logical because In light of our disposition, we need not the requirements of the NNSR program address the petitioners’ challenge to the in the nonattainment areas. The General apply only to sources located within a presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that Preamble indicates that consideration of designated nonattainment area. volatile organic compounds and ammonia are precursors is necessary for attainment Conversely, the 2007 PM2.5 not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly plans, and it recognizes the specific Implementation Rule indicated that the governs precursor presumptions.54 applicability of section 189(e) to both existing and new major stationary evaluation of whether a given precursor Section 189(e) for PM10 precursors should be regulated should be based on (which the court concluded expressly sources, including new and modified sources subject to NNSR permitting emissions from sources throughout the includes PM ) provides that: ‘‘The 2.5 requirements. Even though section entire state (emphasis added), because control requirements applicable under the state air agency has jurisdiction over plans in effect under this part for major sources throughout the entire state in 55 Ibid. stationary sources of PM10 shall also 56 The EPA notes that it has already addressed the requirements of subpart 4 for precursors, 50 Ibid. 53 NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 437, n.7 (D.C. Cir. specifically within the context of the requirements 51 See the Federal Register published on May 16, 2013). of section 189(e), in the General Preamble. See the 2008 (73 FR 28321, 28326 and 28327). 54 NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 437, n.10 (D.C. Cir. Federal Register published on April 16, 1992 (57 52 Ibid. 2013). FR 13498, 13539, 13541 and 13542).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

189(e) only explicitly contemplates date by at least one year.59 Section IV.D determine that only certain precursors exceptions to control requirements for of this preamble provides additional need to be regulated for attainment 61 PM2.5 precursors from major stationary discussion on the development of purposes. Courts have upheld this sources, the EPA believes that by emissions inventories and the approach to the requirements of subpart 62 analogy it has authority to promulgate identification, adoption and 4 for PM10. regulations that allow states to implementation of reasonable control The EPA believes that application of determine that it is not necessary to measures for Moderate PM2.5 a similar approach to PM2.5 precursors 60 regulate PM2.5 precursors from other nonattainment areas. under subpart 4 is appropriate and reasonable. Thus, this proposal source categories as well, under B. Proposed Precursor Policy Options appropriate circumstances. describes three proposed precursor The EPA is proposing this rule to options that provide for the possibility When Congress adopted the 1990 address the attainment plan and certain that, with appropriate justification CAA Amendments, a NAAQS for PM10 NNSR requirements for PM2.5 under provided by the state, further evaluation was in effect, but no standard for PM 2.5 subpart 4. In light of the court’s decision and implementation of control strategies had yet been established. At that time, in NRDC v. EPA, the EPA considers it for one or more PM precursors in a it was understood that the interaction of 2.5 necessary to address in this given nonattainment area may not be PM precursors in the atmosphere led to implementation rule how states must needed or required. Under each option, the formation of particulate matter in address regulation of PM2.5 precursor a state may provide a technical many areas. However, in some of the gases in attainment plans and NNSR demonstration and reasoned PM10 nonattainment areas, air quality programs for the PM2.5 NAAQS. As justification for the exclusion of a PM problems were caused primarily by area 2.5 noted earlier, the court’s decision made precursor or precursors from control sources emitting direct PM emissions clear that appropriate regulation of all requirements for a particular (e.g., a nonattainment area with precursors is initially presumptively nonattainment area. numerous wood burning devices or with required under the CAA, and the As explained above, the EPA substantial sources of windblown coarse regulation of precursors is a critical interprets the CAA to require states to particles from construction sites), and issue for attainment of the PM2.5 inventory and regulate all sources of precursor emissions from major NAAQS because secondarily formed PM precursors from all sources in the stationary sources were not considered 2.5 particles are a substantial component of area, including area sources, mobile to make a significant contribution to the the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in sources and stationary sources. This local nonattainment problem. For cases most areas of the U.S. interpretation is based on CAA such as these, section 189(e) provided a For the purposes of this provisions requiring adoption of all possible exception to the requirement to implementation rule, the EPA considers RACM needed to attain the standard as control all PM 2.5 precursors from major that for all nonattainment areas, the expeditiously as practicable; section sources in all nonattainment areas. PM2.5 precursors for regulatory purposes 302(g), which defines an air pollutant as While section 189(e) expressly are SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia. This including all precursors contributing to requires control of precursors from rule does not propose any national the formation of that pollutant; and, the major stationary sources where direct presumption that would simply allow a EPA’s identification of the four main state to exclude sources of emissions of PM from major sources is to be PM2.5 precursors. For major stationary controlled unless certain conditions are a particular precursor from further sources, section 189(e) requires that the met, as stated above, it is clear that analysis for control requirements. control requirements applicable for However, the EPA’s existing subpart 4 and other CAA provisions major stationary sources of PM2.5 must collectively require the control of direct interpretation of subpart 4 also apply to major stationary sources of requirements—with respect to PM and all PM2.5 precursors from all PM2.5 precursors, unless the state types of sources (i.e., stationary sources, precursors in attainment plans for PM10, provides a showing that emissions of a area sources, and mobile sources) as as set out in the General Preamble— particular precursor from major may be needed for the purposes of contemplates that the state may develop stationary sources do not contribute demonstrating attainment as an attainment plan that regulates only significantly to levels which exceed the expeditiously as practicable in a given those precursors that are necessary to standard in the area. Thus, the statute 57 control for purposes of timely area. Long-standing EPA guidance for generally requires control of all PM2.5 RACM has stated that the state should attainment in the area, i.e., states may precursors, but it provides an express inventory all emissions of the relevant exception applicable to major stationary 59 pollutants and precursors in the In the context of the PM10 NAAQS, the EPA has concluded that ‘‘advancement of the attainment sources. Because the statutory nonattainment area and evaluate all date’’ should mean an advancement of at least 1 provisions of subparts 1 and 4 are not economically and technologically calendar year. See State Implementation Plans; explicit with respect to how states General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I feasible control measures for the should address PM2.5 precursors from relevant pollutant and precursors, and of the CAA Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). See also Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 non-major sources, the EPA is proposing that the state should adopt those F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002). regulations to assure proper evaluation measures that are deemed reasonably 60 See Section IV of this preamble for a thorough and regulation of PM2.5 precursor available and necessary in order to discussion of past reasonably available control emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as measures (RACM) and reasonably available control Moreover, even with respect to 58 technology (RACT) policy and guidance. Section IV practicable. The state also must ensure discusses the EPA’s proposed policy that under regulation of precursor emissions from that there is no other collection of subpart 4, for Moderate areas that demonstrate that major stationary sources, section 189(e) available control measures that if attainment by the statutory attainment date is contains ambiguities that require adopted would advance the attainment impracticable, RACM and RACT would constitute interpretation. For example, section all those technologically and economically feasible measures available for sources in the area that can 57 See CAA requirements for states to demonstrate be implemented within 4 years of designation, but 61 See the Federal Register published on April 16, attainment ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ they would not constitute the complete set of 1992 (57 FR 13498, 13540 and 13541). (section 188(c)(1); section 172(a)(2)). measures required to demonstrate attainment as 62 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 58 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). expeditiously as practicable. et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15353

189(e) does not specify the method by needed for attainment or to expedite precursor would not be needed or which the EPA should determine attainment, or to show that major appropriate for an area’s attainment whether precursor emissions from major stationary sources of a given precursor plan, and how it could demonstrate that stationary sources contribute collectively do not significantly emissions control requirements for a significantly to levels which exceed the contribute to PM2.5 levels that exceed particular precursor would not be standard in a given nonattainment area. the relevant NAAQS in a given area. needed in NNSR permits for new or Given that the provisions of subpart 4 Before discussing the three precursor modified sources in the area. In are ambiguous with respect to these options, it is important to introduce a particular, the EPA requests comment issues, the EPA believes that it is new term that is used throughout this on whether only one of these necessary to interpret those section and other sections of the notice. approaches should be included in the requirements in this rulemaking. Under subpart 4, RACM (including final rule, or whether it would be The EPA is thus seeking comment on RACT) are those measures that can and appropriate to include multiple three potential approaches to address must be implemented within 4 years of approaches (e.g., both Options 1 and 2), PM2.5 precursors pursuant to the the area’s designation as nonattainment or only specific elements from the specific statutory requirements of (pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(C)). The different options. The three proposed subpart 4 and the overarching EPA recognizes, however, that other, options are summarized as follows: requirements of the CAA. In these similarly reasonable emissions • Option 1: Two independent proposed options, particular emphasis reduction measures could be analyses: (a) An attainment planning is given to the situations and implemented after this 4 year period, analysis demonstrating that control circumstances under which the state and as late as the end of the sixth measures for a particular precursor are would or would not be required to calendar year following designation, to not needed for expeditious attainment, evaluate emission controls for a help an area attain as expeditiously as meaning that the precursor can be particular precursor and to adopt those practicable. Therefore, in this proposal excluded from measures needed to controls that are necessary to the EPA is proposing to define the term attain as expeditiously as practicable for demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS ‘‘additional reasonable measures’’ to all types of sources; and (b) a section as expeditiously as practicable. Note describe those technologically and 189(e) technical demonstration showing that these options describe analyses that economically feasible control measures that major stationary sources of a the state may choose to pursue to that could not be implemented within particular precursor do not contribute demonstrate that control requirements the 4 year period after designation, but significantly to levels that exceed the should not apply to a particular could be implemented starting any time PM2.5 standard, meaning that the precursor. However, the state also may after that 4 year period through the end precursor can be excluded from control choose to require controls for all PM2.5 of the sixth calendar year after requirements for major sources precursors in attainment plans and in its designation (note that this period could including NNSR permitting; NNSR permitting program, and choose extend almost 3 additional years, • Option 2: Single analysis not to conduct any analyses to eliminate depending on when during the year area demonstrating that all emissions of a one or more precursors from designations are finalized). See particular precursor from within the consideration for controls. proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. The EPA area do not significantly contribute to The descriptions of the three proposes to require implementation of PM levels that exceed the standard, precursor policy options being proposed 2.5 these ‘‘other’’ control measures to the meaning that control requirements for in this section discuss how PM 2.5 extent necessary to demonstrate emissions of the precursor from major precursors would need to be addressed attainment by the applicable attainment stationary and area sources, as well as by the state with regard to three specific date pursuant to section 172(c)(6) of the mobile sources, would not be required implementation situations: (1) A CAA. That provision provides that Moderate area for which attainment of for expeditious attainment, control nonattainment ‘‘plan provisions shall requirements for major sources, or for the relevant NAAQS by the end of the include enforceable emissions sixth calendar year after designation can NNSR permitting; limitations, and such other control • Option 3: An attainment planning be demonstrated; (2) a Moderate area for measures . . . as may be necessary or which it can be demonstrated that the analysis demonstrating that control appropriate to provide for attainment of relevant NAAQS cannot practicably be measures for all types of sources of a such standard in such area by the attained by the end of the sixth calendar particular precursor are not needed for applicable attainment date . . .’’ year after designation; and (3) an area expeditious attainment also would be Together, RACM and RACT and that is reclassified to Serious and is deemed to meet the section 189(e) ‘‘additional reasonable measures’’ make obligated to develop a Serious area technical demonstration requirement, up the set of control strategies referred attainment plan to attain the relevant meaning that the state would not need to in this proposed rule as ‘‘reasonable NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA to regulate emissions of the particular control measures.’’ 63 (Section IV.D of describes how each of the proposed precursor from major stationary sources this preamble provides a detailed precursor policy options would apply to under the NNSR permitting program or the implementation of NNSR in a discussion of how a state must other control requirements for major determine reasonable control measures Moderate or Serious PM2.5 stationary sources. nonattainment area. Later in this for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment Each of these proposed options is section, the EPA discusses specific area.) The EPA requests comment on presented in greater detail below. issues related to the technical each of the three proposed options 1. Option 1: Two independent ‘‘precursor demonstrations’’ that states discussed below which describe how a analyses: (a) An attainment planning could choose to develop. The technical state may demonstrate that additional analysis demonstrating that control demonstration section includes a emissions reductions of a particular measures for a particular precursor are discussion of several types of analyses not needed for expeditious attainment, 63 In Section VI.D, the EPA describes a parallel that a state could provide to the EPA to approach for distinguishing control measures meaning that the precursor can be show that control measures for a required under sections 172(c)(6) and 189(b)(1)(B) excluded from measures needed to specific PM2.5 precursor would not be for Serious nonattainment areas. attain as expeditiously as practicable for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

all types of sources; and (b) a section particular precursor. Therefore, the designation, the question arises as to 189(e) technical demonstration showing analysis of reasonable measures may whether the state should be required to that major stationary sources of a result in the state controlling only a adopt all reasonable measures (i.e. particular precursor do not contribute subset of the four main PM2.5 precursors measures that represent RACM and significantly to levels that exceed the as part of the attainment demonstration. RACT because they are technologically PM2.5 standard, meaning that the a. Moderate area for which the state and economically feasible and can be precursor can be excluded from control can demonstrate attainment by the implemented in 4 years and all requirements for major sources and from statutory attainment date. For certain additional reasonable measures that can NNSR permitting. nonattainment areas, the state may be be implemented within 6 years) through As with the other options discussed able to demonstrate that attainment of regulation as part of the Moderate area below, the critical first step in any the standard ‘‘as expeditiously as plan, even if a subset of these measures precursor analysis is the development of practicable’’ is possible by the end of collectively would have a minimal a comprehensive inventory of all the sixth year after designation (the effect on reducing ambient PM2.5 precursor emissions in the statutory Moderate area attainment date) concentrations. The EPA proposes two nonattainment area. A state will be or sooner, and could be achieved by sub-options for areas that cannot unable to reasonably determine whether adopting regulations to reduce demonstrate attainment during the emissions of a given PM2.5 precursor emissions of only a subset of the four Moderate area timeframe even with the contribute significantly to the PM2.5 precursors. Under this scenario, implementation of all reasonable nonattainment problem in an area if the the state would be expected to provide measures in the area. Under the first state has failed to account adequately analytical information showing that, sub-option, the state would be required for all such emissions in the area in its even though new economically and to adopt all available control measures emissions inventory. technically feasible control measures for precursors through regulation as part In general terms, Option 1 would may be available for one or more of the Moderate area plan. The rationale require separate analyses for purposes of precursors, the reductions in emissions supporting this approach would be that attainment planning and for NNSR. of the precursor(s) that could be adopting all technologically and Section 189(a) of the CAA describes the achieved are not necessary for economically feasible measures would requirements for Moderate expeditious attainment and would not bring the area as close to attainment as nonattainment areas. Within 18 months advance the attainment date by at least possible during the timeframe of designation as nonattainment, the a year. Under Option 1, if the state prescribed for Moderate areas. Under state is required to submit a Moderate determined that new emissions this approach, if a measure can be area plan that either demonstrates reductions of a particular precursor are implemented by the end of the sixth attainment as expeditiously as not necessary for attainment and would calendar year after the nonattainment practicable but by no later than the end not accelerate the attainment date by at designation and it meets the criteria for of the sixth year following designation, least 1 year, then for the purposes of this being considered ‘‘reasonable,’’ then the or demonstrates that attainment by such particular PM2.5 Moderate area state must adopt and implement the date would be impracticable. attainment plan, the state would not measure. Under Option 1, the state would need to adopt additional control Under the second sub-option, the determine the precursors for which new measures for that PM precursor. Given 2.5 state would be able to elect not to control measures need to be adopted for that additional regulation of that PM2.5 a given nonattainment area through its precursor would not be necessary for impose those technologically and determination of reasonable control attaining the standard as expeditiously economically feasible measures that measures needed for attainment. The as practicable, the EPA would be able to collectively have minimal effect on state’s analysis of reasonable measures approve the attainment plan for the area ambient PM2.5 levels in the area, based on the premise that such measures for a given PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment as meeting the requirements of subpart area should begin by identifying 4. would be unreasonable to implement. potential control measures (and factors b. Moderate area for which the state To support this conclusion, the state related to technological feasibility, can demonstrate that attainment by the would need to submit a technical economic feasibility, and time needed statutory attainment date is demonstration showing that for implementation) for all precursors impracticable. Section 189(a)(1)(B) implementing available emissions from all types of sources in the area (i.e., provides that for certain nonattainment controls for a particular precursor and/ stationary, area, mobile) included in the areas, the state may demonstrate that, or a specific set of sources would emissions inventory. The analysis of even with implementation of all provide only minimal changes in PM2.5 reasonable measures and selection by reasonable control measures available concentrations in the area, and therefore the state of those emissions reduction for reducing emissions of all direct PM such control measures should not be measures that would provide for and PM2.5 precursors, it would be required during the timeframe attainment as expeditiously as impracticable to attain the standard by prescribed for Moderate areas. The EPA practicable (but no later than the end of the end of the sixth calendar year after requests comment on these two sub- the sixth calendar year after designation. In other words, the analysis options, including any technical designation) would determine which would need to demonstrate that information that would help support the precursors must be regulated in the implementing all economically and commenter’s position. Regarding the nonattainment area for purposes of technically feasible control measures second sub-option, the EPA requests attainment. Except for the requirement that are available in the area, and the comment on what degree of air quality to determine whether implementation of expected air quality change from such change should be considered minimal all remaining reasonable measures measures, would not be able to provide for purposes of this analysis.64 could collectively advance attainment for attainment by the end of the sixth by a year, there would be no additional year after designation. 64 Note that under either sub-option, the state would be able to show that control of precursor demonstration needed by the state to For states that can make the showing emissions from major stationary sources would not justify that attainment planning control that they cannot attain the NAAQS by be required if it could be demonstrated that such requirements should not apply to a the end of the sixth calendar year after emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15355

c. Area reclassified to Serious. A than the end of the tenth year after planning purposes, but would not be Moderate area can be reclassified to a designation. Under Option 1, any regulated as a PM2.5 precursor in NNSR Serious area under two scenarios. Under precursor demonstration that excluded permitting actions which, by definition, the first scenario, if a Moderate area fails one or more precursors from regulation only apply to major sources of the to attain the standard by the applicable in the Moderate area plan would not by nonattainment pollutant. For example, attainment date, it would then be itself also be sufficient to exclude the it might be possible that in a particular reclassified by the EPA as a Serious area precursors from regulation in the area the principal source of emissions of and the state would be required to Serious area plan. Further analysis a certain precursor could be from develop and submit a Serious area would be needed to determine if control mobile and area sources but not from attainment plan within 18 months of measures for those precursors qualify as major stationary sources of that reclassification. Under the second ‘‘best’’ control measures. The EPA has precursor. The EPA requests comment scenario, the EPA could reclassify an interpreted the starting point for on all aspects of proposed Option 1 as area to Serious prior to the Moderate considering ‘‘best’’ control measures as discussed above. area attainment date if the EPA including those control measures to 2. Option 2: Single analysis determines that it would be reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 or demonstrating that all emissions of a impracticable for the area to attain by PM2.5 precursors that have been adopted particular precursor from within the the Moderate area attainment date. by any state, particularly those states area do not significantly contribute to (Section V of this preamble provides with the most severe PM2.5 air quality PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard, additional detail on reclassifying a problems. (Note that in Section VI.D of meaning that control requirements for Moderate area to Serious under subpart this preamble, more details are provided emissions of the precursor from 4.) on BACM and BACT determination stationary major and area sources, as After an area has been reclassified to criteria. The EPA is taking comment on well as mobile sources, would not be Serious, subpart 4 requires a state’s two options for BACM and BACT required for expeditious attainment, Serious area attainment plan to include determinations—one that expresses it as control requirements for major sources, the imposition of more stringent control a requirement independent of the or for NNSR permitting. measures (best available control attainment demonstration, and one that Option 2 would provide the state the measures (BACM) and best available expresses it as only those ‘‘best’’ opportunity to provide the EPA with a control technology (BACT)) intended to measures that are needed for scientifically credible technical analysis bring the area into attainment as expeditious attainment no later than the that would demonstrate that one or expeditiously as practicable but no later end of the tenth calendar year after more precursors do not contribute than the end of the tenth calendar year designation. The BACM and BACT significantly to the PM2.5 levels that after designation. Given that the CAA determination approach adopted in the exceed the standard, therefore controls on those emissions would not be requires a more stringent new final rule accordingly will determine effective in reducing PM levels in the attainment plan for Serious areas, under whether all best available emission 2.5 area. As noted earlier in this section of Option 1 the state would be required to controls for a particular precursor must the preamble, section 302(g) of the CAA identify the best available measures for be adopted or not in a Serious area). includes ‘‘precursors’’ in the definition all sources of direct PM emissions and 2.5 d. NNSR. Under Option 1, the initial of ‘‘air pollutant,’’ but provides the EPA emissions of PM precursors and adopt 2.5 expectation is that the state will need to with some discretion in defining how those measures to attain the standard as address all four PM2.5 precursors under these terms should be interpreted. In expeditiously as practicable.65 the NNSR program pursuant to the CAA subpart 4, the CAA does not explicitly The BACM and BACT determination and as reinforced by the January 2013 address control of precursors, except requires a more rigorous analysis than NRDC v. EPA court decision. Pursuant with regard to major stationary sources the RACM and RACT analysis, and such to section 189(e), however, the state may in section 189(e). The EPA interprets measures collectively should lead to a provide a demonstration showing that subpart 4 to require states to address greater degree of emission reduction in emissions of a particular precursor from PM2.5 precursors from all source the area than the analysis of reasonable existing major stationary sources located categories in the evaluation of controls control measures for the Moderate area in the nonattainment area do not needed for attainment in a given area, plan. For this reason, under Option 1, if contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels e.g., in the evaluation of RACM and the state’s previous Moderate area that exceed the standard in the area. RACT level controls. By analogy to attainment plan had indicated that new Under Option 1, this analysis under section 189(e), the EPA also believes emissions reduction measures from section 189(e) for major sources would that there may be circumstances in sources of one or more precursors were be completed independently from the which states may validly demonstrate not needed to attain by the end of the analysis of reasonable control measures that control of one or more PM2.5 sixth calendar year after designation, conducted for attainment planning precursors is not needed to attain the then for the Serious area plan the state purposes. Such an analysis would relevant NAAQS expeditiously. would need to reevaluate the best involve assessing the potential addition Section 189(e) provides that precursor control measures addressing all PM2.5 of precursor emissions in the area due control requirements apply to major precursors (i.e. SO2, NOX, VOC, and to potential new major stationary stationary sources of precursors of PM2.5 ammonia) and require implementation sources, and would likely involve air if major sources of PM are regulated of those ‘‘best’’ available control quality modeling and other technical under the attainment plan, unless it can measures for all precursors in order to analyses by the state, developed in be shown that such precursor emissions bring the area into attainment as consultation with the EPA (see Section do not contribute significantly to expeditiously as practicable, but no later III.C. of this preamble for further exceedances of the relevant NAAQS in discussion on such technical the area. Under Option 2, the EPA relies levels that exceed the standard, consistent with demonstrations). Note that under this on the discretion provided in section section 189(e). 65 The EPA’s two proposed options for provision of the CAA, it might be 302(g) and the section 189(e) concept of determining BACM and BACT are discussed in possible that a precursor would be precursor emissions in an area having a detail in Section VI.D of this preamble. considered important for attainment significant or insignificant effect on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

PM2.5 concentrations that exceed the statutory attainment date or for which and that requesting comment on these standard to propose two precursor the state can demonstrate that proposed options is appropriate from technical demonstration suboptions. attainment by the statutory attainment both a technical and a legal standpoint. Option 2A would allow the state to date is impracticable. An approved This case specific approach is provide a technical demonstration precursor demonstration under Option technically appropriate because the mix showing that all emissions (i.e., from 2A would show that emissions of the of PM2.5 precursor emissions and other area, mobile and stationary sources in particular precursor from all types of relevant technical factors varies from the area) of a particular precursor sources do not contribute significantly area to area. For example, in some areas, collectively do not provide a significant to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard. one precursor may be abundant while contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed As proposed, this type of demonstration the main precursor with which it reacts the standard in the area. The kinds of therefore by definition would also may be less abundant. In such cases, analytical approaches that could be satisfy the section 189(e) provision reducing emissions of the less abundant appropriate for this type of (which allows the state to demonstrate precursor (the ‘‘limiting’’ precursor) is ‘‘contribution demonstration’’ are that emissions from just major generally more effective for reducing described later in this section. stationary sources are not significant PM2.5 concentrations. In another type of For Option 2B, the EPA proposes to and therefore should not be subject to area, the PM2.5 concentrations that allow states to provide a technical control requirements, such as NNSR, exceed the standard may be commonly demonstration showing that PM2.5 that apply to major stationary sources of dominated by primary PM2.5 emissions concentrations in the area are not direct PM2.5). Thus, the state could rather than by secondarily formed PM2.5. sensitive to potential reductions or possibly develop one precursor The emissions of the particular increases in emissions of a particular demonstration analysis that would serve precursor from sources in the precursor in the nonattainment area (e.g. the purposes of both attainment nonattainment area could be found to because the particular precursor is not planning and the section 189(e) have an insignificant contribution to the limiting factor in secondary PM2.5 insignificant major source contribution PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard, formation). More information is demonstration. and the potential air quality provided later in this section about The sensitivity analyses required improvement from reducing emissions possible analytical approaches to assess under Option 2B would need to assess of the precursor in the area may be precursor ‘‘sensitivities’’ in an area (the a series of precursor emissions limited. optional technical demonstration reductions and increases to determine The EPA believes that proposing described for Options 2A and 2B the sensitivity to air quality in the area. Options 2A and 2B is appropriate from hereafter will be referred to as a For example, the analysis should a legal standpoint based on authority ‘‘precursor demonstration’’). The EPA evaluate the effect on PM2.5 provided the Administrator in sections requests comment on which of the two concentrations of various precursor 302(g) and 301(a)(1) of the CAA. Section options (Option 2A or Option 2B) would emissions reduction scenarios 302(g) includes in the definition of ‘‘air be more preferable, and why. The EPA appropriate to determine the sensitivity pollutant’’ all the precursors to that encourages commenters to provide of precursors for the area (as would be pollutant, and it allows the EPA examples of specific situations and relevant for an attainment plan); the Administrator to regulate precursors for areas in support of their analysis should also evaluate the effect ‘‘the particular purpose for which the recommendations. on PM2.5 concentrations of various term ‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ Under These proposed options are consistent precursor emissions increase scenarios section 301(a)(1), ‘‘[t]he Administrator is with the EPA’s past practice for appropriate to determine the sensitivity authorized to prescribe such regulations determining which technologically and of precursors for the area, simulating the as are necessary to carry out his economically feasible controls are potential effect of the addition of functions under this Act.’’ Thus, with necessary for expeditious attainment of potential new major stationary sources Option 2, the EPA proposes a the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA has (or major modifications) to the framework by which the regulation of interpreted the RACM requirement in nonattainment area under the NNSR PM2.5 precursors for a specific the CAA as requiring imposition of all program. nonattainment area can be modified if reasonable controls as needed for The EPA would evaluate the relevant the state provides the EPA with a expeditious attainment or to advance analyses and other supporting credible technical demonstration for the attainment date by at least 1 year. information provided by the state. By exempting a particular precursor which The statute does not require imposition submitting a ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ meets certain criteria and can be of additional controls if collectively of this type, the state would not need to approved by the EPA. In addition, as such measures would not advance the compile additional information on noted earlier the set of analyses attainment date. The EPA maintains it is precursor control measures, or to described under Option 2A could also reasonable to treat regulation of PM2.5 proceed with actions to adopt and satisfy the section 189(e) provision precursors in a manner similar to the implement local or state regulations for allowing the state to demonstrate that agency’s treatment of direct pollutants the precursor. Precursor demonstrations major stationary source emissions of a and therefore concludes that states as described in Options 2A or 2B could particular precursor do not significantly should not be required to implement be conducted for Moderate areas for contribute to levels that exceed the control measures for a particular which the state can show that it can standard. While this approach is not precursor or precursors if such measures attain the standard by the end of the explicitly described in the statute, the will have little or no impact on PM2.5 sixth calendar year after designation and EPA believes that the proposed Option concentrations in the area or if the state for Moderate areas where the state’s 2 approach to precursor regulation is demonstrates that all emissions of a plan demonstrates that attainment by reasonable and allowed under the given precursor or precursors do not such date would be impracticable. statutory authority provided in sections contribute significantly to the PM2.5 The EPA believes that general legal 302(g) and 301(a)(1) noted above. NAAQS exceedances in the area. authorities under the CAA support the The EPA anticipates that development a. Moderate area for which the state proposal of the overall precursor of an approvable PM2.5 precursor can demonstrate attainment by the demonstration concept described above, demonstration by the state at the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15357

beginning of the attainment plan tenth calendar year after designation date. The EPA also requests comment development process will require a and seeks an extension under section on the requirement for the state to substantial level of effort and 188(e) or does not attain the standard by review and update any previously consultation with the EPA. Such a the applicable Serious area attainment approved ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ if demonstration by the state would likely date and is subsequently subject to 5 the area fails to attain the standard by involve a combination of technically percent annual emission reductions the applicable Serious area attainment rigorous and complex analyses, such as under section 189(d). date. air quality modeling and ambient data One other important factor to consider c. NNSR. An approvable precursor analyses. The extensive nature of this is the substantial amount of time that demonstration under either Option 2A type of a technical demonstration early can elapse between the submission of a or Option 2B would evaluate emissions in the attainment plan development Moderate area attainment plan for a of a particular precursor from all types process is necessary because the particular nonattainment area, and of sources. Accordingly, if the state demonstration serves as the basis for submission of a Serious area attainment provides an approvable precursor limiting the applicability and associated plan. The plan for a Moderate area is demonstration for all types of sources of control strategy decisions only to due within 18 months of designation. a particular precursor as described specific precursors for both the Under the EPA’s overall proposed above, then under Option 2A, the state attainment plan and for the NNSR approach to attainment plan would also be able to rely on the same permitting program. development, the state would be technical demonstration to conclude b. Area reclassified to serious. As required to evaluate control measures that emissions of that precursor just noted earlier in this section, a Moderate for all types of sources and for all PM2.5 from major stationary sources in the area can be reclassified to Serious under precursors in order to ensure attainment area do not provide a ‘‘significant two scenarios. Under the first scenario, of the standard as expeditiously as contribution’’ to PM2.5 concentrations in if a Moderate area fails to attain the practicable. The full assessment to the area pursuant to section 189(e). standard by the end of the sixth identify reasonable control measures Thus, under Option 2A, the state would calendar year after designation, it would would involve a thorough compilation not need to apply the NNSR control then be reclassified by the EPA as a and analysis of information on control requirements for PM2.5 to that precursor Serious area, and the state would be technologies and the technological in the particular PM2.5 nonattainment required to develop and submit a feasibility of implementation of such area(s) for which the EPA approves the Serious area attainment plan within 18 measures for sources in the area; the demonstration. months of reclassification. Under the assessment of associated control costs Under Option 2B, the state would second scenario, EPA could reclassify and economic feasibility of conduct analyses to determine the an area to Serious prior to the Moderate implementation; information on the sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the area area attainment date if it can be shown time needed for deployment and (that exceed the standard) to potential that it would be impracticable for the implementation of such control increases in emissions (relevant for area to attain by the Moderate area measures; and, the resulting timeline for NNSR) and decreases (relevant for attainment date. achieving emissions reductions. attainment demonstrations). If the state Proposed Option 2 would allow a If the Moderate area does not attain provided an approvable precursor ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ approach for the standard by the end of the sixth demonstration showing that PM2.5 Serious area plans in the same manner calendar year after designation, then as concentrations are insensitive to as for Moderate area plans. However, if required by to the CAA, the EPA would potential increases in emissions of a the state had previously submitted a have 6 months to make a determination particular precursor in the area, then precursor demonstration that the EPA to that effect, and the area would be under Option 2B the state would be able approved for the Moderate area reclassified to Serious. The state would to rely on this technical demonstration attainment plan, under either proposed then have 18 months to submit, at a as the basis for not regulating that Option 2A or 2B the state would be minimum, a new attainment precursor for major stationary sources required to review and update the demonstration and control strategy under NNSR. precursor demonstration, taking into comprising BACM and BACT. Thus, Additionally, there could be a account any changes in the emissions under these circumstances, these key situation where the state finds that inventory and any other relevant Serious area plan elements would be emissions of another precursor (i.e., a information or advances in technical due at least 8 years after the EPA precursor that was not the subject of the tools developed since the initial designated the area nonattainment, and initial precursor demonstration) from demonstration was approved. Examples more than 6 years after the state only major stationary sources located in of such information would be improved submitted the original Moderate area the nonattainment area could be emission estimation methods or plan. Because of the potentially considered to have an insignificant emission factors for key source protracted timeline for developing, contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed categories; changes in precursor implementing and revising as necessary the standard in the area (under Option emissions inventories due to emissions the SIP for a given PM2.5 nonattainment 2A). For example, mobile and area control programs or new source growth; area under subpart 4, the EPA believes source emissions of a PM2.5 precursor the development of more advanced it is reasonable for the state to be could be determined to provide a larger technical tools to assess the required to update any precursor contribution to PM2.5 levels than major effectiveness of precursor reductions; demonstration it had previously stationary sources in a given and, updated information about new or developed for the area if the area is nonattainment area and would be the more effective control technologies or reclassified as Serious. focus of the attainment strategy, and the emission reduction techniques. Any The EPA requests comment on the major stationary source emissions of precursor demonstration that is requirement for the state to review and that same precursor might have only a approved as part of the Serious area update any previously approved minimal contribution to PM2.5 levels. In attainment plan would need to be ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ if the area this situation, the state could develop a revised and updated if the area cannot fails to attain the standard by the separate demonstration under section attain the standard by the end of the applicable Moderate area attainment 189(e) to support the exclusion of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

additional precursor from sources of a particular precursor do not precursor that are located in the implementation requirements contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels nonattainment area have an applicable to all major stationary in a given PM2.5 nonattainment area for insignificant contribution to PM2.5 levels sources, including NNSR program purposes of section 189(e) would not be that exceed the standard in the area. requirements (assuming the state needed. If the state’s single analysis Under this Option 3, the EPA believes analysis includes appropriate shows that emission reduction measures that section 189(e) provides the state consideration of potential new sources are not needed from sources of a with the authority to develop a separate of the relevant precursor). With an particular precursor in order to demonstration to show that, even approved demonstration under section demonstrate expeditious attainment, though control measures for a specific 189(e), major stationary sources of that then under proposed Option 3 the same precursor emitted by sources other than precursor could also be excluded from analysis would also be considered major stationary sources are necessary the NNSR control requirements for adequate to meet the requirements of to demonstrate expeditious attainment PM2.5. The EPA seeks comment on all section 189(e). In effect, the attainment in an area, major stationary sources of aspects of proposed Option 2. planning analysis would define the set that precursor have an insignificant 3. Option 3: An attainment planning of precursors that would be subject to contribution to PM2.5 concentrations analysis demonstrating that control control under both the attainment plan that exceed the standard in the area. measures for all types of sources of a and the NNSR permitting program for Thus, controls from major stationary particular precursor are not needed for the area.66 sources of that precursor would not be expeditious attainment also would be The rationale supporting the Option 3 required for either the attainment plan deemed to meet the section 189(e) approach focuses on the section 189(e) or the NNSR program. More discussion technical demonstration requirement, emphasis on precursor control on the potential options for precursor meaning that the state would not need requirements. If control measures are technical demonstrations is included in to regulate emissions of the particular not needed in a Moderate Section III.C of this preamble. The EPA precursor from major stationary sources nonattainment area to reduce emissions seeks comment on all aspects of under the NNSR permitting program or of a particular precursor from all types proposed Option 3. other control requirements for major of sources in order to demonstrate The EPA also seeks comment on stationary sources. attainment or to advance the attainment whether only one of these approaches Under proposed Option 3, the date, then under the rationale of should be included in the final rule, or consideration of precursors in the proposed Option 3, it would follow that whether it would be appropriate to attainment planning process for the state would not need to include any include multiple approaches (e.g., both Moderate and Serious areas would other control requirements that apply to Options 1 and 2) or a hybrid of two closely follow the approach described major stationary sources of that approaches by which a state could for Option 1 (see Sections III.B.1.a–c of precursor, including control demonstrate that a particular precursor this preamble). As described for Option would not need to be addressed in the requirements for PM2.5 under the NNSR 1, after developing a comprehensive program. The theory for this option attainment plan or NNSR permitting emissions inventory, the state would would be that if the state determines program for a specific area. conduct an analysis to identify the new that new control requirements for C. Technical Approaches for reasonable control measures that need emissions of the particular precursor are to be adopted and implemented in order Demonstrating That a Precursor Does not needed for purposes of attainment Not Need To Be Subject to Control for the Moderate area to attain the planning because they would not standard as expeditiously as practicable, Requirements contribute to reducing PM levels that but no later than by the end of the sixth 2.5 As noted earlier, in the preamble to exceed the standard, then other control calendar year after designation (this the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, requirements to address emissions of analysis is described in greater detail in the EPA included a discussion allowing that precursor also would not be Section III.B.1.a in this preamble). If the for the state to submit a technical needed. Note that under this option, the state determines that adoption of demonstration to show to the state also would not be required to additional economically and technically satisfaction of the EPA that emissions of analyze the potential effect of increases feasible emission reduction measures a particular precursor do not in emissions of the particular precursor for a particular precursor are not significantly contribute to PM2.5 (e.g., from the possible permitting of necessary for expeditious attainment by concentrations in the area. In that the end of the sixth calendar year after new sources) on PM2.5 concentrations in preamble discussion, the EPA indicated designation, and that such measures the area. The EPA requests comment on that such a demonstration should be collectively would not accelerate the the rationale supporting Option 3. based on the weight of evidence of Additionally, under Option 3, as was attainment date by at least a year, then available information, and that any such the case with Option 2, there could be for the purposes of this Moderate area demonstration by the state must be a situation where the state determines attainment plan, the state would not approved by the EPA. The 2007 PM2.5 that control measures for a particular need to adopt such additional measures Implementation Rule also discussed a because they would not be considered precursor are generally needed in order number of types of analyses that could reasonable. (Note that the need for to demonstrate attainment as inform this precursor demonstration, additional emissions reductions of the expeditiously as practicable, but that the such as speciation data analyses, air particular precursor would have to be major stationary sources of that quality modeling studies, chemical re-evaluated if the area is reclassified to tracer studies, emissions inventories, or 66 Note that while the NNSR program needs to be Serious, or if the area submitted a SIP implemented from the effective date of an area’s special intensive measurement studies revision requesting an extension of the nonattainment designation, in some situations the to evaluate specific atmospheric Serious area attainment date under state would implement either its existing NNSR chemistry in an area. In the 2007 PM2.5 section 188(e)). program for PM2.5 or, in the absence of such Implementation Rule, the EPA intended program, 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S, the default To clarify the intent of Option 3, NNSR program, until the EPA approves the state’s to provide states with the flexibility to unlike under Option 1, a separate PM2.5 attainment plan and revised NNSR provide a range of different supporting analysis to show that major stationary regulations for PM2.5. analyses that would be appropriate for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15359

the area, recognizing that nonattainment The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule on the questions and technical analysis areas differed in terms of such factors did not provide a specific due date for options presented below. as: (i) The mix of emissions sources submittal of any precursor 1. What is the geographic area from located in the nonattainment area and demonstration, although it was assumed which precursor emissions should be outside the area that are contributing to that if a state were to pursue such a assessed? PM2.5 concentrations in the area; (ii) the demonstration, it would need to be done In the 2007 PM levels of PM2.5 species measured in the early in the attainment plan 2.5 Implementation area; (iii) the times of year when highest development process and submitted to Rule, the preamble indicated that a precursor demonstration analysis PM2.5 concentrations are observed; (iv) the EPA no later than the date of the the topography of the area; (v) the attainment plan submission itself. It was addressing all source types covered by the attainment plan should evaluate the severity of the nonattainment problem; recommended that the state develop any impact of emissions from sources and, (vi) the patterns of emissions and such demonstration in consultation located throughout the entire state. In population growth in and around the with the appropriate EPA Regional nonattainment area. Under the 2007 contrast, the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule Office. In this proposal, the EPA is suggested that a precursor PM2.5 Implementation Rule, an proposing that if a state is interested in important criterion for any technical demonstration for NNSR purposes developing a PM2.5 precursor should evaluate emissions from major precursor demonstration provided by a demonstration to support not regulating state, however, was that it had to fairly stationary sources of a particular one or more PM2.5 precursors in the represent the information available to precursor located within the attainment plan for an area, it should nonattainment area only. the state and the information made consult with the EPA Regional Office as available to it by the public. In determining which approach to early as possible to discuss appropriate include in the present proposal, the EPA For this proposed implementation analyses to be included. In its review of believes that it continues to be rule, the EPA similarly proposes that the any precursor demonstration provided reasonable that any precursor state should have the flexibility to by a state, the EPA will consider all demonstration conducted to assess present multiple types of analyses to currently available information. precursor significance for NNSR support any demonstration for Under all three proposed precursor purposes should evaluate emissions exempting a precursor from control from major stationary sources of the requirements as long as they fairly policy options described above, the state would have the opportunity to provide precursor from within the represent the available information, and nonattainment area only. Section 189(e) accordingly proposes that the EPA a precursor demonstration to meet the requirements of section 189(e) of the is included in a part of the CAA that should review any such demonstration specifically sets forth nonattainment based on the weight of evidence. Unlike CAA. Precursor demonstrations pursuant to section 189(e) should area requirements. For attainment in the prior implementation rule, planning purposes it is less clear that however, later in this section the EPA evaluate the significance of the contribution of emissions of a particular the evaluation of emissions should be raises the question of whether certain limited only to sources from within the precursor from existing major stationary specific types of analyses should be nonattainment area, because the state sources to fine particle concentrations included as minimum required has jurisdiction over emissions sources that exceed the standard. However, components of any precursor located throughout the state, and can Options 2A and 2B differ from the demonstration that a state chooses to impose emission reduction submit to the EPA for approval. others in that they would provide the requirements on contributing sources state with the ability to conduct a The preamble to the 2007 PM2.5 outside of nonattainment areas if Implementation Rule indicated that if a precursor demonstration that necessary to help bring areas with state developed a precursor comprehensively assesses the violating monitors into attainment. At demonstration as part of its draft SIP, contribution of a particular precursor the same time, that argument would then in accordance with the state from all types of sources in the suggest that section 189(e) should be rulemaking process, the demonstration nonattainment area (not just from major interpreted as requiring two different would be subject to public review at the stationary sources as specifically analyses of the impacts of precursors state level. It also stated that, as required addressed by section 189(e)) for the emitted from two different geographic under any rulemaking process, the state purposes of informing which precursors scales (from within the nonattainment had to consider and provide a response must be addressed in both the area, as well as from a broader area that in the rulemaking record to any attainment plan and in the NNSR influences air quality within the information or evidence brought program for a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, which could forward by commenters during the nonattainment area. (Note that Option 2 include the entire state). The EPA does state’s SIP planning, development and would not prevent the state from also not believe such an interpretation is review process. By insuring that this conducting an additional analysis under required, nor does it believe that such important issue was explicitly section 189(e), if warranted, to further multiple analyses are warranted. The addressed and supported in the demonstrate that while all emissions of statute simply refers in general terms to attainment plan submitted to the EPA, a particular precursor make a significant precursor emissions from major the EPA could better evaluate the contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed stationary sources and does not precursor demonstration in accordance the standard, the emissions from just the differentiate between control with its obligations under the CAA. The major stationary sources of that requirements for attainment planning EPA believes these are sound precursor collectively do not contribute and control requirements for other procedural steps for a state rulemaking significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed purposes, such as NNSR permitting. The process, and the regulations being the NAAQS in the area.) The EPA has statute also does not indicate that proposed as part of this rule include considered three important questions multiple analyses must be done to similar language providing for public regarding the scope and the potential assess major stationary source impacts review of any proposed precursor requirements associated with precursor from multiple geographic scales. For demonstration. demonstrations, and requests comment these reasons, the EPA is proposing that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

any precursor demonstration must nonattainment area. Several reducing PM2.5 concentrations as part of include an evaluation of emissions from photochemical air quality models (e.g., attainment planning will vary from area sources located in the nonattainment Community Multi-Scale Air Quality to area, depending upon which specific area only. The EPA requests comment Model (CMAQ) and the Comprehensive precursors play a role in forming or on this proposed approach. Air Quality Model with Extensions limiting PM2.5 formation in the particular area. Likewise, in evaluating 2. Should the EPA’s guidance provide a (CAMx)) can be used to quantify the which precursors would be appropriate specific list of analyses as ‘‘minimum contributions of precursor emissions to 67 to exclude from regulation for NNSR in requirements’’ that must be included in PM2.5 concentrations in the area. For an area, it is important to understand any proposed precursor demonstration? example, states could compare base case conditions (at current precursor the current sensitivity of the atmosphere As noted above, the EPA encourages emissions levels) with a separate model to potential increases in precursor states to provide a range of analyses to simulation in which the relevant emissions that could result from the thoroughly understand the effect of precursor emissions are reduced by a addition of new sources to the precursor emissions on PM2.5 large percentage. The difference in the nonattainment area. concentrations in an area. In past estimated PM2.5 concentrations provides One approach to assessing precursor discussions with state representatives one indication of the relative sensitivities would be to conduct a regarding potential approaches to significance of the precursor emissions model simulation that evaluates the regulating PM2.5 precursors, some to PM2.5 concentrations in the area. This effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the representatives have suggested that this type of contribution analysis can also be area resulting from a given set of PM2.5 implementation rulemaking accomplished by using existing precursor emission reductions and should include more specificity about advanced tools within photochemical emission increases. Simulations could the minimum requirements for technical air quality models, such as ‘‘source be conducted to assess a set of emission demonstrations to support exclusion of apportionment’’ capabilities which reduction and emission increase PM2.5 precursors from regulatory allow one to track precursor emissions scenarios deemed appropriate to requirements in attainment plans, while determine the sensitivity of a particular as they ‘‘form’’ PM2.5 (in the model) and others have recommended a less then report their contributions precursor in a specific area. Another prescriptive approach. One overarching separately. The EPA requests comment approach that could be used is a issue is how detailed the EPA’s on including a contribution analysis as scientific technique called the guidance should be with regard to the a minimum requirement in any ‘‘decoupled direct method’’ (DDM), analytical requirements for any proposed precursor demonstration which efficiently estimates the impacts proposed precursor demonstration. As under Option 2A. on PM2.5 concentrations as a result of noted earlier, technical demonstrations b. Sensitivity analysis. The EPA notes reducing or increasing precursor can include data such as ambient emissions in the model.68 that changes in PM2.5 concentrations speciation data analyses, air quality from current conditions in any area will For the reasons discussed above, the modeling studies, chemical tracer not necessarily be linear with respect to EPA also proposes that any precursor studies, emissions inventories, and/or demonstration conducted under changes in PM2.5 precursor emissions. special intensive measurement studies. Therefore, another important question is proposed Option 2B must provide a set Air quality modeling analyses are whether any precursor demonstration of sensitivity analyses that evaluate the discussed in more detail below. should be required to include an effect of a range of emissions changes a. Contribution analysis. Based on the assessment of how ‘‘sensitive’’ the area associated with measures considered statutory language of section 189(e), it economically and technically feasible in will be to potential reductions or appears that, at a minimum, any a particular nonattainment area. increases in emissions of the relevant precursor demonstration conducted Analyses that reduce emissions of a precursor. Sensitivity analyses of specifically pursuant to section 189(e) particular precursor will help the state potential reductions in emissions would must evaluate the contribution of and the EPA to understand how be most appropriate for attainment current emissions of the relevant ‘‘responsive’’ the atmosphere would be planning (and relevant to Option 2B), precursor from existing major stationary to control measures and how effective whereas sensitivity analyses of potential sources to current (or most recent) PM2.5 such reductions would be relative to increases in emissions (e.g., relevant to concentrations observed in the other precursor reductions. Although NNSR permitting) would be appropriate nonattainment area (note that this type not specifically required for other of analysis is possible under Option 1 for all section 189(e) technical options under this proposed rule, and Option 3). In addition, as described evaluations (possible under Options 1, precursor sensitivity analyses evaluating above, any precursor demonstration 2B and 3). Sensitivity analyses are the effect of varying degrees of potential under Option 2A must evaluate the important because of the complexity precursor reductions would provide contribution of emissions of the relevant and variability of the atmospheric meaningful information for any precursor from all sources (not just chemistry affecting PM2.5 concentrations precursor demonstration intended to major stationary sources) to current (or in different areas across the country. show that a particular precursor does The principal PM2.5 components that recent) PM2.5 concentrations observed in not need to be addressed for attainment the nonattainment area. are secondarily formed in the planning. Conversely, sensitivity In light of the statutory language and atmosphere are the result of chemical analyses that consider the effect of a the capabilities of existing technical reactions between various PM2.5 range of potential emissions increases in tools, the EPA proposes to require that precursors (see Section II of this the nonattainment area will help the the state conduct such a contribution preamble for more information on state and the EPA to understand the specific precursor reactions). Thus, the analysis at a minimum as part of any potential response of PM2.5 proposed precursor demonstration, and most effective precursor strategies for that the state conduct an analysis using 68 See Simon et al., Memorandum to ozone 67 an air quality modeling system that For more information on CMAQ, see http:// NAAQS docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699, www.epa.gov/AMD/Research/RIA/cmaq.html. For ‘‘Model-based Rollback Using the Higher Order adequately accounts for the PM2.5 more information on CAMx, seehttp:// Direct Decoupled Method (HDDM),’’ August 14, pollution problem within the www.camx.com/. 2012.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15361

concentrations to projected growth in concentrations which exceed the provision addressing contributions of the area, including potential increases NAAQS.’’ major stationary sources in a in emissions associated with potential Developed pursuant to subpart 4, this nonattainment area which would newly permitted sources that emit the past guidance on what could be indicate that the 1 percent of the precursor in question. Any precursor considered to be a de minimis or NAAQS significant contribution demonstration intended to show that a insignificant level of PM10 contribution thresholds that have been included in particular precursor does not need to be from a source category can potentially section 110(a)(2)(D) rulemakings may addressed for NNSR should include inform this proposed rule for not be relevant for purposes of section sensitivity analyses evaluating the effect implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS. 189(e) precursor demonstrations. of varying degrees of precursor emission Accordingly, this proposal includes two Section 110(a)(2)(D) was designed to increases in the area. The EPA options: (i) A ‘‘no-threshold’’ option, address the collective contribution of recommends that the state conduct and (ii) a proposed threshold option interstate transport of pollution from these analyses using air quality derived from the ambient levels relied multiple upwind states, while section modeling tools, but the state could on for the PM10 source category de 189(e) addresses contributions from provide additional relevant analyses as minimis thresholds, but adjusted to major stationary sources in a single well. The EPA requests comment on the account for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. nonattainment area. In addition, section proposed requirement for inclusion of The concept of ‘‘significant 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain sensitivity analyses in any precursor contribution’’ also has been a central provisions to eliminate the demonstration. one with regard to interstate transport contributions that are deemed and the interpretation of section significant, whereas section 189(e) 3. Should there be a ‘‘bright line’’ value 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. In past merely requires that the emissions be to indicate that any estimated programs to address interstate transport, controlled. Given the differences in contribution to annual average or 98th such as the CAIR, an ‘‘upwind’’ state purpose, scale, and scope, the EPA does percentile PM2.5 concentrations in the was identified as potentially subject to not believe it is necessary for a nonattainment area that exceeds this additional emission control threshold for ‘‘significant contribution’’ value would be considered requirements if the impact of SO2 and to be the same for the two programs. ‘‘significant’’? NOX emissions from the upwind state to Based on the considerations discussed any nonattainment area in a downwind above regarding inclusion of a potential In considering this question, it is significance ‘‘threshold’’ for purposes of helpful to first look to how the concept state exceeded 1 percent of the relevant PM2.5 standard at a violating monitor in this PM2.5 implementation rulemaking, of a significant, or insignificant, the EPA proposes and seeks comment contribution has been interpreted with another state. This was merely the first step of the analysis, but it provided an on two options. The first option would regard to particulate matter in past PM10 not specify a threshold for what is a guidance (Addendum to the General initial threshold for determining whether further analysis was warranted. significant contribution to levels that Preamble) and in other PM2.5-related exceed the relevant NAAQS in a given regulations, such as the CAIR. In the In this proposal, the concept of a significant contribution refers to the area. Rather, the state would be required Addendum, the EPA introduced the to conduct a contribution analysis and concept of a ‘‘de minimis’’ impact from effect of emissions of a particular precursor from sources within the state sensitivity analyses as described above a source category for the purposes of the to determine the estimated level of or nonattainment area to local PM2.5 identification and evaluation of ambient impact from the relevant BACM.69 While a later discussion in concentrations in the nonattainment area. The specific purpose and context precursor, and to provide the analyses this proposal addresses whether or not to the EPA as part of its precursor to maintain a similar de minimis source for which the phrase ‘‘contribute significantly’’ is used in section 189(e) demonstration. The EPA would then category-based policy approach for consider these analyses in addition to future BACM and BACT source category is very different from the purpose and context for which it is used in section the other analyses provided by the state analyses, what is relevant for this in determining whether to approve the precursor discussion is the EPA’s 110(a)(2)(D). Thus, while a previous interstate transport rule under section precursor demonstration. This option guidance in the Addendum on what would provide greatest flexibility for the could be considered a ‘‘de minimis,’’ or 110(a)(2)(D) considered the combined impact of SO and NO emissions from state and the EPA to consider the ‘‘insignificant,’’ ambient impact for 2 X contribution analysis in combination an upwind state on ambient PM2.5 at a purposes of PM10. In the Addendum, the with other information relevant to the violating monitor to be insignificant if it EPA indicated that a 1 mg/m3 unique PM composition, source mix, was less than 1 percent (i.e., 0.15 mg/m3 2.5 contribution to the annual PM10 and attainment needs of each individual on an annual average basis), it would standard of 50 mg/m3 (equal to 2 percent nonattainment area. See proposed 40 not necessarily be appropriate to also of the applicable NAAQS at the time), CFR 51.1006. or a 5 mg/m3 contribution to the 24-hour consider the contribution from The second option would specify a 3 emissions of a specific precursor within PM10 standard of 150 mg/m (equal to ‘‘significance’’ threshold of 3 percent, 3.3 percent of the applicable NAAQS at a nonattainment area to be such that if contribution modeling the time) presumptively would be ‘‘insignificant’’ if it does not exceed a indicated that base year emissions of the similar 1 percent ambient concentration precursor from the relevant sources in considered ‘‘de minimis.’’ The EPA set 70 forth these levels in a Federal Register level. the nonattainment area (i.e. from major document, citing the discretionary There are a number of important stationary sources for all analyses authority of an administrative agency to distinctions between the section pursuant to section 189(e); from all exempt from regulation emissions (from 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport types of sources for the upfront analysis source categories) ‘‘which contribute provision and the section 189(e) in Option 2) leads to an ambient impact that exceeds 3 percent of the PM2.5 only negligibly to ambient 70 See Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine m 3 Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate NAAQS (e.g.,, 0.36 g/m on an annual 69 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to average basis for the 2012 primary 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42011. the NOX SIP Call, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). annual PM2.5 NAAQS) at monitors in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the nonattainment area, then the Other subpart 1 requirements for measures) no later than 18 months from precursor demonstration would not be attainment plans continue to apply to the date of designation of the area. The approvable. The threshold equivalent to PM2.5 nonattainment areas subject to provisions of subpart 4 do not explicitly 3 percent of the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS subpart 4 and include the following: (i) specify when states must submit these is proposed as reasonable because it is a description of the expected annual attainment plan elements that carry over between the two de minimis ambient incremental reductions in emissions from subpart 1, so the EPA needs to contribution levels included in previous that will demonstrate RFP (section interpret the requirements of the CAA to PM10 guidance issued under subpart 4 172(c)(2)); (ii) emissions inventories meet the objectives of the attainment to identify a de minimis level of ambient (section 172(c)(3)); (iii) other control plan requirements. The EPA believes contribution from a group of emissions measures (besides RACM and RACT) that requiring states to submit the sources. The EPA acknowledges that the needed for attainment (section 172(c)(6); necessary emissions inventory (or context in which the proposed and, (iv) contingency measures (section inventories) either before or at the same threshold is used here is different from 172(c)(9)). time as the other attainment plan the context in which it was used in Each of these statutory requirements elements due under subpart 4 is previous guidance. Absent any explicit is described more fully below. In certain necessary, given that a state will need language provided in the statute to cases, the EPA is proposing options for information contained in the emissions define significant contribution in the implementing a statutory requirement inventory for other elements of its context of section 189(e), however, the for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Based Moderate area attainment plan, such as only other existing guidance that in on comments the agency receives, the its precursor analysis, analysis of RACM some way addresses the concept of EPA will then promulgate regulations to and RACT and additional reasonable significant contribution for PM10 is the implement the statutory requirements in measures, and attainment de minimis source category threshold the final action on this proposal, as demonstration modeling. The EPA also values from the Addendum. One benefit appropriate. The EPA notes that its believes it is reasonable to require the of having a specific threshold in the rule longstanding guidance on these state to submit contingency measures, is that states will have more concrete statutory requirements is embodied in which need to be adopted and ready for guidance on what could potentially be the General Preamble and the immediate implementation in the event approvable in a precursor Addendum.71 Where appropriate, this a nonattainment area fails to meet RFP demonstration. proposal notes options that may vary requirements or fails to attain the PM2.5 The EPA therefore seeks comment on: from past EPA guidance and explains NAAQS by the applicable attainment (1) Whether a specific significant the EPA’s reasons for considering an date, simultaneous with the other contribution threshold should be amended approach. elements of the attainment plan. The included in the final rule or not; (2) if A. Plan Due Dates state’s evaluation of what emissions the commenter considers inclusion of a controls are appropriate to meet the specific threshold to be appropriate, Section 189 of the CAA specifies the contingency measure requirement is whether the proposed 3 percent of the schedule by which states must submit closely related to other aspects of the relevant NAAQS threshold and its basis attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS. attainment plan, such as addressing the would be appropriate, and why; and (3) Specifically, CAA section 189(a)(2)(B) proper pollutants for control in a given whether a threshold with an alternative requires states to submit an attainment area, the appropriate sources for level and supporting rationale would be plan that meets Moderate area controls beyond those already required more appropriate. attainment plan requirements no later for RACM and RACT for the area, and IV. What are the EPA’s proposed than 18 months from the date of a the amount of emission reductions that requirements for Moderate area nonattainment designation.72 To be the contingency measures should attainment plans? consistent with this subpart 4 deadline achieve, based upon the facts and for the attainment plan submission, the circumstances of the attainment plan for Sections 189(a), (c), and (e) of the EPA is proposing that states must also CAA require that Moderate area the area. submit those elements of the attainment The EPA believes that the statutory attainment plans contain the following: plan required under subpart 1 (i.e., (i) An approved permit program for deadline for submission of a Moderate emissions inventories and contingency construction of new and modified major area attainment plan for the PM2.5 stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); NAAQS is straightforward and, absent 71 See the Federal Register published on April 16, (ii) a demonstration that the plan 1992 (57 FR 13498, 13536, 13537, 13538, 13539, unusual circumstances, the statute provides for attainment by no later than 13540, 13541, 13542, 13543, 13544 and 13545); and requires states to make such attainment the applicable Moderate area deadline see the Federal Register published on August 16, plan submissions within 18 months or a demonstration that attainment by 1994 (59 FR 41988). after the effective date of a 72 The EPA notes that Congress provided different that deadline is impracticable (section statutory deadlines for submission of attainment nonattainment designation for an area. 189(a)(1)(B)); (iii) provisions for the plans under subpart 1 and subpart 4. Under section See proposed 40 CFR 51.1003(a). implementation of RACM and RACT no 172(b), the EPA is directed to establish the date for Although nothing in the CAA prohibits later than 4 years after designation the attainment plan submission, but it can extend states from making separate attainment no later than 3 years from the date of a (section 189(a)(1)(C)); (iv) quantitative nonattainment designation. By contrast, under plan submissions to meet the individual milestones that will be used to evaluate section 189(a)(2)(B), the statute provides that states statutory requirements for attainment compliance with the requirement to must make the attainment plan submissions within plans in advance of the required date, demonstrate reasonable further progress 18 months after designation. Due to the December the EPA presumes that development 2013 court decision in NRDC v. EPA, however, the (RFP) (section 189(c)); and, (v) EPA promulgated an alternative submission date of and submission of all of the attainment evaluation and regulation of PM2.5 December 31, 2014 for attainment plans for the plan elements simultaneously will be precursors (in general to meet RACM 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in order to most effective, both for the state in the and RACT and other attainment provide a reasonable, prospective due date for first instance and for the EPA in attainment plans that must comply with subpart 4 planning requirements, and as requirements and to clarify the requirements that a reviewing the state’s submission. For specifically required for major state must meet prior to redesignation of a PM2.5 example, the EPA designated areas as stationary sources by section 189(e)). nonattainment area. See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15363

NAAQS with an effective date of April called ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance assessing emissions in the target 15, 2015; states will thus be required by for Implementation of Ozone and attainment year in the nonattainment statute to submit Moderate area Particulate Matter National Ambient Air area. The first type of inventory is attainment plans for any nonattainment Quality Standards (NAAQS) and expressly required by section 172(c)(3), areas to the EPA no later than October Regional Haze,’’ which is available from and is called the ‘‘base year inventory 15, 2016. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ for the nonattainment area.’’ The second eiguid/index.html. This guidance is type of inventory the EPA is proposing B. Emissions Inventory Requirements commonly called the ‘‘SIP Emissions to require under section 301(a)(1) as Pursuant to its authority under Inventory Guidance.’’ The EPA necessary to implement the attainment section 110 of title I of the CAA, the recommends that states consult this demonstration requirement of section EPA has long required states to submit guidance while developing the 189(a)(1)(B), and is called the inventories of the emissions of criteria emissions inventories to meet statutory ‘‘attainment projected inventory for the pollutants and their precursors. The and regulatory requirements. nonattainment area.’’ See proposed 40 EPA codified these requirements in 40 CFR 51.1000. The need for this latter 1. How do states meet the inventory CFR part 51, subpart Q in 1979 and inventory stems from the need for both requirements for the PM NAAQS? amended them in 1987. Additionally, 2.5 the EPA and the public to be able to the 1990 CAA Amendments revised Neither section 172(c)(3), nor the compare, during their reviews of the many of the provisions of the CAA provisions specifically applicable to plan, the base year inventory against the related to attainment of the NAAQS and attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS attainment projected inventory for the the protection of visibility in mandatory in subpart 4, specify how states should nonattainment area. For these reasons, Class I federal areas (certain national meet statutory emissions inventory the EPA is proposing to establish the parks and wilderness areas). These requirements. Although section regulatory requirement that attainment revisions established new emissions 172(c)(3) explicitly requires that states plans must include a base year inventory requirements applicable to submit only ‘‘an’’ emissions inventory inventory for the nonattainment area areas that were designated in conjunction with other elements of and an attainment projected inventory nonattainment for certain pollutants. In an attainment plan, that term is for the nonattainment area. the case of particulate matter, Congress ambiguous in the context of the PM2.5 Second, as noted above, to meet the did not create a specific emissions NAAQS, and the EPA is authorized to statutory requirements for submission of inventory requirement in subpart 4 that interpret that term and to impose attainment plans under subpart 4, the would supersede the emissions additional requirements as necessary EPA believes that states must meet the inventory requirement under subpart 1. and appropriate. In addition, pursuant same submission schedule for these Thus, the section 172(c)(3) emissions to section 301, the EPA has additional emissions inventories as for the other inventory requirements continue to authority to promulgate regulations as elements of an attainment plan, i.e., apply, and that provision explicitly necessary for the implementation of the within 18 months after the effective requires ‘‘a comprehensive, accurate, PM2.5 NAAQS, including requirements dates of the designation of the and current inventory of actual pertaining to emissions inventories. nonattainment area. This schedule must emissions of the relevant pollutants’’ in Accordingly, the EPA is proposing apply to both of these emissions the nonattainment area. In addition, the specific emissions inventory inventories because they are necessary specific attainment plan requirements requirements it considers necessary to for effective evaluation of the attainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS set forth in section effectuate the attainment plan plan as a whole. Consequently, under 189(a) and associated modeling requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 the authority of section 172(b), the EPA requirements make an accurate and up- NAAQS. is proposing to establish the regulatory to-date emissions inventory a critical There are three key facets of the EPA’s requirement that emissions inventories element of any viable attainment plan. proposed emissions inventory be submitted by 18 months after Because of the nature of PM2.5, the EPA requirements, as laid out below: (i) The designation. concludes that the statutory type of inventories required; (ii) the Third, the EPA proposes to establish requirements for emissions inventories timing of submittal of these inventories; specific requirements for both the base need further elaboration through and, (iii) the content of these year inventory for the nonattainment additional regulatory requirements as inventories. These inventory area and for the attainment projected described below. requirements are being proposed to inventory for the nonattainment area in Emissions inventory data serve as the provide all of the requirements in a order to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS foundation for various types of analyses concise and direct way. In some cases, most effectively. Accordingly, the EPA that enable states to evaluate the degree the EPA’s rationale for the content proposes that the base year inventory for to which different emissions sources requirements needs additional the nonattainment area must meet the contribute to the nonattainment supporting description, which is following minimum criteria (a) through problem in a given nonattainment area provided in the subsequent text related (g): and enable states to estimate the air to the use of seasonal inventories, (a) The inventory year must be one of quality improvement that can be required pollutants, etc. the 3 years used for designations or achieved through different control First, the EPA believes that in order another technically appropriate measures. States should use the best to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS inventory year. Another inventory year available, current emissions inventory effectively, states will be required to may be chosen under specific information for attainment plan submit at least two separate and distinct circumstances (e.g., to account for a development, because high quality nonattainment area emissions change in sources in the nonattainment emissions inventory data are essential inventories as elements of an attainment area, changes in nonattainment area for the development of an effective plan. The first emissions inventory is boundaries, or significant time lag control strategy. To assist states in relevant for assessing the current or base between designations and preparation of preparing complete, high quality year emissions in the nonattainment the inventory) with consultation from inventories, the EPA provides guidance area; the second emissions inventory is the appropriate EPA Regional Office. for developing emissions inventories a projected inventory relevant for This requirement is intended to ensure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

that the inventory will represent the themselves) of the emissions submitted (g) If the attainment projected emissions sources whose contributions to the EPA. inventory for the nonattainment area is resulted in a nonattainment designation (g) If the base year inventory for the submitted to the EPA as a separate plan for the area. nonattainment area is submitted to the submission (e.g., severed from the (b) The inventory must include actual EPA as a separate plan submission (i.e., overall attainment plan and provided emissions of all sources within the severed from the overall attainment plan separately), the inventory must still nonattainment area. This requirement and provided separately), the inventory meet all public review requirements stems directly from the wording of must still meet all public review associated with that SIP submission. See section 172(c)(3). Sources outside of the requirements associated with that plan. proposed 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2). nonattainment area are explicitly not See proposed 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1). included in the section 172(c)(3) For the attainment projected 2. Are there new inventory requirements requirement with the words ‘‘in such inventory for the nonattainment area, in this proposed rule that have not been area.’’ Furthermore, the EPA interprets the EPA also proposes to promulgate included in previous rules? the Act requirement for ‘‘actual more specific requirements in order to This proposed rule includes more emissions from all sources’’ in section implement the PM2.5 NAAQS most specific requirements for emissions 172(c)(3) as intending to include all effectively. Accordingly, the EPA inventories than past implementation emissions that may contribute to the proposes that the attainment projected rules. First, the EPA proposes to require formation of PM2.5 within the inventory must meet the following the attainment projected inventory for nonattainment area. minimum criteria (a) through (g): the nonattainment area. In practice, (c) The emissions values must either (a) The year of the projected inventory some states were providing this be annual total emissions or average- must be the first year for which information at the request of their season-day emissions, as appropriate for attainment is demonstrated by the respective EPA Regional Offices, but it the nonattainment problem. The modeled attainment plan. was not a specific requirement. The EPA rationale for providing annual or (b) The emissions values must be believes that a specific requirement is seasonal emissions must be included as projected emissions of the same sources necessary to ensure that the EPA and part of the plan. A discussion of the included in the base year inventory for the public can reasonably assess the EPA’s rationale for proposing the option the nonattainment area (i.e., only those changes in emissions in the of seasonal or annual inventories is located within the nonattainment area) nonattainment area that the state provided in Section IV.B.4 of this and any new sources. The projected maintains demonstrate that the area will preamble. emissions values should be the best attain the standard or that it is (d) As discussed above and consistent available representation of expected impracticable to attain the standard by with past implementation rule emissions, and thus should take into the attainment date. Without such requirements, the inventory must account emissions growth and information, there is no way for the EPA include emissions of direct PM2.5 (both contraction, facility closures, new to assess the projected emissions filterable PM2.5 and condensable PM2.5), facilities, new controls and other factors changes in the nonattainment area that as well as all scientific PM2.5 precursors forecast to occur between the base year the state asserts contribute to (SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia). A and the attainment year. In deciding attainment. In addition, this proposed discussion of the EPA’s rationale for what factors are relevant, states should requirement would support the EPA’s proposing this requirement is provided consider factors affecting projected first proposed approach for conducting in Section IV.B.5 of this preamble. emissions that could significantly alter an RFP analysis as described in Section (e) The emissions thresholds for the conclusions of the attainment IV.F of this preamble. which emissions sources must be demonstration. This proposed rule also is more reported as point sources must be (c) The temporal period of emissions specific about the requirements for the followed from the Air Emissions must be the same temporal period emissions inventories submitted. While Reporting Rule (AERR), 40 CFR part 51, (annual or average-season-day) as the the various criteria (a) through (g) listed subpart A. This requirement is base year inventory for the above have been implicit in prior rules consistent with past implementation nonattainment area. and associated guidance, the EPA rules and is needed to define the data (d) Consistent with the base year believes that not having these specific structure (as opposed to the emissions inventory for the nonattainment area, requirements has caused confusion and values themselves) of the emissions the inventory must include all inconsistencies across attainment plan submitted to the EPA. A discussion of emissions of direct PM2.5 (both filterable inventories in the past. Thus, the EPA the use of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, for and condensable PM2.5), as well as all is proposing to require these minimum the emissions thresholds and data emissions of all scientific precursors criteria in this proposed rule. reporting elements is provided in (SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia). Furthermore, the option for using only Section IV.B.6 of this preamble. (e) The same sources reported as point seasonal inventories in some attainment (f) The detail of the emissions sources in the base year inventory for plans is a new facet of this rule, further included in the inventory must be the nonattainment area must also be described in Section IV.B.5 of this consistent with the detail required by 40 provided as point sources in the preamble. CFR part 51, subpart A. For example, all attainment projected inventory for the emissions must be subdivided to nonattainment area. Likewise, nonpoint 3. Are there other inventory individual emissions processes within a and mobile source projected emissions requirements from earlier PM2.5 facility or county. While these details must also be provided using the same implementation rules that the EPA is should underlie the inventory, the detail (e.g., state, county and process proposing to retain or change? emissions included in the attainment codes) as the base year inventory. The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule plan can be summarized. This (f) The detail of the emissions required states to submit specific requirement is consistent with the 2007 included must be consistent with the emissions inventories in connection PM2.5 Implementation Rule and is level of detail in the base year inventory with the RFP requirements of section needed to define the data structure (as (i.e., as required by 40 CFR part 41, 172(c)(2) under subpart 1. The EPA opposed to the emissions values subpart A). believes that a separate emissions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15365

inventory will be important to illustrate emissions inventory requirements of the describes the background needed to how a nonattainment area may achieve CAA in light of the specific inventory understand the importance of including incremental emissions reductions needs that are relevant for the NAAQS these precursors in emissions toward attainment, and would be in question, and in the case of the PM2.5 inventories for attainment plan appropriate in light of the agency’s NAAQS, the inventory requirement may purposes for the PM2.5 NAAQS. proposed approaches for states to meet thus include both an annual emissions Emissions information about PM2.5 and the statutory RFP requirements. Past inventory for the attainment area, and a its precursors is a necessary EPA guidance with respect to RFP seasonal emissions inventory for the precondition to meeting other core requirements under subpart 4 has not area as appropriate for the attainment attainment plan requirements, such as required any explicit, separate plan at issue. effective evaluation of control measures emissions inventory for this purpose for In contrast with the annual PM2.5 and adequate demonstration of PM10 NAAQS. For this reason, the EPA NAAQS, the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are projected future attainment of the describes this issue and proposed designed to protect against peak NAAQS through modeling. The EPA approaches more fully in Section IV.F of exposures. Thus, for the 24-hour PM2.5 notes that with respect to requiring this preamble. NAAQS, there are circumstances in states to include emissions of direct The 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule which the EPA believes that only PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in emissions also required states to submit a seasonal emissions inventories may be inventories, the agency is following the statewide base year emissions inventory required for attainment planning requirements it established for the PM2.5 as part of the attainment plan. The EPA purposes. The EPA proposes to allow NAAQS in the past. Section 172(c)(3) proposes not to include this statewide states to use only seasonal inventories explicitly requires states to submit a emissions inventory requirement in this for attainment plan development for ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, and current rule. Subpart 4 does not expressly attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in inventory of actual emissions of the require such an inventory, and the EPA areas that are nonattainment for only the relevant pollutants’’ and the EPA does not believe that it is needed for 24-hour standard. In the event that it is concludes that in order to meet these successful attainment of the PM2.5 appropriate to rely on a seasonal basic statutory requirements for the NAAQS. Furthermore, statewide emissions inventory, the state should PM2.5 NAAQS, states must address inventories are already required as part confer with the EPA concerning the PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors in their of the AERR (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) exact length of the season and the start emissions inventories. on a triennial basis. While these and stop dates of the season. The The EPA requires air agencies to use inventories do not receive the same duration and start and stop dates of the the best available methodologies for level of scrutiny as inventories season will be an important component estimating emissions of PM2.5 and its associated with attainment plans, the of the attainment plan and must be precursors. It should be noted that for EPA believes that this existing statewide approved by the EPA along with other ammonia, in particular, updated requirement is sufficient for elements of the attainment plan for a emissions estimating methodologies for understanding the PM2.5 nonattainment given nonattainment area. The EPA animal feeding operations are under problems nationally and assessing the further proposes to require that seasonal development using data collected quality of inventories proposed to be inventories must use average-season-day during the period 2007–2009 from required by this rule. emissions values for this purpose. The representative operations pursuant to average-season-day is defined as the 4. Why is the EPA proposing to permit the National Air Emissions Monitoring sum of all emissions during the 73 seasonal inventories to meet the Study. The EPA is hopeful that such applicable season divided by the inventory reporting requirements? updated methodologies will help to number of days in that season. The reduce uncertainties in current The statute does not explicitly nature of some seasonal PM2.5 emissions ammonia inventories and will improve address whether the emissions sources (e.g., residential wood the quality of future emissions inventory required under section combustion) does not allow for only inventories needed for implementing 172(c)(3) should include emissions weekday emissions to be included in the PM2.5 NAAQS. throughout an entire calendar year or the inventory, therefore all days must be emissions during some shorter portion included. The state would need to 6. Why is the AERR used to define data of the year that may be appropriate for explain the rationale for the duration of elements and data methods that are implementation of a particular NAAQS. the season used for the inventory as part required for the emissions inventories In the case of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the of the attainment plan submission. To required by this rule? standards currently include both annual justify the use of a seasonal inventory, Because the provisions of the CAA do NAAQS and 24-hour NAAQS. With the state must demonstrate why a not specifically state the form of the respect to the annual NAAQS, the form seasonal attainment plan is appropriate emissions information to be reported to of the NAAQS includes monitored for the particular PM2.5 nonattainment the EPA for meeting their attainment ambient PM2.5 values at all times area in question. plan inventory requirement, it is throughout the course of the year and 5. Why is the EPA requiring certain necessary for the EPA to prescribe thus an annual emissions inventory is specifically the data elements of those necessarily required for development of pollutants be included in the inventories? emissions inventories. Distinct from the an appropriate attainment plan for a emissions values (i.e., how much given area. In the case of the 24-hour The EPA is proposing that states must emissions derive from each source or NAAQS, however, the form of the submit emissions inventories that source category), the emissions elements NAAQS is based upon monitored include all emissions of direct PM2.5 and (i.e., how they are reported) refer to the ambient PM2.5 values on particular days all emissions of all PM2.5 precursors: reporting definitions, data codes and with high levels of PM2.5, and in some SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia. required data fields. The EPA proposes nonattainment areas those days may Furthermore, the inventory must occur only during a distinct and differentiate between the condensable 73 For more information on the NAEMS study, definable season of the year. The EPA and filterable portions of direct PM2.5 see: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ considers it appropriate to interpret the emissions. Section II.B of this preamble airmonitoringstudy.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

that states must use the emissions NAAQS by the applicable attainment temporal detail. In cases where some elements from 40 CFR part 51, subpart date or that the area cannot attain by the differences are unavoidable, air agencies A, in preparing their inventories attainment date. The modeled should attempt to promote consistency submitted to the EPA for implementing attainment demonstration requirements where feasible. the PM2.5 NAAQS. This is consistent for Moderate areas are described fully in The AERR includes both triennial and with past requirements for the form of Section IV.E of this preamble. annual statewide reporting emissions inventories. As part of this demonstration, the requirements, with more extensive In addition to defining the data EPA presumes that states will need to reporting requirements for triennial elements, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A also prepare attainment demonstration inventory years. For the interim annual requires states to submit emissions modeling inventories for both a inventories, reporting is limited to information to the EPA. The EPA is not modeled base year and projected emissions data from only the larger referring to those emissions submission attainment year. Respectively, these are point sources (Type ‘‘A’’ sources), as requirements here, but rather the called the ‘‘base year (baseline) defined by Appendix A of 40 CFR part emissions elements—the definitions, inventory for modeling’’ and the 51, subpart A. For the triennial data codes and required data fields. ‘‘attainment projected inventory for inventories, lower point source Below, the EPA addresses the issue of modeling.’’ These inventories contain thresholds are given in Appendix A, whether the emissions values submitted emissions for all regions (i.e., not just consistent with the definition of major through the AERR are relevant to the the nonattainment area) within the sources in 40 CFR part 70, and all other inventory requirements of this proposed modeling domain being used for the sources of emissions must be reported rule (see Section IV.B.8 of this attainment plan modeling as nonpoint or mobile sources on a preamble). demonstration, which typically includes county basis. As noted earlier, the EPA counties and even states outside of the In the past, some states have recommends that states consult the SIP nonattainment area. They include incorrectly asserted that their AERR Emissions Inventory Guidance in detailed spatial and temporal elements submission meets the requirements for preparing the inventories needed for needed to support air quality modeling. base year inventories required by past this rule. In addition to the AERR, this States should follow the requirements implementation rules. To avoid guidance includes definitions for data laid out in Section IV.E of this preamble confusion, the EPA provides here the fields that are not required by the AERR, and the procedures described in the SIP limited circumstances in which the such as seasonal emissions values and Emissions Inventory Guidance and the AERR emissions inventories can meet other fields that are optional in the data Air Quality Modeling Guidance to meet the base year inventory for the system that collects data submitted for the minimum requirements for nonattainment area requirement for the AERR. The EPA is updating the SIP documentation and emissions Moderate areas. The following Emissions Inventory Guidance in summaries supporting modeling conditions must be met to use AERR coordination with this proposal. It demonstrations.74 inventories for attainment planning: provides specific guidance to air The base year inventory and projected (a) The AERR emissions inventory agencies on how to develop base year attainment year inventory include must have gone through the public inventories for the nonattainment area emissions from only within the review process required for attainment and attainment projected inventories for nonattainment area. The EPA expects plans. 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze that modeling inventories will be (b) The AERR emissions inventory SIPs. While the AERR sets forth consistent with those nonattainment needs to include all sources of requirements for data elements and area inventories; however, some emissions and all pollutants required for definitions, the guidance complements exceptions may exist. Where possible, the base year inventory for the these requirements, defines all data the nonattainment area base year and nonattainment area. This is only elements (even those that are voluntary projected attainment year inventories possible if the inventory year for the AERR elements), and indicates how the can be a sum (for annual data) or base year inventory for the data should be prepared, documented average (for PM2.5 season-day data) of nonattainment area aligns with a and publicly reviewed for attainment day-specific or hour-specific data used triennial AERR year, because the data plan submissions. for modeling. In some cases, however, system implementing the AERR only this approach may not be sufficient for accepts emissions from point sources 7. How do emissions inventories modeling purposes. For example, and not other source categories in non- support modeling for attainment greater spatial and temporal detail are triennial years. demonstrations? needed for on-road mobile modeling (c) The EPA must be accepting data This section attempts to clarify the inventories as compared to the base year for the inventory year. Inventories are difference between the inventories inventory for the nonattainment area. allowed to be submitted to the AERR for required to be a part of a state’s For the nonattainment area base year a given year for only a limited time Moderate area attainment plan inventory, one goal is to allow for the during the development cycle of the submission (as described earlier) and repeatability of the approach in order to National Emissions Inventory. other modeling inventories that are also create average, seasonal or annual (d) The AERR submission must relevant for attainment planning. While inventories for use in rule requirements, include emissions from all relevant the EPA is not proposing additional such as reasonable further progress or sources as described for the base year modeling inventory requirements in this conformity demonstrations. That goal is inventory for the nonattainment area rule (i.e., for which a state must submit not necessarily compatible with the requirements. In some cases, the AERR an emissions inventory to the EPA), to modeling need for greater spatial and requirement can be met without meet the attainment demonstration electronically ‘‘submitting’’ emissions, requirements of CAA sections 189(a)(1) 74 The EPA encourages states to consider in any which would not meet the requirements and 189(b)(1), states will need to submit baseline, modeling, and SIP attainment inventory for the base year inventory for the used and/or submitted to include emissions an attainment demonstration (which expected from projects subject to general nonattainment area. For example, states includes air quality modeling) to show conformity and emissions from wildland fire that may elect to accept the EPA estimates how the area will either attain the reasonably may be expected in the area. for some nonpoint emissions sectors,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15367

but this would not meet the temporal and spatial detail, and emissions from sources in tribal areas requirements of section 172(c)(3). In inventories used as the motor vehicle located therein. addition, the AERR revision finalized in emissions budget), states should seek to C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the February 2015 replaces the prior understand and minimize any Plan requirement of reporting onroad mobile differences in results. For example, an and nonroad mobile source emissions approach may be used for the modeled Under subpart 4 of the CAA, air with a requirement for reporting the attainment demonstration that uses agencies are initially required to analyze input parameters that can be used to run gridded temperatures and other and evaluate emissions reduction the EPA models to generate the meteorological data, but this approach measures for all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions. If choosing to use an AERR could be too burdensome for use in the and PM2.5 precursors (i.e., SO2, NOX, submission to meet the base year base year inventory for the VOC and ammonia) in developing PM2.5 inventory for the nonattainment area nonattainment area. This is because attainment plans. As described in requirement, the state should submit the emissions inventories created for Section II of this preamble, and nonattainment area emissions, purposes of RFP and transportation reiterated in the proposed emissions irrespective of the options provided to conformity analysis must use the same inventory requirements for Moderate meet the AERR requirements. Since the MOVES approach used in the base year area attainment plans under Section ‘‘statewide’’ emissions are actually inventory for the nonattainment area, IV.B of this preamble, direct PM2.5 provided for individual point sources and using a straightforward MOVES includes both filterable and condensable and counties, the EPA believes that approach without gridded meteorology PM2.5 emissions. Thus, a state must these resolutions can be sufficient for is more reasonable for that purpose. evaluate control measures for sources of filterable and condensable PM most PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The most current version of the 2.5 emissions as part of an approvable NONROAD model should be used for 8. What models should be used for control strategy for a Moderate PM estimates of nonroad mobile source 2.5 mobile source emissions? nonattainment area. A key part of emissions inventory emissions, preferably with state- In addition, while evaluating sources supplied model input data. States can development includes estimating of direct PM2.5 for reasonably available mobile source emissions. For all of the alternatively develop technologically controls is an implicit requirement in equivalent or superior state-specific mobile source inventories used for PM2.5 the context of implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS implementation, states should nonroad emissions estimates, but NAAQS under any scenario, the EPA is use the latest emissions models should explain why their approach proposing and seeking comment on gives a better estimate than the EPA available at the time the attainment plan several options for evaluating PM2.5 model. For nonroad sources not inventory is developed.75 In general, the precursors under the PM2.5 NAAQS latest approved version of the MOVES estimated by the NONROAD model, the implementation program. The EPA model should be used by states other best available methods should be used, interprets the requirements of the CAA than California to estimate emissions and the EPA recommends that states to allow the air agency to provide a from onroad transportation sources. refer to the SIP Emissions Inventory ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ to the EPA States should use the latest available Guidance for more information on that supports a state’s finding that one planning emission inputs including, but emissions from these sources. Links to or more PM2.5 precursors need not be not limited to, vehicle miles traveled Federal Register documents and policy subject to control requirements in a (VMT), speeds, fleet mix, SIP control guidance memos on the latest approved given nonattainment area. Section III of measures and fuels. The current version versions of MOVES and NONROAD can this preamble presents a complete of MOVES is available at http:// be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ discussion of the EPA’s proposed www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/ models.htm. options for states to address PM2.5 index.htm. The appropriate EPA- 9. What special considerations exist for precursors in attainment plans and in approved model(s) should similarly be tribal areas? the NNSR permitting program. used for California onroad source Specifically, the EPA is proposing and emissions.76 When using MOVES, states In the past, there have been instances seeking comment on three options should follow the most current version where portions of tribal areas have been describing different approaches to such of the MOVES Technical Guidance, included in designated nonattainment precursor demonstrations, and requests available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ areas, but when the base year inventory comment on each. In general terms, the models/moves/index.htm#sip. MOVES for the nonattainment area was three options can be summarized as includes multiple options for estimating prepared, emissions from the tribal follows: and processing emissions that could lands were not included. This has had • Option 1: Two independent result in different emissions inventories. the effect of preventing tribes from analyses: (a) an attainment planning The EPA recommends that states use the generating emissions reductions from analysis demonstrating that control same approach in any analysis that existing sources to develop emissions measures for a particular precursor are compares two or more emissions cases offsets, as well as impairing the ability not needed for expeditious attainment, (e.g., different control scenarios, of the state to prepare as accurate a meaning that the precursor can be different years). If different approaches modeling demonstration as possible. It excluded from measures needed to are taken for inventories that serve could also cause sources in tribal areas attain as expeditiously as practicable for different purposes (for example between to remain uncontrolled even though all types of sources; and, (b) a section inventories developed for air quality they are contributing to violations in a 189(e) technical demonstration showing modeling, which may require greater given nonattainment area. The EPA that major stationary sources of a encourages states and tribes to work particular precursor do not contribute 75 Section 172(c)(3) requires that SIP inventories together to ensure that the information significantly to levels that exceed the and control measures be based on the most current used in developing the baseline PM2.5 standard, meaning that the information and applicable models that are available when a SIP is developed. emissions inventory is inclusive of all precursor can be excluded from control 76 At this time, the California onroad mobile emissions from a designated requirements for major sources and from model is called EMFAC. nonattainment area, including NNSR permitting;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

• Option 2: Single analysis to identify and select the complete suite measures will contribute toward timely demonstrating that all emissions of a of measures needed for an attainment attainment for the area in the attainment particular precursor from within the plan submission for a Moderate PM2.5 plan submission. area do not significantly contribute to nonattainment area. The proposed 2. Identification and Selection of RACM process consists of identifying all PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard, and RACT and Additional Reasonable technologically and economically meaning that control requirements for Measures emissions of the precursor from major feasible control measures, including stationary and area sources, as well as control technologies, for all sources of a. Statutory requirements and existing mobile sources, would not be required direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the guidance. CAA section 172(c) under for expeditious attainment, control emissions inventory for the subpart 1 describes the general requirements for major sources, or for nonattainment area which are not attainment plan requirement for RACM NNSR permitting; otherwise exempted from consideration and RACT, requiring that attainment • Option 3: An attainment planning for controls.77 From that list of plan submissions ‘‘provide for the analysis demonstrating that control measures, the state must identify those implementation of all reasonably measures for all types of sources of a that it can implement within 4 years of available control measures as particular precursor are not needed for designation of the area (and which expeditiously as practicable (including expeditious attainment also would be would thus meet the statutory such reductions in emissions from deemed to meet the section 189(e) requirements for RACM and RACT) and existing sources in the area as may be technical demonstration requirement, any ‘‘additional reasonable measures,’’ obtained through the adoption, at a meaning that the state would not need which the EPA proposes to define as minimum, of reasonably available to regulate emissions of the particular those technologically and economically control technology) and shall provide precursor from major stationary sources feasible measures that the state can only for attainment’’ of the NAAQS. The under the NNSR permitting program or implement on sources in the attainment planning requirements other control requirements for major nonattainment area after the 4 year specific to PM10, including PM2.5, under stationary sources. deadline for RACM and RACT has subpart 4 likewise impose upon states The EPA will finalize its approach to passed. See proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. an obligation to develop attainment plans that impose RACM on sources of PM2.5 precursors and clarify the The state must also assess whether there implications for states conducting are other measures that it can direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors analyses to identify required control implement to control sources within the within a Moderate nonattainment area. measures after considering public state but outside the nonattainment area CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that comment received on this proposal. that contribute to the PM2.5 states with areas classified as Moderate nonattainment status of the area in order have attainment plan provisions to D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy to bring the area into attainment as assure that RACM are implemented by expeditiously as practicable. no later than 4 years after designation of 1. General Approach to Designing a 78 Control Strategy for a Moderate As discussed in Section II.D.6 of this the area. The EPA reads CAA sections Nonattainment Area preamble, one important component of 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) together to a state’s control strategy for a PM2.5 require that attainment plans for The statutory attainment planning nonattainment area is the suite of Moderate nonattainment areas must requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were control measures that a state is already provide for the implementation of established to ensure that the following implementing or will be implementing RACM and RACT for existing sources of goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states to comply with national, regional, or PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the implement measures that provide for state and local regulations already nonattainment area as expeditiously as attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as adopted or promulgated, as long as such practicable but no later than 4 years expeditiously as practicable; and, (ii) measures will lead to permanent and after designation.79 that states adopt emissions reduction enforceable reductions in emissions The terms RACM and RACT are not strategies that will be the most effective, after the area is designated defined within subpart 4, nor do the and the most cost effective, at reducing nonattainment. Such ‘‘existing’’ provisions of subpart 4 specify how PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas. In measures could apply to sources inside states are to meet the RACM and RACT addition to having an obligation to meet the nonattainment area, in which case requirements. However, the EPA’s the statutory requirements for specific the state must include them in the longstanding guidance in the General control measures on sources located RACM and RACT and additional Preamble described in detail within a nonattainment area (e.g., reasonable measures analysis for the considerations for determining what RACM and RACT), a state has discretion area. The measures may also apply to control measures constitute RACM and to require reductions from any source sources located outside the RACT for purposes of subpart 4. The inside or outside of a PM2.5 nonattainment area but would achieve EPA’s guidance for RACM for sources of nonattainment area (but within the reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions or PM10 and PM10 precursors under state’s boundaries) in order to fulfill its emissions of PM2.5 precursors to help subpart 4 in the General Preamble obligation to demonstrate attainment in bring the area into attainment. A state included: (i) A list of some potential a PM2.5 nonattainment area as must evaluate the potential effects of all measures for states to consider; (ii) a expeditiously as practicable. A state of these measures as part of its modeled statement of the EPA’s expectation that may need to require emissions attainment demonstration for the area, the state will provide a reasoned reductions on sources located outside of and must clearly indicate which of these explanation for a decision not to adopt a PM2.5 nonattainment area if such reductions are needed in order to 77 Such exemptions could be due to a 78 States with areas later reclassified as ‘‘Serious’’ provide for expeditious attainment of demonstrated lack of significant contribution of a nonattainment areas under subpart 4 must also certain PM precursor to the area’s elevated PM develop and submit later plans to meet additional the PM2.5 NAAQS. 2.5 2.5 concentrations or due to a presumptive requirements for Serious areas. With this in mind, the following determination that a certain source category 79 This interpretation is consistent with guidance sections describe the EPA’s proposed contributes only a de minimis amount toward PM2.5 described in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13498 approach for a state to follow in order levels in a nonattainment area. (April 16, 1992), at page 13540.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15369

a particular control measure; (iii) area by the applicable attainment date designation of the area and which can recognition that some control measures specified in this part.’’ The EPA be implemented, in whole or in part, by might be unreasonable because the interprets this statutory provision to the end of the sixth calendar year emissions from the sources that would require a state to identify, select and following designation; and, (v) perform be affected by the measure in the area implement additional measures to those an analysis to determine the earliest are de minimis (i.e., aggregate emissions identified as RACM and RACT for the practicable attainment date for the area from all sources in a particular source area if needed to provide for timely and identify the control measures and category do not contribute significantly attainment of the area. In the EPA’s control technologies that will be needed to PM2.5 concentrations in the area); (iv) proposed approach detailed in this to achieve attainment by the an emphasis on state evaluation of section, the EPA describes criteria for demonstrated attainment date and to potential control measures for identifying and selecting ‘‘additional meet statutory control requirements. reasonableness, considering factors such reasonable measures’’ for sources of The statutory attainment date for as technological and economic direct PM and PM precursors in a 2.5 2.5 Moderate nonattainment areas is as feasibility; and, (v) encouragement to Moderate nonattainment area which expeditiously as practicable, but not states evaluating potential control may be necessary in order to bring the later than the end of the sixth calendar measures imposed upon municipal or area into expeditious attainment. year after designation of the area as other governmental entities to include b. Proposed approach. This section nonattainment. In the case of Moderate consideration of the impacts on such describes the EPA’s proposed approach entities, and the possibility of partial for determining what measures qualify areas that can reach attainment by the implementation when full as RACM and RACT or as additional statutory attainment date, and implementation would be infeasible reasonable measures for controlling consistent with existing policies, states (e.g., phased implementation of sources contributing to nonattainment would be required to evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available measures such as road paving).80 Thus, in a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. the RACM requirement under subpart 4 Under the proposed approach, the control measures that are not necessary applies to all types of sources and is not specific determination of RACM and to demonstrate attainment within the necessarily focused upon forms of RACT would be made within the maximum statutory timeframe to control that are strictly technology- broader context of assessing control determine whether implementation of based. measures for all stationary, area and the remaining measures could advance With respect to RACT requirements, mobile sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 the attainment date by at least 1 year. the EPA’s guidance in the General precursors that would collectively The EPA has long applied this Preamble: (i) noted that RACT has contribute to meeting the statutory particular test—whether reasonably historically been defined as ‘‘the lowest Moderate area attainment date as available control measures that were not emission limit that a source is capable expeditiously as practicable.82 The necessary to demonstrate attainment of meeting by the application of control proposed approach is designed to within the maximum statutory technology that is reasonably available ensure that states consider and adopt timeframe, collectively can advance an considering technological and economic control measures for sources in a way area’s applicable attainment date by at feasibility’’; (ii) Noted that RACT that is consistent with the statute’s least 1 year—to satisfy the statutory generally applies to stationary sources, overarching requirement to attain the provision related to an area both stack and fugitive emissions; (iii) standards as expeditiously as demonstrating attainment ‘‘as suggested that major stationary sources practicable, yet to provide flexibility for expeditiously as practicable.’’ 83 The be the minimum starting point for a states to focus regulatory resources on EPA continues to believe that this state’s RACT analysis; and, (iv) those sources of emissions whose approach provides an appropriate recommended that states evaluate RACT control will most effectively and degree of flexibility to a state to tailor not only for major stationary sources, expeditiously contribute to attainment its attainment plan control strategy to but for other source categories as needed in a given area. the needs of a particular PM2.5 for attainment and considering the Specifically, the EPA proposes that a nonattainment area. In the case of feasibility of controls.81 Thus, the RACT state must follow a process by which it Moderate areas that cannot practicably requirement under subpart 4 is would: (i) Identify all sources of attain by the statutory attainment date, primarily focused on stationary sources emissions of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 states would be required to implement and forms of emissions control that are precursors in the nonattainment area all RACM and RACT, together with any technology-based. and all potential control measures to additional reasonable measures on In addition to the statutory reduce emissions from those source sources in the nonattainment area. In requirements under sections 172(c)(1) categories not otherwise deemed de either case, the statute requires that a and 189(a)(1)(C) for RACM and RACT, minimis; (ii) determine if any of the state’s attainment plan provide for section 172(c)(6) requires that a state’s identified potential control measures are implementation of RACM and RACT attainment plan for a nonattainment technologically infeasible; (iii) within 4 years of designation. area ‘‘include enforceable emission determine if any of the identified The following discussion provides limitations, and such other control technologically feasible control further detail on the specific steps and measures, means or techniques measures are economically infeasible; criteria that the EPA proposes states (including economic incentives such as (iv) determine which technologically must apply when making their fees, marketable permits, and auctions and economically feasible measures can determinations for RACM and RACT of emission rights), as well as schedules be implemented, in whole or in part, and additional reasonable measures. and timetables for compliance, as may within 4 years from the date of The EPA seeks comment on the be necessary or appropriate to provide proposed steps, criteria and for attainment of such standard in such 82 In Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the court stated, in upholding the EPA’s statutory interpretation of RACM, that the CAA 83 The term ‘‘expeditious attainment’’ is used 80 See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at pages does not compel a state to consider a measure throughout this proposal to describe the ability of 13540–41. without regard to whether it would expedite a nonattainment area to attain ‘‘as expeditiously as 81 Ibid. attainment. practicable’’ based on the test described here.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

considerations described below. See RACT and additional reasonable narrowly, and the definition could proposed 40 CFR 51.1009(a). measures. determine which sources are able to Step 1: Identify sources to be ii. De minimis source category meet the thresholds for de minimis controlled and existing and potential exemptions. The concept of exempting exemptions. The North American control measures certain source categories from Industry Classification System (NAICS) consideration for control measures due i. Identify sources to be controlled. As is the standard industrial classification to their minimal (i.e., de minimis) described more fully in Section IV.B of system used by federal agencies. NAICS contribution is discussed at length in this preamble, section 172(c)(3) of the codes are between 2 and 6 digits, with the Addendum for sources located in CAA requires that attainment plans for greater industrial source specificity with Serious PM nonattainment areas that 88 PM nonattainment areas include a 10 increased digits. Each digit in the code 2.5 would otherwise be subject to BACM ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current is part of a series of progressively and BACT requirements. The EPA’s inventory of actual emissions from all narrower categories, and the more digits guidance in the General Preamble on in the code signify greater classification sources of the relevant pollutant or Moderate PM10 nonattainment area detail. The first two digits designate the pollutants.’’ As proposed, the inventory requirements also provided support for economic sector, the third digit must include emissions information for exempting de minimis source categories designates the subsector, the fourth digit all major stationary sources, nonpoint or from RACM and RACT requirements: ‘‘If designates the industry group, the fifth area sources, and mobile sources of it can be shown that one or more digit designates the NAICS industry, direct PM and PM precursors in the 2.5 2.5 measures are unreasonable because and the sixth digit designates the nonattainment area. emissions from the sources affected are national industry. The 5-digit NAICS The EPA proposes to require that a insignificant (i.e., de minimis), those code is the level at which there is state must look at all of the sources measures may be excluded from further comparability in code and definitions reflected in the nonattainment area’s consideration as they would not for most of the NAICS sectors across the base year inventory as part of the first represent RACM for that area.’’ 85 86 three countries participating in NAICS step in identifying reasonable control As with RACM for PM10, the EPA (the United States, Canada and Mexico). measures for the area, as each of these proposes to allow states to exempt de The 6-digit level allows for the United sources may play a role in the area’s minimis source categories from further States, Canada, and Mexico each to have PM2.5 problem and thus may be consideration as they determine country-specific detail. A complete and controlled currently or may need to be reasonable control measures for bringing valid NAICS code contains six digits. controlled to bring the area into a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area Defining source categories by NAICS attainment as expeditiously as into attainment with the relevant codes would still require a practicable. Under this proposed NAAQS. The EPA proposes that if a determination of how broadly to set the approach, a state would need to state can demonstrate that a particular source category boundaries as NAICS consider all inventoried sources of source category does not contribute codes with fewer digits represent larger direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of all significantly to nonattainment of the source categories (e.g., sector ‘21’ is for four scientific PM2.5 precursors as it PM2.5 NAAQS in a Moderate mining processes, while a further conducts its determination of reasonable nonattainment area, then the state may specification of ‘2122’ is for metal control measures for an area. A possible eliminate the source category from mining processes, and ‘212210’ is for exception to this comprehensive review further consideration for control iron ore mining). If source categories are requirement for all inventoried sources measures.87 A state would be required defined in a very narrow or specific could arise if the EPA finalizes a to evaluate all other sources in the way, it is possible that many source precursor approach that would allow a nonattainment area in source categories categories will be below a set de state to demonstrate that one or more that do not qualify as de minimis for minimis threshold, and therefore precursors in a nonattainment area do reasonable control measures. potentially inappropriately exempted not significantly contribute to the PM2.5 The EPA notes that there are some from consideration for reasonable problem in the area and/or that reducing challenges in establishing de minimis control measures. For this reason, the emissions of one or more precursors in source categories for PM2.5 sources in EPA proposes and seeks comment on a an area would not be effective in the same manner as was performed for requirement that a state would need to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the PM10 sources and seeks comment on the define any source category for which a area.84 In such a case, a state could following proposed options. NAICS code exists at the four-digit exempt sources of any precursor for (1) Defining source categories. Source industry group level. The EPA believes which the state has made such a categories, in particular for stationary that relying on the four-digit industry demonstration from further sources, can be defined very broadly or group level to define ‘‘source category’’ consideration for measures to control for this purpose would provide an emissions of that precursor. 85 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13540. appropriate degree of distinction Independent of whether or not the EPA 86 Where the sources at issue contribute only between industrial processes, while not negligibly to ambient concentrations that exceed the finalizes such an approach to NAAQS, the EPA’s policy is that it would be making the source category definition precursors, however, a state could still unreasonable to regulate those sources, and, overly broad. The EPA also seeks determine that it is not necessary to therefore, the sources would not be subject to comment on two other alternative RACM or other control requirements, unless it is control emissions of direct PM2.5 or any approaches for defining source category determined that even sources identified as de of the PM2.5 precursors in order to attain minimis must be controlled in order for the area to for this purpose, at the six-digit level, the PM2.5 NAAQS in a given area, or to attain the NAAQS. In this regard, it is worth noting and the two-digit level. The EPA notes advance the attainment date for that that the inherent authority of administrative that not all source categories have area, at a later point in this proposed agencies to exempt de minimis situations from NAICS codes, and for these other regulation has been recognized by courts as ‘‘a tool process for determining RACM and to be used in implementing the legislative design’’ categories, states would need to use the (see Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 84 See Section III of this preamble for further (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 88 More information on the NAICS is available at: details on the agency’s proposed options for how 87 Ibid. See Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics (last to handle precursors in attainment planning. 323, 360–61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). accessed August 12, 2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15371

appropriate recognized categories, e.g., and, (ii) for the 24-hour standard of 150 economically feasible controls that may on-road mobile sources. The EPA also mg/m3, a source category contribution of be RACM or RACT for sources of direct 3 seeks comment on alternative source 5 mg/m or less to the 24-hour design PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions in categorization approaches that would value (e.g., a contribution of about 3 the nonattainment area at issue. Because ensure that sources that could be percent or less). The 1 percent lower RACM applies to area and mobile controlled with reasonable control end of the proposed range is consistent sources as well as stationary sources, measures to achieve meaningful with the value that the EPA established the EPA proposes to require that states reductions are not inappropriately in the CAIR as a preliminary threshold consider a variety of types of measures excluded from consideration for such for further evaluation of a state’s in conducting their control strategy control measures as de minimis. contribution to interstate transport. That analysis. As stated earlier, inherent to (2) Determining the appropriate is, under the CAIR, a state was the concept of RACM and RACT is the threshold for de minimis emissions. For identified as potentially subject to basic premise that the measure be the PM10 NAAQS, the EPA’s guidance additional emission control ‘‘reasonable,’’ thus the EPA believes that in the Addendum recommended that a requirements if the impact of SO2 and a state may decline to evaluate control source category is presumed not to be de NOX emissions from sources in that measures that are plainly ‘‘absurd, minimis if the aggregate emissions from state to any nonattainment or unenforceable, or impractical,’’ for such source category have an impact maintenance area in another state example, measures that would cause 3 that exceeds 5 mg/m with respect to the exceeded 1 percent of the relevant PM2.5 ‘‘severely disruptive socioeconomic then-applicable 24-hour PM10 NAAQS standard at a receptor monitor in the impacts, (e.g. gas rationing and or an impact that exceeds 1 mg/m3 with other state. This value was merely the mandatory source shutdowns).’’ It is the respect to the then-applicable annual first step of the analysis, but it provided agency’s interpretation that evaluation PM10 NAAQS. The EPA designed these an initial threshold for determining of such measures is not required by the presumptive thresholds for de minimis whether further analysis was warranted. CAA.89 source categories to apply to PM10 The EPA is requesting comment on Furthermore, the EPA believes that NAAQS nonattainment areas and to the the appropriateness of including de reducing air emissions may not justify level and form of the PM10 NAAQS at minimis threshold options for adversely affecting other resources, for the time the Addendum was written. exempting certain source categories example, by increasing pollution in However, because of the differences in from consideration for reasonable bodies of water, creating additional level and form of the PM10 and PM2.5 control measure determinations, and solid waste disposal problems or NAAQS, the agency finds that those seeks input on several key questions: creating excessive energy demands. An levels are not appropriate for current or First, if a de minimis threshold is otherwise available control technology future PM2.5 NAAQS implementation. included, what is the appropriate may not be reasonable if these other The EPA therefore proposes two definition for source categories? In environmental impacts are sufficiently options regarding the threshold for de addition, what are the appropriate adverse and cannot reasonably be minimis emissions. Under the first thresholds for impacts on ambient PM2.5 mitigated. The EPA proposes that a state proposed option, the EPA would not concentrations that would adequately may consider a control measure for establish a nationally applicable ‘‘bright reflect presumptive de minimis direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 precursor not line’’ threshold for defining a de concentrations from a given source reasonable if, considering the minimis source category for purposes of category comparable to those availability of mitigating adverse implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS in a recommended for purpose of the PM10 impacts of that control on pollution of Moderate nonattainment area. Rather, NAAQS? Also, should the de minimis other media, the control would not, in under this option, the EPA proposes to source category thresholds be a the state’s reasoned judgment, provide a allow a state to determine whether a percentage of the relevant NAAQS (i.e., net benefit to public health and the particular source category should be similar to what was recommended for environment. It should be noted that, in considered de minimis given the PM10, but set at a level that is more many past situations, states and owners particular facts and circumstances of a appropriate for the level and form of the of existing sources have adopted control specific PM2.5 nonattainment area and relevant NAAQS)? The EPA requests technologies for direct PM2.5 and/or subject to approval by the EPA. See that commenters submit any relevant PM2.5 precursors with known energy proposed 40 CFR 51.1007. data or analyses to support their penalties and some adverse effects on Under the second option, the EPA comments with respect to these issues. other media, based on the reasoned proposes to establish a nationally Furthermore, the EPA notes that even in judgment that installation of such applicable de minimis source category the event the agency finalizes this technology would result in a net benefit threshold that would be a specific rulemaking with a de minimis source to public health and the environment. percentage of the level of the relevant category policy of any kind, states are States should consider this before PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA seeks comment obligated under the CAA to demonstrate determining that a control technology is on what value within the range of 1 and how their PM2.5 nonattainment area(s) not reasonable because it may have 3 percent of the relevant NAAQS would will attain the standard as expeditiously other, negative environmental impacts represent an appropriate threshold as practicable. Accordingly, a state that are, on balance, marginal. level. The 3 percent upper end of the could not elect to treat source categories Generally, this proposed approach proposed range is generally derived as de minimis if doing so would prevent allows states to apply reasoned from the de minimis source category the state from being able to demonstrate judgment as they identify potential contribution levels for PM10 as attainment for an area by the statutory control measures for sources of direct described in the General Preamble. The attainment date. PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in their EPA defined these PM10 de minimis iii. Identify existing and potential respective nonattainment areas, and the levels as follows: (i) For the annual control measures and technologies. The EPA expects that a state will provide a standard of 50 mg/m3, a source category state’s compilation of existing and complete and reasoned explanation to contribution of 1 mg/m3 or less to the potential control measures must be support its selection of potential control annual average design value (e.g., a sufficiently broad to provide a basis for contribution of about 2 percent or less); identifying all technologically and 89 55 FR 38327 and 57 FR 13560.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

measures and control technologies as in the area. There are a number of levels.91 Besides their effect on air part of the attainment plan submission resources available to assist states in quality, wildfires pose a direct threat to for any Moderate nonattainment area. identifying additional, potential control public safety—a threat that can be The proposed regulations include measures and control technologies for mitigated through management of language to require the inclusion of this their RACM and RACT and additional wildland vegetation. Attempts to explanation in a state’s attainment plan reasonable measures determinations for suppress wildfires have resulted in submission. their Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment unintended consequences, including (1) Existing control measures. The areas. First, the EPA’s Office of Air increased risks to both humans and EPA proposes that, as a starting point, Quality Planning and Standards ecosystems.92 The use of wildland a state must include in its initial list of maintains a Menu of Control Measures prescribed fire can influence the control measures those measures and document, available online at http:// occurrence, behavior, and effects of technologies that are being implemented www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. This catastrophic wildfires which may help or will be implemented due to document was developed to provide manage the contribution of wildfires to promulgated and/or adopted (i.e., ‘‘on information useful in the development background PM2.5 levels and periodic the books’’) regulations for sources of of local emissions reduction and peak PM2.5 events. Additionally direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in its NAAQS SIP scenarios, and identifying prescribed fires can have benefits to Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. The and evaluating potential control those plant and animal species that EPA expects that the state will measures. It provides a broad, though depend upon natural fires for incorporate current or anticipated not comprehensive, listing of potential propagation, habitat restoration, and emissions reductions from these emissions reduction measures for direct reproduction, as well as myriad ‘‘existing’’ control measures (such as PM2.5 and precursors of ozone and PM2.5 ecosystem functions (e.g., carbon expected SO2 reductions from the from stationary, area and mobile sequestration). The EPA understands MATS; reductions of NOX and direct sources. More complete information on the importance of prescribed fire which PM2.5 from engine and fuel standards to mobile source control measures can be mimics a natural process necessary to reduce emissions from on-road and found on the EPA’s Office of manage and maintain fire-adapted nonroad mobile sources) into its Transportation and Air Quality Web site ecosystems and climate change attainment demonstration modeling for at http://www.epa.gov/otaq. adaptation, while reducing risk of the nonattainment area, and therefore The RACT/BACT/LAER uncontrolled emissions from the EPA believes it is appropriate for the Clearinghouse (RBLC) provides a central catastrophic wildfires, and is committed state to clearly indicate such measures database of air pollution technology to working with federal land managers, in the attainment plan for the area. information (including past RACT, tribes, and states to effectively manage The EPA recognizes that for some BACT and LAER decisions contained in prescribed fire use to reduce the impact sources located in a Moderate PM 2.5 NSR permits) to promote the sharing of of wildfire related emissions on PM2.5. nonattainment area, a state may have information among permitting agencies If wildfire impacts are significant, previously conducted RACM and RACT and to aid in future case-by-case control contributing to exceedances of the analyses to address emissions for other measure determinations. The RBLC standard, the EPA proposes that air statutory purposes. Some of the RACM permit database contains over 5,000 agencies should consider RACM for this and RACT determinations could be determinations that can help a state source. Fires play an important relatively recent, while other identify appropriate technologies to ecological role across the globe, determinations may be 15 years old or mitigate most air pollutant emission benefiting those plant and animal older. The EPA proposes that a state streams. The RBLC includes data species that depend upon natural fires may not simply rely on a previous submitted by several U.S. territories and for propagation, habitat restoration, and RACM or RACT determination for a all 50 states on over 200 different air reproduction. Fires are one tool that can particular source or source category pollutants and 1,000 industrial be used to reduce fuel load, unnatural when developing the attainment plan processes. The RBLC can be found at: understory, and tree density, helping to for a PM NAAQS, but rather that the 2.5 http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/. reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. state must consider all existing and Additionally, the EPA maintains a Some wildfires and the use of potential new measures together as part Web site with links to other online prescribed fire can influence the of a comprehensive RACM and RACT sources of information on control occurrence of catastrophic wildfires analysis. In this way, the state’s new measures for states to consider.90 Again, which may reduce the probability of RACM and RACT analysis will the EPA recognizes that some control fire-induced smoke impacts and represent the most thorough, up-to-date technology guidance for certain source subsequent health effects. RACM must review of control measures for its PM2.5 be determined for each area on a case- nonattainment area. For example, the categories has not been updated for many years, and, for this reason, the by-case basis. Possible RACM for state would still need to provide a wildfire may include measures that RACT analysis for a stationary source agency expects states to identify and consider new and updated information reduce wildland fuels through fuels that has installed new emissions management, including the use of controls recently (e.g., within the last 3 in their RACM and RACT prescribed fire and possibly allowing years), but the state’s determination may determinations as it becomes available. some wildfire to occur naturally in consider that recent installation when (3) RACM for managing emissions systems that are ecologically fire determining whether additional control from wildfire and prescribed fire. is technologically and economically Wildfire emissions account for a large 91 For example, see ‘‘miscellaneous’’ category of feasible. portion of direct PM2.5 emissions nationally and can significantly direct PM2.5 emissions in Table 1. (2) Potential control measures. In 92 Indeed, ‘‘fire policy that focuses on [wildfire] addition to identifying existing control contribute to periodic high PM2.5 suppression only, delays the inevitable, promising measures for sources in a Moderate more dangerous and destructive future . . . fires.’’ 90 Links are provided to a number of national, Stephens, SL; Agee, JK; Fule, PZ; North, MP; PM2.5 nonattainment area, a state must state and local air quality agency sites from the Romme, WH; Swetnam, TW. (2013). Managing develop a comprehensive list of EPA’s PM2.5 Web site: http://www.epa.gov/pm/ Forests and Fire in Changing Climates. Science 342: potential control measures for sources measures.html. 41–42.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15373

dependent. Where appropriate, states, agency granted the petition for under subpart 4.97 The EPA interprets land managers, and landowners may reconsideration in 2011 and proposed to the term technological feasibility to consider developing plans to ensure that withdraw from the 2007 PM2.5 include consideration of factors such as fuel accumulations are addressed and Implementation Rule any presumption a source’s processes and operating fuels management efforts, including that compliance with the CAIR procedures, raw materials, physical prescribed fire, are not delayed. The automatically satisfies RACM and RACT plant layout, and potential EPA also proposes that air agencies requirements for SO2 and NOX environmental impacts such as should consider RACM for managing emissions from EGUs located in increased water pollution, waste emissions from prescribed fires nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 disposal and energy requirements. For (including those prescribed fires NAAQS.95 96 In that proposal, the EPA example, the EPA recognizes that the conducted to reduce future wildfire explained that given the explicit process, operating procedures and raw emissions). Information is available wording of section 172(c)(1) that sources materials used by a source can affect the from the DOI and the USDA Forest ‘‘in the area’’ (i.e., in the nonattainment feasibility of implementing process Service on smoke management area) must at a minimum adopt RACT changes that reduce emissions and can programs and basic smoke management controls for that area, the agency also affect the selection of add-on practices. The EPA requests comment believes that it is no longer appropriate emissions control equipment. The on the concept of, and practical to presume that this requirement is feasibility of modifying processes or considerations associated with, RACM satisfied merely based upon the applying control equipment also can be for wildfire and prescribed fire, participation of a source in a regional influenced by the physical layout of the including such issues as how such cap-and-trade program. Indeed, implicit particular plant, if the physical space measures can be characterized in the in a regional cap-and-trade program is available in which to implement such emissions inventory and attainment that some sources, including those changes limits the choices. The EPA demonstration and made federally located within nonattainment areas, proposes to retain its longstanding enforceable for adoption in a SIP. may elect to buy allowances in lieu of practice that a state should be allowed (4) RACT for EGUs. Through guidance controlling emissions in order to meet to consider such factors in order to in the preamble to the 2007 PM2.5 the regional emissions reductions eliminate from consideration control Implementation Rule, the EPA requirements. measures that are not technologically established a rebuttable presumption Accordingly, the EPA is not proposing feasible to implement.98 that compliance with the CAIR would any rebuttable presumption that the ii. Area and mobile sources. With satisfy RACM and RACT requirements CAIR or any other regional control respect to determining whether a given for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs strategy constitutes RACM or RACT for control measure might not be in states participating in the CAIR cap- EGUs or any other source category. technologically feasible for an area or and-trade program for such emissions.93 Instead, the EPA is clarifying that in mobile source, the EPA also proposes to The EPA indicated that states could order to meet the RACM and RACT retain its longstanding practice that a state may consider relevant factors in presume that EGUs located within a requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, given nonattainment area were meeting states should evaluate EGU sources for conducting its analysis, such as the the RACM and RACT requirements, RACM and RACT level controls just like social acceptability of the measure (e.g., based solely upon a regional program any other source category, and not residential woodstove change-out programs rely in large part on the that imposed controls for SO2 and NOX merely presume for EGUs located in a willingness of individual citizens to emissions from sources both within and nonattainment area that compliance participate in such a program) and local outside designated nonattainment areas. with a cap-and-trade program, including circumstances, such as the condition In June 2007, the EPA received a the CAIR or any other program, would and extent of needed infrastructure, petition for reconsideration questioning satisfy their obligation to implement population size, or workforce type and the legality of this presumption, which RACM and RACT. As required by the habits, which may prohibit certain the D.C. Circuit later found to be CAA, states are required to analyze what potential control measures from being unlawful in the context of a similar constitutes RACM and RACT for EGUs implementable. presumption in the Phase 2 Ozone in each nonattainment area. (NAAQS) Implementation Rule.94 The The EPA seeks comment on the Step 2: Determine whether an factors described above for states to available control measure or technology 93 consider when determining whether a See the Federal Register published on April 25, is technologically feasible. Once a state 2007 (72 FR 20586, 20623, 20624 and 20625). control technology or measure is has identified existing and potential 94 See ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration,’’ filed by technologically feasible. Paul Cort, Earthjustice, on behalf of the American control measures and technologies for Step 3: Determine whether an Lung Association, Medical Advocates for Healthy sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 available control measure or technology Air, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the precursors in the nonattainment area(s), Sierra Club (June 25, 2007). A copy of the petition is economically feasible. The EPA has a is in the docket for this action. The EPA’s decision it must evaluate these controls to longstanding interpretation of the term to grant the petition for reconsideration on the issue determine if any of those controls would ‘‘economic feasibility’’ in the context of of the CAIR being presumptively equal to RACT for be technologically infeasible in the evaluating potential RACM and RACT EGUs was in part based on a D,C. Circuit decision particular nonattainment area. related to a similar issue. Specifically, the Court which involves considering the cost of decided that the provisions in the Phase 2 Ozone i. Stationary sources. With respect to reducing emissions and the difference Implementation Rule indicating that a state need the technological feasibility of control between the cost of an emissions not perform (or submit) a NOX RACM/RACT technologies for stationary sources, the reduction measure at a particular source analysis for EGU sources subject to a cap-and-trade EPA has a longstanding approach to program that meets the requirements of the NOX SIP Call are inconsistent with the statutory evaluating facts relevant to this criterion 97 See the Federal Register published on April 16, requirements of section 172(c)(1). The Court 1992 (57 FR 13498, 13540 and 13541). concluded that the phrase ‘‘in the area’’ means that 95 Letter dated April 25, 2011, from former 98 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR reductions must occur from sources within the area Administrator Lisa Jackson to Paul Cort, 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42013. Guidance and ‘‘reductions from outside the nonattainment Earthjustice. A copy of this letter is located in the is provided in the context of Serious area BACM area do not satisfy the requirement.’’ See NRDC v. docket for this action. determination, but the EPA is proposing to apply EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 96 79 FR 32892 (June 9, 2013). it here for Moderate area RACM determinations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

and the cost of emissions reduction the source or sources in the 4. Expected costs incurred by measures that have been implemented nonattainment area that make such a competitors at other similar sources in the same or measure or technology economically 5. Company profits other areas.99 Absent other indications, infeasible in that particular area. 6. Employment costs the EPA presumes that it is reasonable The EPA believes that it is 7. Other costs (e.g., for RACM for similar sources to bear similar costs appropriate for states to give substantial implemented by public sector of emissions reductions. Economic weight to cost effectiveness in entities).102 feasibility of RACM and RACT is thus evaluating the economic feasibility of an The EPA seeks comment on the largely informed by evidence that other emission reduction measure or factors described above for states to sources in a source category have in fact technology. The cost effectiveness of a consider when determining whether a applied the control technology, process measure is its annualized cost ($/year) control technology or measure is change or measure in question in divided by the emissions reduced (tons/ economically feasible. similar circumstances. year) which yields a cost per amount of Step 4: Determine the earliest date by In the preamble to the 2007 PM2.5 emission reduction ($/ton). Cost which a control measure or technology Implementation Rule, the EPA provided effectiveness provides a relative value can be implemented in whole or in part. guidance on how to interpret the term for each emissions reduction option that CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that ‘‘economic feasibility’’ which deviated is comparable with other options and, in the attainment plan for a Moderate from the agency’s longstanding the case of control technologies, other PM2.5 nonattainment area provide for interpretation of the term. After facilities. the implementation of RACM and RACT promulgating the final rule, the EPA The EPA also seeks comment on an no later than 4 years after designation. received and granted a petition for alternative cost effectiveness metric that The agency has long interpreted the reconsideration on issues related to the would allow a state to take into account term ‘‘implement’’ to mean that a agency’s revised approach to the effect of controlling a particular control measure or technology has not interpreting the term ‘‘economically precursor on reducing PM2.5 only been submitted to the EPA for feasible.’’ 100 101 Consistent with the concentrations in the area. Such a cost approval as part of a SIP but has also EPA’s granting of that petition for effectiveness metric would be the been built, installed and/or otherwise reconsideration, the EPA is proposing in annualized cost ($/year) of a control physically manifested, and is achieving this action an interpretation of measure divided by the emissions the intended emissions reductions, and economic feasibility that is consistent reduced (tons/year) multiplied by the the EPA proposes to retain such a with the EPA’s longstanding amount of reductions needed in the definition in this rule. See proposed 40 interpretation of what factors are precursor emissions to yield 1 mg/m3 CFR 51.1000. However, the EPA 3 appropriate for consideration of reduction in PM2.5 ($/(mg/m )). Such a recognizes that a state may be able to economic feasibility in a RACM and metric would allow a state to compare implement a given control measure only RACT analysis, instead of that adopted the relative cost effectiveness associated partially within 4 years after in the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. with each measure toward the designation. The EPA addressed this Specifically, the EPA proposes that attainment goal for the nonattainment situation in the General Preamble, for each technologically feasible control area. The EPA notes the difficulty in stating: ‘‘It is important to note that a measure or technology, a state must determining the appropriate value to State should consider the feasibility of evaluate the economic feasibility of the relate precursor reductions to implementing measures in part when measure or control, through reductions in ambient PM2.5 full implementation would be consideration of the capital costs, concentrations, and therefore seeks infeasible.’’ 103 This guidance endorses operating and maintenance costs, and comment on the appropriateness of this the notion that a state should not reject cost effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of approach and how a state might an otherwise technologically and pollutant reduced by that measure or demonstrate the validity of the input economically feasible control measure technology) associated with such values it chooses to use. or technology as RACM or RACT even measure or control. Furthermore, the In considering what level of control is if it can be only partially implemented EPA proposes that a state may not reject reasonable, the EPA is not proposing a within the statutory 4-year timeframe a technologically feasible control fixed dollar per ton cost threshold for following designation of the area. measure or technology as being economic feasibility of controls Instead, the EPA interprets the statute to economically infeasible if such a identified as potential RACM and require states to adopt as RACM and measure or technology has been RACT. In addition, if a state contends RACT that portion of a control measure implemented at other similar sources that a source-specific control-level or technology that can feasibly be (i.e., at sources that would be included should not be established because the implemented within 4 years of the in the same source category in the source(s) cannot afford the control effective date of designation. For emissions inventory data collection measure or technology that is instance, if paving unpaved roads is a process), unless the state provides an demonstrated to be economically control measure that is technologically adequate justification that clearly feasible for other sources in its source and economically feasible in a explains the specific circumstances of category, the EPA proposes that the state nonattainment area but a state cannot must support the claim with pave all roads within 4 years of 99 See the Federal Register published on April 16, information regarding the impact of designation, the state must adopt as 1992 (57 FR 13498, 13540 and 13541). imposing the identified control measure RACM a measure that requires paving of 100 ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration,’’ filed by Paul that portion of roads that the state could Cort, Earthjustice, on behalf of the American Lung or technology on the following financial Association, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, indicators, to the extent applicable: feasibly accomplish within 4 years if Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra 1. Fixed and variable production costs Club (June 25, 2007). A copy of the petition is in ($/unit) 102 These long-standing factors were established the docket for this action. 2. Product supply and demand in EPA guidance in 1992 and are applicable to 101 Letter dated April 25, 2011, from former implementation programs for all NAAQS Administrator Lisa Jackson to Paul Cort, elasticity pollutants. See the appendices to the General Earthjustice. A copy of this letter is located in the 3. Product prices (cost absorption vs. Preamble, 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). docket for this action. cost pass-through) 103 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13541.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15375

such a measure is needed for timely if the application of reasonable control that are necessary to ensure that the area attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the measures on such sources would will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously area. facilitate attainment of the PM2.5 as practicable. The EPA will consider The EPA thus proposes that a state NAAQS in the nonattainment area. See any such measures that can be must identify those technologically and proposed 40 CFR 51.1009(b). implemented within 4 years of economically feasible control measures Step 5: Model to determine the designation of the area to fulfill the and technologies that it can implement attainment date that is as expeditious as RACM and RACT requirements for the fully or partially within 4 years of practicable and select the control area. In addition, the EPA will consider designation of its Moderate PM2.5 measures necessary to achieve any such measures that can only be nonattainment area. Depending on the attainment and meet statutory implemented between 4 years and the severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment requirements for control measures. sixth calendar year after designation to problem in the area, some or all of these Section 189(a)(1) of the CAA establishes meet the requirements of section measures identified as implementable a requirement that the attainment plan 172(c)(6) as ‘‘additional reasonable within 4 years may be needed in order for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area measures’’ for the area and necessary to to bring the area into attainment as must demonstrate either that an area can demonstrate timely attainment under expeditiously as practicable. These attain the relevant NAAQS by the section 189(a)(1)(B). measures will satisfy the EPA’s criteria applicable attainment date or that it is Under this approach, the state may for RACM and RACT if the state impracticable for the area to do so. As reject any otherwise technologically or determines, through its attainment noted previously, for Moderate PM2.5 economically feasible measures that are demonstration that it needs to nonattainment areas, the ‘‘applicable not needed to demonstrate attainment or implement them to achieve timely attainment date’’ is as expeditious as that will not advance the attainment attainment for the area. practicable, but no later than the end of date by at least 1 year. That is, for a In addition, the EPA proposes that a the sixth calendar year after designation Moderate area that can demonstrate state must separately identify those as nonattainment. A complete attainment by the statutory Moderate technologically and economically discussion of the EPA’s proposed area attainment date, the EPA proposes feasible control measures that can only requirements for attainment to define as ‘‘reasonable’’ only those be implemented after the statutory demonstration modeling is presented in technologically and economically window for implementing RACM and Section IV.E of this preamble. However, feasible measures that are necessary for RACT. The statutory 4-year timing one of the key features of attainment expeditious attainment of the NAAQS, requirement for implementing RACM demonstration modeling is that it as the CAA does not require a state to and RACT under section 189(a)(1)(C) provides a means of synthesizing the adopt measures that are not needed for limits the control measures and effects of emissions reductions from all expeditious attainment in a Moderate technologies that can qualify as RACM existing and potential new control PM2.5 nonattainment area. Thus, a state and RACT for a Moderate PM2.5 measures identified for sources in a may exclude those otherwise reasonably nonattainment area. However, the given nonattainment area on overall air available measures that, if adopted and statutory requirement of CAA 172(c)(6) quality in that area. States will be considered collectively, would not also requires states to implement ‘‘other required to use the results of their advance the attainment date for the area measures’’ necessary to provide for attainment demonstration modeling to by at least 1 year, so long as the state timely attainment in an area. The EPA identify the appropriate combination of can demonstrate attainment as proposes that among such other reasonable control measures for sources expeditiously as practicable and no later measures should be ‘‘additional in their Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment than the statutory Moderate area reasonable measures,’’ which would be area and any other control measures attainment date. See proposed 40 CFR those measures and technologies that needed on sources outside the 51.1009(a)(4)(i). are otherwise technologically and nonattainment area to ensure The EPA recognizes that identifying economically feasible but can only be expeditious attainment of the relevant which measures could not collectively implemented in whole or in part later NAAQS in the area and to meet the advance the attainment date for a than 4 years after designation and statutory requirements of sections Moderate area by at least 1 year may be initiated no later than the beginning of 189(a)(1)(B) and 172(c)(6) as explained an iterative process that requires the sixth calendar year following below.105 additional analysis and/or modeling. designation of the area.104 Such Step 5a: If the state can demonstrate The agency believes that such effort is additional reasonable measures would attainment in the area by the statutory reasonable for a state seeking to necessarily be implemented on sources attainment date for a Moderate area, demonstrate the lack of need for certain in the nonattainment area. However, the then the state must implement those controls that are determined to be EPA interprets the ‘‘other measures’’ control measures needed for expeditious technologically and economically required under section 172(c)(6) to attainment of the NAAQS in the area. If feasible in light of the requirement for apply to stationary, area and mobile a state determines that a Moderate expeditious attainment in a given Moderate nonattainment area. The basis sources located outside of the nonattainment area can attain the PM2.5 nonattainment area but within the state NAAQS by the statutory attainment for deciding that it would be reasonable date, the state must adopt and not to require imposition of otherwise 104 With respect to ‘‘partial measures’’ under this implement any technologically and available and appropriate controls proposed approach, the EPA would require that a economically feasible control measures because they would not be needed for state implement as RACM that portion of any attainment, or would not advance control measure determined to be technologically and economically feasible and implementable 105 Note that under section 110(l) of the CAA, attainment, requires a suitably robust within 4 years after designation of a nonattainment after a state has adopted a control measure into the analysis and explanation. area. The state would then be required to SIP for an attainment demonstration, it may remove Step 5b: If the state cannot implement as an additional reasonable measure that or modify a measure if the state demonstrates to the demonstrate attainment by the statutory portion of the same control measure that can be satisfaction of the EPA that such removal or implemented starting 4 years from designation modification will not interfere with any applicable attainment date for a Moderate area, through the sixth calendar year following requirement of the CAA, such as attainment of the then the state must adopt all reasonable designation. PM2.5 NAAQS or meeting RFP requirements. control measures. As noted elsewhere in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

this section, section 189(a)(1)(B) of the technologically and economically attainment plan and meet the RACM CAA requires a state to submit as part feasible control measures identified for and RACT requirement, even if the state of the attainment plan either a sources in the area. submits a demonstration that it cannot demonstration that the plan will Consistent with the EPA’s long- attain the NAAQS through those provide for attainment of the relevant standing interpretation that subpart 4 measures by the applicable attainment NAAQS by the applicable attainment Moderate area control requirements date. In addition, as with a Moderate date, or a demonstration that attainment must be reasonable, the EPA proposes PM2.5 nonattainment area which a state by such date is ‘‘impracticable.’’ This that, for a Moderate PM2.5 demonstrates can attain the NAAQS by subpart 4 requirement anticipates that nonattainment area that cannot the end of the sixth calendar year not all nonattainment areas initially practicably attain the NAAQS by the following designation, the EPA classified as Moderate will necessarily statutory attainment date, a state must interprets the provisions of section be able to attain by the latest statutory adopt and implement all technologically 172(c)(6) to require that such an area attainment date for Moderate areas, and and economically feasible measures must implement all additional it incorporates the concept of an identified for sources in the area, except reasonable measures that it can ‘‘impracticability demonstration’’ for for any such measures that collectively implement through the sixth calendar such areas.106 The CAA is thus will not effectively reduce ambient year following designation of the area, structured to provide that Moderate PM2.5 concentrations. See proposed 40 in addition to those measures meeting areas that cannot timely attain the CFR 51.1009(a)(4)(ii). The EPA views the definition of RACM and RACT, in NAAQS through the required elements this approach as similar to the agency’s order to make progress toward of a Moderate area attainment plan will approach of allowing states to reject any attainment after the end of the fourth be reclassified to Serious and will have otherwise technologically or year following designation. economically feasible measures that are to meet additional control requirements As described in Section III of this not needed to demonstrate attainment beyond those that are ‘‘reasonable’’ to preamble, the EPA is proposing three and that will not advance the attainment assure attainment of the NAAQS by a options for implementing CAA date by at least 1 year for nonattainment later date that is as expeditious as requirements applicable to PM areas for which states can demonstrate 2.5 practicable. precursors in the context of attainment Existing guidance in the General attainment by the statutory attainment planning and NNSR permitting. Preamble on implementing this section date. Once again, the EPA recognizes Proposed precursor Options 2A and 2B of the CAA states that ‘‘the EPA believes that identifying which measures it is reasonable for all available control collectively will not effectively reduce would provide an opportunity for a state to demonstrate that emissions of a measures that are technologically and ambient PM2.5 concentrations will likely economically feasible to be adopted for be an iterative process that requires particular precursor from all sources areas that do not demonstrate specific analysis, potentially including located in a Moderate PM2.5 attainment [by the applicable attainment modeling. However, the agency believes nonattainment area do not contribute date].’’ 107 The EPA maintains that it is that such effort is appropriate for a state significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that reasonable to require a state to model seeking to demonstrate the lack of need exceed the standard in the area, or the effects of emissions reductions from for certain controls that are determined reductions of which will not be effective all technologically and economically to be technologically and economically in reducing ambient PM2.5 feasible controls identified by the state feasible in a Moderate nonattainment concentrations, in which case the state for sources in a nonattainment area area that cannot practicably attain the would not be required to identify or otherwise evaluate control measures for before asserting a claim that the area relevant PM2.5 NAAQS by the latest cannot practicably attain the relevant statutory Moderate area attainment date. the particular precursor. Under NAAQS by the Moderate area The basis for establishing that it would proposed precursor Options 1 and 3, on attainment date. However, the not be reasonable to require imposition the other hand, states would rely on their control strategy analyses (e.g., for magnitude of certain PM2.5 precursor of otherwise available and appropriate emissions and/or local atmospheric controls because they would not be Moderate nonattainment areas, analyses to determine RACM and RACT and conditions of some PM2.5 nonattainment effective in reducing ambient PM2.5 areas may render certain technologically concentrations requires an adequately additional reasonable measures) to and economically feasible control robust analysis and explanation. identify whether and/or which controls measures ineffective in reducing The EPA also proposes an alternative on sources of PM2.5 precursors are ‘‘reasonable.’’ The EPA believes that if ambient PM2.5 levels. Therefore, even in approach to identifying all reasonable proposed precursor Option 1 or 3 is a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area control measures for a Moderate that cannot practicably attain the nonattainment area that cannot finalized, it would be most appropriate relevant NAAQS by the statutory practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by to finalize the first approach to attainment date, the EPA believes that it the end of the sixth calendar year identifying reasonable control measures may not be reasonable in all cases to following designation. Under this for Moderate areas that cannot require that a state implement all alternative, states would be required to practicably attain the NAAQS by the implement all technologically and statutory attainment date, since states 106 The concept of an ‘‘impracticability economically feasible control measures would not have an opportunity prior to demonstration’’ is established in section 188(b), that they have identified for sources of evaluating the specific control measures which addresses reclassifying Moderate PM2.5 areas direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of for sources of PM2.5 precursors in the to Serious. Section 188(b)(1) describes the EPA’s emissions of significant PM nonattainment area to demonstrate that discretionary authority to reclassify an area upon a 2.5 determination that an area cannot practicably attain precursors in the area. The EPA believes controlling all sources of a particular by the Moderate area attainment date. More relevant that this interpretation would be precursor would not be effective in to this determination, however, section 189(a)(1)(B) consistent with the agency’s previous reducing ambient PM2.5 levels in the specifically provides for submission of a guidance in the General Preamble and is area. Likewise, if the agency finalizes demonstration addressing this concept in the case of Moderate areas that cannot attain the NAAQS by compelled by the language of section proposed precursor Options 2A or 2B, the applicable attainment date. 189(a)(1)(C), which separately requires a the EPA believes that it would be most 107 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13544. state to submit a Moderate area appropriate to finalize the alternative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15377

proposed approach of requiring a state BACM for these sources will be additive • For each potential control measure to implement all technologically and to, and hence compatible with, RACM. considered by the state but eliminated economically feasible measures This is because BACM will generally from further consideration due to a identified by the state for sources in the consist of a more extensive determination by the state that the area that can be implemented by the end implementation of the RACM measures control measure or technology was not of the sixth calendar year following . . . Since EPA anticipates that RACM technologically feasible, a narrative designation if the state demonstrates and BACM for these sources will be explanation and quantitative or that the area cannot practicably attain compatible, the SIP’s (sic) for these areas qualitative supporting documentation to the NAAQS by the statutory attainment should reflect the application of justify the state’s conclusion; date, since the ‘‘measures identified by available control measures to existing • For each technologically feasible the state’’ would already implicitly sources in moderate nonattainment emission control measure or technology, exclude control measures on sources of areas as determined by the analysis the state must provide the following any ‘‘insignificant’’ precursor. The EPA described . . . for RACM.’’ 109 The EPA information relevant to economic seeks comment on the two proposed believes that a state should consider feasibility: (1) The control efficiency by approaches to selecting RACM and selecting and implementing controls pollutant; (2) the possible emissions RACT and additional reasonable that may qualify as BACM or BACT in reductions by pollutant; (3) the measures for Moderate nonattainment a Moderate nonattainment area as part estimated cost per ton of pollutant areas that cannot practicably attain the of their RACM and RACT analysis if reduced; and, (4) a determination of NAAQS by the statutory attainment they have reason to suspect that the area whether the measure is economically date, and on the EPA’s evaluation of the may not be able to attain the NAAQS by feasible, with narrative explanation and compatibility of these proposed the applicable Moderate area attainment quantitative supporting documentation approaches with the agency’s proposed date as long as the control can be to justify the state’s conclusion. precursor options. implemented by the statutory Moderate • For each technologically and The EPA’s proposed analytical area attainment date. Early adoption of economically feasible emission control process for determining RACM and controls that would constitute BACM or measure or technology, the date by RACT is intended to result in a BACT could be more efficient and could which the technology or measure could comprehensive list of such further the objectives of attaining the reasonably be implemented. technologically and economically NAAQS expeditiously to protect public Each of these elements will provide feasible controls that would include health and the environment. information needed by the EPA to local and state measures that could 3. RACM and RACT and Additional evaluate correctly and efficiently achieve emissions reductions from whether the state is meeting the sources within the area, beyond those Reasonable Measures Submission Requirements statutory requirements for an attainment that could or would be achieved plan, and in particular meeting the through regional or national measures. To ensure that attainment plan statutory requirement for states to Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to submissions contain the necessary implement RACM and RACT on sources require that the Moderate area supporting information to enable the within the nonattainment area. The EPA attainment plan must include modeling EPA to review and approve a state’s recognizes that the base year emissions of all RACM and RACT and additional evaluation and selection of measures inventory for the area that the state reasonable measures, and other state, that constitute RACM and RACT in a submits in conjunction with its regional and federal measures, to given nonattainment area, the EPA attainment plan will likely contain some demonstrate that a state will not be able proposes to require under the authority of the information proposed to be to attain the NAAQS by the end of the of section 301(a) that a state must required under the first two items in sixth calendar year after designation due submit the following information as part this list. However, the EPA believes that to the severity of nonattainment in the of its submission: it is incumbent on the state to ensure • area and/or due to the lack of A list of all source categories, that the information needed for the EPA availability or feasibility of sources and activities in the to evaluate the state’s RACM and RACT implementing controls in the area by nonattainment area that emit direct analysis is presented more specifically such date. PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor (for multi- as part of the RACM and RACT analysis Subpart 4 requires that Moderate state nonattainment areas, this would and in a format that provides areas that cannot or do not meet the include source categories, sources and transparency, consistency and the Moderate area attainment date be activities from all states which make up ability for another party to evaluate the reclassified as Serious nonattainment the area); state’s analysis effectively. For this areas, in which case sources in the areas • For each source category, source or reason, the EPA is including emissions are then subject to BACM and BACT activity in the nonattainment area, an inventory information specifically requirements. In the General Preamble, inventory of direct PM2.5 emissions and the EPA indicated that ‘‘it may be relevant to the RACM and RACT emissions of all PM2.5 precursors; element of the state’s attainment plan. reasonable, in some limited • For each non-de minimis source circumstances, for States to consider the category, source or activity in the 4. Criteria for Effective Regulations To compatibility of RACM and RACT with nonattainment area, a comprehensive Implement RACM and RACT and the BACM and BACT that will list of potential control measures Additional Reasonable Measures ultimately be implemented under the considered by the state for the After a state has identified a particular Serious area plans for those areas.’’ 108 110 111 nonattainment area; control measure as RACM or RACT or Furthermore, for such areas that do not additional reasonable measure for a meet the Moderate area attainment date, 109 Ibid. particular nonattainment area, it must the EPA indicated that ‘‘in the case of 110 If the EPA finalizes proposed precursor Option RACM for area sources, EPA anticipates 2A or 2B, which would effectively allow a state to PM and precursors not exempted from further that any future implementation of demonstrate that a given precursor does not 2.5 contribute significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in analysis. a nonattainment area, then this step would require 111 Menu of Control Measures document available 108 Ibid. at 13544. potential control measures only for sources of direct at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

then implement that measure through a also means that the attainment plan with respect to any control measures legally enforceable mechanism that will must establish requirements to track they have identified as potential RACM be included in the SIP (e.g., a state rule emissions changes at sources and or RACT or additional reasonable that the EPA will approve as a part of provide for corrective action if measures in an area, particularly to the the federally enforceable SIP for the emissions reductions are not achieved extent that control measures that a state state). The EPA is proposing that in according to the plan. may be considering are otherwise order for the EPA to be able to approve The EPA seeks comment on these approximately equal (in terms of any such measure as part of the SIP, the criteria for approval of any control technological and economic feasibility) measures adopted by a state for a state would have to provide information but unequal with respect to their direct to meet the following four criteria. Moderate area to assure that such or indirect impacts on overburdened These criteria are similar to the criteria measures are legally enforceable. populations.112 In such cases, the EPA finalized as part of the remanded 2007 5. Determination of RACM and RACT encourages the state to prioritize PM2.5 Implementation Rule. and Additional Reasonable Measures in First, the base year emissions from the imposition of the control measures that Multi-State Nonattainment Areas source or group of sources to which the will result in the least possible burden control measure applies and the future States in multi-state nonattainment and greatest degree of health protection year projected emissions from those areas will need to consult with each for overburdened populations in the sources once controlled must be other on appropriate control measures nonattainment area. Section IX of this quantifiable so that the projected for the shared nonattainment area. The preamble discusses this and other emissions reductions from the sources agency anticipates that states could possible approaches for states to can be attributed to the specific decide upon RACM and RACT and incorporate ways to address measures being implemented. It is additional reasonable measures that environmental justice concerns important that the emissions from the differ from state to state in a shared associated with implementation of the nonattainment area, based upon each source category in question are PM2.5 NAAQS in their attainment plans accurately represented in the base year state’s determination of the most and SIP development process, and the effective strategies given the relevant inventory so that emissions reductions EPA seeks comment on ways to more mixture of sources and potential are properly calculated. In particular, it fully address such concerns. is especially important to ensure that controls in the respective states’ both the filterable and condensable portions of a shared nonattainment area. E. Modeling for Attainment components of direct PM2.5 emissions As long as each state can adequately Demonstrations are accurately represented in the base demonstrate that its chosen attainment year. strategy, including its selection and 1. Statutory Requirements adoption of RACM and RACT and Second, the control measures must be Section 189(a) generally requires a additional reasonable measures, will enforceable. This means that they must state with a designated Moderate specify clear, unambiguous and provide for meeting RFP requirements nonattainment area to submit an measurable requirements. The and for attainment of the NAAQS as attainment plan for such area. As measurable requirements for larger expeditiously as practicable for the emitting facilities must include periodic nonattainment area at issue, the EPA discussed earlier, section 189(a)(1)(B) source testing, monitoring or other anticipates being able to approve more specifically requires the state to viable means to establish whether the individual state plans that may elect to submit an attainment demonstration affected source meets the applicable control a different mix of sources or to including air quality modeling to emission limit. Additionally, to verify implement different controls, under the establish either: (i) That the area will the continued performance of the proper circumstances. Nevertheless, in attain the relevant NAAQS by the control measure, specific emissions evaluating RACM and RACT and applicable attainment date; or, (ii) that monitoring programs appropriate for the additional reasonable measures for a it is impracticable for the area to attain type of control measure employed and particular nonattainment area, states the relevant NAAQS by the applicable the level of emissions must be included must consider potential reasonable attainment date. For Moderate to verify the continued performance of control measures developed for other nonattainment areas, the attainment the control measure. The control areas or other states, and particularly for date is as expeditiously as practicable, measures and monitoring program must other portions of an interstate but no later than the end of the sixth also have been adopted according to nonattainment area. In addition, states calendar year after designation as proper legal procedures. in multi-state nonattainment areas must nonattainment. Section 189(a)(2)(B) of Third, the results of application of the evaluate whether the reasonable the CAA requires states with designated control measures must be replicable. measures each state may have identified nonattainment areas to submit This means that where a rule contains as not being necessary for attainment attainment plans no later than 18 procedures for interpreting, changing or could collectively advance the months after designation. determining compliance with the rule, attainment date for the area by at least the procedures are sufficiently specific 1 year. The EPA may consider such 112 The term ‘‘overburdened populations’’ is and objective so that two independent measures in assessing the approvability defined in the EPA’s ‘‘Plan EJ 2014’’ to describe the entities applying the procedures would of each state’s individual attainment minority, low-income, tribal, and indigenous obtain the same result. plan for a multistate nonattainment populations or communities in the U.S. that Fourth, the control measures must be area. potentially experience disproportionate accountable. This means, for example, environmental harms and risks as a result of greater 6. Environmental Justice Considerations vulnerability to environmental hazards. This that source-specific emission limits increased vulnerability may be attributable to an must be permanent and must reflect the in Developing the Attainment Plan accumulation of both negative and lack of positive assumptions used in the attainment Control Strategy for a Moderate PM2.5 environmental, health, economic or social Nonattainment Area conditions within these populations or plan for the area, including the communities. For more information on Plan EJ modeling conducted in conjunction The EPA strongly urges states to 2014, see: http://www.epa.gov/ with the attainment demonstration. It consider environmental justice concerns environmentaljustice/plan-ej/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15379

2. What is an attainment demonstration? define the term ‘‘impracticable’’ in this expressly required for a Moderate area context, so it is necessary for the EPA demonstration showing that attainment Section 189(a)(2)(B) does not define to interpret this term in the context of by the attainment date is impracticable the term ‘‘demonstration’’ and does not a submission from the state for this (per section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii)), the EPA specify precisely how a state should purpose. In order to support this type of proposes to interpret the CAA to require make the required demonstration. Thus, demonstration, the EPA proposes to air quality modeling similar to that the EPA believes it is necessary to require that the state must show that, required for an attainment provide more specific parameters for even if all technologically and demonstration in order to demonstrate such demonstrations in order to assure economically feasible controls that can that attainment of the relevant PM2.5 that they contain the requisite be implemented within 6 years were NAAQS by the statutory attainment date information to allow for meaningful implemented, the state could not attain is impracticable. Because air quality evaluation of the issues that the the NAAQS within the statutory modeling is a required element of the demonstrations are intended to address. timeframe for a Moderate area. A state attainment demonstration in section An attainment demonstration is a set of could do this by performing a modeling 189(a)(1)(B), the EPA believes that it analyses that provide an explanation of analysis which projects emissions to the logically follows that similar modeling how a state will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS sixth year after designations in order to should also be required to show that an by the applicable attainment date in a predict future year PM2.5 design values area will not be able to attain by the particular nonattainment area.113 The in the area. The projected emissions attainment date contemplated by the EPA is proposing that the demonstration would account for all existing federal statute. must contain: (i) Technical analyses and state SIP-adopted regulations on There may be limited cases in which such as base year and future year sources outside the nonattainment area a state may be able to demonstrate modeling of emissions which identify that were in place at the time, plus all through a rigorous technical analysis sources and quantify emissions that are measures that were identified as with supporting documentation that contributing to violations of the PM2.5 technologically and economically attainment by the statutory Moderate NAAQS; and, (ii) analyses of future year feasible controls that can be area attainment date is impracticable. emissions reductions and air quality implemented in the nonattainment area Given that the statute may be improvement resulting from existing within 6 years of designation (i.e. all interpreted as not requiring air quality (i.e., already-adopted or ‘‘on the books’’) measures that would qualify as RACM modeling for an impracticability national, regional and local programs, or RACT or as additional reasonable demonstration, the EPA proposes and and potential new local measures measures), as well as any other seeks comment on an alternative option needed for attainment, including RACM reasonable measures available in the under which air quality modeling and RACT controls for the area. Each state that could aid in achieving timely would not be a requirement for a state with a Moderate nonattainment attainment. If the modeling shows that Moderate area impracticability area must submit an attainment plan attainment cannot be reached by the end demonstration. The EPA would with an attainment demonstration that of the sixth calendar year following recommend that a state submit includes analyses supporting the state’s designation, then the analysis could be modeling as part of any Moderate area determination of its proposed used to demonstrate that it is impracticability demonstration, but attainment date. In all cases, the state impracticable for the area to attain the under this alternative option such must show that the Moderate area will relevant NAAQS by the statutory modeling would not be a regulatory attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as attainment date. Other information can requirement. practicable, but not later than the end of also be used to support the Given that secondarily formed PM2.5 the sixth calendar year after designation. demonstration, including ambient data (e.g. ammonium sulfate, ammonium In order to establish that the attainment and emissions trends data. States are nitrate and SOA) is a large fraction of date is as expeditious as practicable, the encouraged to work with their the total measured PM2.5 in most PM2.5 state must explain why any control respective EPA Regional Office to nonattainment areas, the EPA assumes measures adopted in the attainment identify appropriate information that that photochemical grid modeling plan provide for the most expeditious could be used to support an (which considers secondary PM2.5 attainment and, specifically, must impracticability demonstration. The formation) will be needed for a state to demonstrate that collectively the EPA emphasizes that states that can demonstrate attainment with the reasonable measures that were not make the required showing that a NAAQS. Most previous PM2.5 adopted as RACM or RACT or Moderate nonattainment area cannot attainment demonstrations for both the additional reasonable measures will not attain the NAAQS by the statutory 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS have advance the attainment date by at least attainment date are nonetheless utilized photochemical grid models. 1 year if implemented. See proposed 40 required to meet the substantive However, in some nonattainment areas CFR 51.1011(a). requirements for a Moderate area that are dominated by primary PM2.5 emissions (e.g. residential wood smoke), A state may alternatively submit a attainment plan, including the more simplistic dispersion models, such demonstration that shows that implementation of control measures that as a combination of dispersion, receptor attainment by the statutory attainment are RACM and RACT and additional and box airshed models, may suffice to date for a Moderate area is reasonable measures in that area. demonstrate that the area will attain the impracticable.114 The statute does not 3. What modeling is required? NAAQS. Regardless of the modeling approach selected to support the 113 An area is designated nonattainment for either States are required to submit air the annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 24-hr PM2.5 quality modeling in support of an attainment demonstration, the analyses NAAQS or both. The attainment demonstration attainment demonstration for a must be based on technically credible should show that the area is attaining the form of Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. methods and provide for the timely the NAAQS for which they have been designated submittal of the attainment nonattainment. Although air quality modeling is not 114 Pursuant to section 188(b)(1)(B), upon an EPA demonstration and implementation of determination that attainment by the Moderate date as Serious within 18 months after the Moderate area control measures. States should consult is impracticable, the EPA shall reclassify the area attainment plan due date. with their respective EPA Regional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Office to determine the appropriate type While the analyses in these rulemaking in order to ensure that adequate time is of modeling demonstration for the actions may not be precisely relevant for devoted to developing a technically particular nonattainment area. the purposes of a PM2.5 attainment plan, credible attainment demonstration. they may nevertheless provide useful States that have the most challenging 4. Do states need to develop new information or input relevant to states PM problems will likely need to modeling for their attainment 2.5 developing attainment plans for the develop new and/or updated demonstrations? PM2.5 NAAQS. Similar nationwide photochemical modeling analyses for The EPA believes that the statutory modeling efforts may be helpful for their nonattainment areas, with provision requiring attainment purposes of future PM2.5 NAAQS. emissions (including potential new demonstrations for Moderate PM2.5 States may be able to use regional controls) projected to the appropriate nonattainment areas to include air and/or EPA modeling to demonstrate future attainment year. that specific nonattainment areas will quality modeling can be fulfilled in a 5. What guidance is available for using attain the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS by the variety of ways. Thus the EPA proposes models to demonstrate attainment? to allow states to fulfill the statutory applicable attainment date, but states modeling requirement through either must evaluate the relevant modeling The procedures for modeling PM2.5 as locally generated photochemical and/or information to show that it is suitable part of an attainment demonstration are dispersion modeling or, with proper for that purpose. For example, the described in the EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on justification, through appropriate modeling should be evaluated to show the Use of Models and Other Analyses regional or national modeling. The EPA that it is performing adequately for the for Demonstrating Attainment of Air seeks comment on what types of area; that the future modeling year is Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and modeling demonstrations should be appropriate for the particular attainment Regional Haze.’’ 116 All modeling in required to fulfill the CAA requirement demonstration; and that the base year support of an attainment demonstration to ‘‘include air quality modeling’’ as emissions and projected emissions and should be consistent with the EPA’s controls adequately represent the base part of the attainment demonstrations PM2.5 photochemical modeling for Moderate nonattainment areas. year conditions and emissions expected guidance (referenced above) as well as to occur in the area in the future. States New modeling analyses that follow the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 should work closely with the CFR part 51, Appendix W). the EPA modeling guidance, conducted appropriate EPA Regional Office to by the state for implementing the PM The PM2.5 attainment demonstration 2.5 determine what (if any) existing modeling guidance describes how states NAAQS, will presumably satisfy the modeling may be suitable for use in an attainment demonstration modeling can apply air quality models to generate attainment demonstration (or an results needed to demonstrate requirement. However, many areas that impracticability demonstration) for a were designated as nonattainment for attainment. These recommendations Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. the 1997 and/or 2006 PM NAAQS include developing a conceptual 2.5 The EPA requests comment on how description of the problem to be have already invested considerable states can use existing regional and/or resources in local and/or regional PM addressed; developing a modeling/ 2.5 national modeling to meet their analysis protocol; selecting an modeling analyses. Most states with attainment demonstration requirements. potential PM nonattainment areas are appropriate model to support the 2.5 The agency also notes that even when demonstration; selecting appropriate already participating in regional regional or EPA modeling is available to modeling analyses through multi- meteorological episodes or time periods show that an area is expected to attain to model; choosing an appropriate area jurisdictional organizations (MJOs). the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable These MJOs (e.g. SESARM, LADCO and to model with appropriate horizontal/ attainment date, other CAA vertical resolution; generating WRAP) represent most states with PM2.5 requirements may be difficult to satisfy nonattainment areas in the country. meteorological and air quality inputs to through the use of regional or EPA the air quality model; generating There is ongoing PM2.5 modeling that modeling. For example, states may or may provide useful information for state emissions inputs to the air quality may not be able to satisfy their CAA model; and, evaluating performance of PM2.5 NAAQS attainment requirements for emissions inventory demonstrations. the air quality model. After these steps submittals or RFP demonstrations by are completed, the state can apply a In addition to local and regional using data derived from MJO or EPA model to simulate effects of future year modeling, the EPA conducts nationwide modeling. The available regional/ emissions and candidate control modeling (generally limited to the national modeling may not include an strategies. contiguous 48 states) in support of appropriate base year or future year, and The EPA is not requiring a specific various national rulemakings. The base the level of detail or how the emissions model for use in the attainment and future modeling year for national were derived may not be appropriate or demonstration for the PM2.5 NAAQS. At rule modeling varies depending on compatible with inventories needed to present, there is no single model which compliance dates for the rule being satisfy specific CAA requirements. has been extensively tested and shown analyzed and on when the modeling States may have to derive more local to be clearly superior to other available was conducted. For example, there are specific inventory data, for the models. The current modeling several analyses of recent and ongoing appropriate years, to adequately satisfy guideline, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, rules which may provide useful PM2.5 these CAA requirements. does not identify a preferred model for Because it will be challenging for modeling information for state use in attainment demonstrations of the states to prepare new modeling analyses attainment demonstrations. Among PM NAAQS. Thus, states may choose to meet the submission deadline for the 2.5 them are modeling to support the 2012 from several alternatives so long as the PM2.5 NAAQS review, the final Tier 3 Moderate area attainment plans, the EPA encourages states to start work on mobile source emissions standards, and 116 115 The 2007 modeling guidance can be found at the current ozone NAAQS review. modeling analyses as soon as possible, the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh- 115 Even though the ozone NAAQS modeling will likely be generated from the analysis in order to guidance.pdf. As noted, the EPA recently released be focused on ozone, PM2.5 modeling results will inform health benefits calculations. revised draft modeling guidance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15381

alternative is appropriate for the future year predicted component The application of air quality models nonattainment area under evaluation. concentrations. requires a substantial effort by state and In some cases, a state may need to The attainment demonstration local agencies. Therefore, states should apply multiple models in the attainment modeling guidance contains additional work closely with their respective EPA demonstration. In most cases, a details regarding the treatment of PM2.5 Regional Office in executing each step photochemical grid model is needed to and speciation monitoring data. Because of the modeling process. Doing so will predict base and future year PM species data are not available at ensure that states know what EPA concentrations of secondary PM2.5. each PM2.5 FRM site, the EPA analyses they can rely on, if they wish, Photochemical grid models can also be recommends a methodology which to simplify this task, and it will increase used to predict concentrations of interpolates species data to each FRM the likelihood of the EPA’s approval of primary particulate and are useful in site in order to estimate the species a state’s demonstration submitted at the assessing steep concentration gradients concentrations in the area. This end of the modeling and overall arising from area sources. However, in information, combined with modeling attainment plan development process. areas with high concentrations of results, may be used to calculate future 6. Demonstrating Attainment at Near- primary PM2.5, or strongly stratified air air quality at each FRM monitoring site. Road Monitors at the surface, a Gaussian plume model The EPA has developed software to or puff model may also be needed to perform both the annual and 24-hour The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS final rule contains new requirements for operating more accurately represent steep PM2.5 attainment test (including concentration gradients (or lack of interpolating PM species data). The near-road monitors in the largest 119 mixing to the surface) in locations with software is called the Modeled metropolitan areas. The first monitors a large contribution from a single or Attainment Test Software (MATS) and were required to be in place as of January 1, 2015 (see Section II of this multiple primary PM2.5 point sources or is available for no cost at: http:// locations in near-road areas. The EPA’s www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_ preamble for more details). These attainment demonstration modeling mats.htm. The software is provided to monitors will not have the requisite 3 guidance provides details and make it relatively easy for states to years of monitoring data necessary to recommendations on using multiple apply the recommended modeled calculate a PM2.5 design value until models. attainment test. However, states are not 2018 at the earliest. Therefore, these Models are used to test whether required to use MATS and can develop data were not available to inform the control measures in an attainment plan their own post-processing software. first round of initial designations for the are likely to result in attainment of the The modeling guidance also describes 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and there will be relevant standard(s). The attainment the opportunity for states to supplement less than 3 years of data available when demonstration modeling guidance their modeling with a ‘‘weight of the initial attainment demonstrations for recommends a modeled attainment test evidence’’ demonstration. States may Moderate areas are due in October 2016. for the annual and 24-hour PM use other information and analyses, in As a result of this timing, the agency is 2.5 proposing that the initial set of NAAQS that uses a combination of addition to the modeled attainment test, Moderate area attainment ambient PM and PM species data to estimate whether future attainment of 2.5 2.5 demonstrations will not need to include and modeled PM concentrations to the NAAQS in an area is likely. Other 2.5 projected design values for near-road estimate future year air quality. In the analyses may include, but are not monitor locations. However, subsequent recommended attainment test, the state limited to, emissions trends, ambient attainment demonstrations for the PM2.5 applies the test at each PM2.5 ambient data trends and analyses, other monitor location within or near a modeling analyses, and documentation NAAQS (after 2018, when 3 or more designated nonattainment area. Models of other non-modeled emissions control years of complete ambient data are are used in a relative sense to estimate strategies, including voluntary available at near-road monitors) will the response of measured air quality to programs. need to address those monitor locations future changes in emissions. Future air The reliability of tests for estimating in attainment plans and will need to quality is estimated by multiplying future attainment depends upon having include a demonstration that those monitor locations will show attainment recent monitored PM values by the reliable databases for inputs to those 2.5 of the NAAQS by the applicable modeled relative response (percent tests. The modeling guidance identifies statutory attainment date. The revised change) to projected future changes in and prioritizes key data-gathering modeling guidance document for the emissions. If the future design value at activities and analytical capabilities that PM all monitoring locations in the will increase credibility of analyses 2.5 NAAQS includes procedures for nonattainment area does not exceed the used to estimate if the NAAQS will be applying a dispersion model or a combination of photochemical grid concentration of PM specified in the attained in the area by the statutory 2.5 models and dispersion modeling to NAAQS, the area is projected to attain attainment date. demonstrate attainment at near-road the NAAQS. The EPA is considering updates to the monitor locations. Because PM2.5 is a mixture of modeling guidance to address PM2.5 chemical components, states should use modeling for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 7. Demonstrating Attainment in recent observations and modeled The agency released a revised draft Unmonitored Areas responses of major components of PM2.5 modeling guidance for developing As explained in the 2012 PM demonstrations to meet PM 2.5 (i.e. sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, etc.) 2.5, ozone, NAAQS final rule and summarized in to estimate future concentrations of each and regional haze air quality goals in Section II of this preamble, the EPA’s component.117 The predicted future December 2014, and intends to revise concentration of PM2.5 is the sum of the the guidance after considering public Assessment Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 118 comments received. Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air 117 The exact years of the ‘‘recent’’ ambient data Division Directors, Regions I–X, December 3, 2014. are defined by the base year selected for the 118 See ‘‘Draft Modeling Guidance for Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ modeling. The guidance recommends using 5 years Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_ of ambient data, centered about the base modeling Ozone, PM2s, and Regional Haze,’’ issued by Guidance-2014.pdf. year. Richard Wayland, Director of Air Quality 119 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013), at page 3283.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

monitoring requirements for PM2.5 are sufficiently clear. The EPA is therefore regarding potential violations of the designed to ensure a robust nationwide proposing several alternative options in NAAQS at unmonitored locations monitoring network in both order to clarify the appropriate throughout a given area. Therefore, nonattainment and attainment areas. Air treatment of model results in consistent with how PM2.5 areas are agencies have achieved this by unmonitored areas for purposes of designated and redesignated, the EPA is maintaining their PM2.5 networks in implementing current and future PM2.5 first proposing to require that states only accordance with EPA’s network design NAAQS. show attainment at PM2.5 FRM and FEM criteria. Historically, these criteria The EPA is proposing four possible monitoring locations as an element of provided that CBSAs have at least one approaches to demonstrating attainment their attainment demonstrations for the PM2.5 monitoring site located in an in unmonitored areas. Option 1 would PM2.5 NAAQS. ‘‘area-wide’’ location of expected only require states to perform the In addition, the ‘‘relative’’ attainment maximum concentration (within the attainment test at locations that have test for PM2.5 uses FRM or FEM ambient CBSA).120 Thus, by assuring compliance current or recent FRM and/or FEM monitoring data, combined with future with the NAAQS at the location of the monitoring data. The EPA would not year modeled percentage changes in expected highest area-wide require states to analyze areas that have PM2.5 concentrations, to project future concentration in the CBSA, air quality is no monitoring data with which to year design values. Since the attainment protected throughout each CBSA. anchor the attainment demonstration test relies on ambient monitoring data, However, due to limited resources, there modeling results. The EPA is proposing an analysis of future year concentrations are limits to the number of air quality this approach to evaluating monitored in unmonitored areas can only be monitors that can be deployed and it and unmonitored areas in order to be accomplished by interpolating ambient therefore may be useful to consider consistent with how attainment of the data to a particular location where there what, if any, additional analysis needs PM2.5 NAAQS is determined for is no existing monitor or recent there may be as agencies prepare their purposes of designations and monitoring data. Therefore, in the attainment plans.121 redesignations, and due to uncertainty context of an attainment demonstration, Under the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation in modeled projections in locations the projection of future year PM2.5 Rule, the EPA required states to follow where there are no monitoring data to concentrations in unmonitored existing modeling guidance, which anchor the future year model results. As locations is inherently more uncertain suggested that a state’s PM2.5 attainment discussed in Section II of this preamble, than projections in monitored locations plan could be approved if it the EPA promulgates designations for due to the fact that the ambient demonstrated attainment, through the PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas concentrations from which these modeled attainment test, at monitored based primarily on ambient data projections are developed are unknown locations only. But the guidance also measured at FRM and FEM monitors.122 in the unmonitored locations. recommended that states conduct Although the EPA considers other forms Proposed Option 2 for unmonitored further analyses based on the modeling of information for purposes of area analyses would require the state to results to determine whether there were evaluating areas with sources that conduct an unmonitored area analysis unmonitored areas that merited contribute to those monitored violations as part of all attainment demonstrations additional analysis or investigation. The for inclusion within the nonattainment (for Moderate and Serious areas) and guidance further recommended that area boundaries, the fundamental basis require the state to eliminate potential states either reduce emissions that, for designating an area as nonattainment violations in unmonitored areas through based on these recommended additional enforceable emissions reductions in the for a PM2.5 NAAQS is the presence of analyses, could cause violations in one or more FRM or FEM monitors with SIP. The requirement would be based on unmonitored areas, or that they place a data showing violations of the NAAQS a premise that states must demonstrate new monitor in such an area. The EPA in question. Similarly, determinations of attainment of the NAAQS in all found that the minimum requirements locations of a nonattainment area, and attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS for for the unmonitored area analysis in the purposes of redesignation actions are models can and should be used for that 2007 modeling guidance (and the 2007 based primarily on monitored data. purpose. Modeled attainment PM2.5 Implementation Rule) were not When all FRM and FEM monitors in a demonstrations using photochemical grid models provide modeling results nonattainment area measure attainment 120 As explained in the final 2012 PM NAAQS for all grid cells in the nonattainment of the PM NAAQS, the state is eligible rule, the EPA expects that each CBSA will maintain 2.5 area. Therefore, notwithstanding the to submit a redesignation request for the its existing highest concentration area-wide uncertainty that is inherent to this monitoring site (referred to as the design value site), area, assuming that it has complied with approach as discussed above, model See 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013), at page 3240. all other applicable requirements for These sites were set up during the period of time outputs (optionally combined with purposes of redesignation. Specifically, when the network design criteria required having interpolated ambient data) could be at least one site in an area-wide location of expected the EPA’s approval of a redesignation used to derive estimates of PM maximum concentration. The EPA intends to request is subject to meeting the 2.5 concentrations in unmonitored areas. maintain the highest priority sites in the existing requirements of CAA section network, which are often at the neighborhood scale, Proposed Option 3 would require 107(d)(3)(E). Among those requirements as the largest part of the PM2.5 monitoring network states to show attainment at all current to continue to support a number of monitoring is that the area has attained the NAAQS. and recent monitoring locations. In objectives, while also allowing lower value sites to For the PM2.5 NAAQS, this move to near-road locations as that part of the addition, states would be required to network is phased in. determination is based on ambient data provide an unmonitored area analysis as 121 Annual monitoring network plans and 5 year measured at the FRM and FEM monitors part of all attainment demonstrations assessments are required by regulation in 40 CFR in the area in question. Thus, neither (for Moderate and Serious areas). 58.10. The 5 year monitoring network assessment PM2.5 designations nor redesignations is a comprehensive evaluation of a monitoring However, rather than requiring states to agency’s ambient air monitoring network, while the currently take into account information impose additional enforceable annual plan describes the existing network and emissions reductions in the SIP to 122 changes being proposed to support implementing A monitor must have 3 years of quality- address potential violations in these recommendations from the most recent 5 year assured ambient data available to be used to assessment as well as any applicable changes calculate a PM2.5 design value and determine locations, states would be required to finalized in association with NAAQS revisions. compliance with the NAAQS. use the unmonitored area analysis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15383

results to develop an assessment of the determining whether a particular implementation program. Currently, the likelihood of violations in unmonitored control strategy will result in the area EPA recommends that air agencies areas. This assessment may be attaining the NAAQS. conduct an unmonitored area analysis, especially important in areas with a Finally, proposed Option 4 would but there is no regulatory requirement relatively sparse PM2.5 monitoring require states to show attainment at all for the air agency to either perform an network or in locations where current and recent monitoring locations. unmonitored area analysis or to impose information such as modeling data, States would not be required to provide control requirements if the analysis emissions inventories or non-FEM an unmonitored area analysis as part of indicates potential violations. Thus, monitoring data (such as from special the attainment demonstration. However, under Option 4, if an unmonitored area purpose monitors or saturation the EPA would encourage states to use analysis is performed, the analysis costs monitoring studies) may indicate information available to them to associated with this option would be the potential high PM2.5 concentrations in consider what, if any, impacts may be same as for Options 2 and 3. Under areas that are currently unmonitored. occurring in unmonitored areas. States Option 4, if it is determined by the EPA The nature of the assessment of could consider information such as and the air agency to be unnecessary to likelihood of violation that is required modeling data, emissions inventories or perform an unmonitored area analysis, under proposed Option 3 would depend non-FEM monitoring data (such as from there would be no additional analysis on local area modeling, but could special purpose monitors or saturation costs beyond the monitor-only approach include, as appropriate, elements such monitoring studies) which may indicate of Option 1. Regarding the costs and as an evaluation of the emissions potential high PM2.5 concentrations in benefits of reductions resulting from inventory (particularly for local direct areas that are currently unmonitored. additional efforts to address PM2.5 sources), the existing ambient data Under this approach, states could unmonitored locations (i.e., to the for the area, and meteorological model consider model results to develop an extent that efforts necessary to address inputs to determine if the modeled assessment of the likelihood of monitored locations do not also address violations in unmonitored areas appear violations in unmonitored areas. This unmonitored locations), the EPA does to be credible. If potential violations are proposed option differs from Option 3 not have enough information to found to be credible, additional steps in that it would not require an determine the extent of such areas or the may include imposition of enforceable unmonitored area analysis. Rather, measures that would be needed to emissions reductions at nearby emission under proposed Option 4, an address them, nor can the agency sources or a commitment to deploy unmonitored area analysis would be predict the extent to which such special purpose monitors and/or recommended where the state and/or measures would be adopted under one saturation monitors in the area (in order the EPA has reason to believe that option but not another. to further evaluate the problem). The potential violations may be occurring in The EPA’s four proposed options state would be required to document the unmonitored areas, or other available reflect various combinations with assessment, including analyses of information indicates that further respect to whether such an analysis is analysis is warranted. States would be emissions, meteorological inputs and required and the purposes for which the expected to consult with the appropriate ambient data and/or make a state and the EPA might use the results EPA Regional Office to evaluate commitment to establish special of the analysis. The EPA requests available information to determine if an purpose monitors as part of the comment on whether an unmonitored unmonitored area analysis is needed for attainment demonstration. Special area analysis should be a required purpose ambient air monitoring data a particular area. The four options presented above component of an attainment that is collected after the attainment would lead to a range of potential demonstration for a PM2.5 demonstration is submitted should be analysis costs by requiring attainment nonattainment area and, if required, summarized for use in the area’s 5-year demonstrations at more locations and how the results of an unmonitored area monitoring assessment and, where with varying degrees of specificity. To analysis should be used. The EPA also appropriate, annual monitoring network the extent that these analyses reveal requests comment on the potential costs plans.123 Additionally, monitoring data additional locations with potential and benefits of each of the four specific that is collected as a result of the violations, the effort needed to address options, and on which of the options the unmonitored area analysis assessment these violations could also be higher, commenter believes should be included (after the attainment demonstration is and may ultimately lead to additional in the final rule and why. submitted) must be reported as a reductions, with their associated costs quantitative milestone required under 8. What future year(s) should states and benefits. In terms of analysis costs, model in attainment demonstrations? section 189(c)(1) (see Section IV.G of Option 1 would be expected to be the this preamble). least costly option, whereas Option 2 A state performing a modeling In summary, Option 3 would clarify would be expected to be the most analysis for an attainment that an unmonitored area analysis resource intensive. Option 3 is similar demonstration or impracticability would be required in all attainment to Option 2, except that if a potential analysis must select a future year for the demonstrations, and an assessment of violation is indicated in an unmonitored analysis. For an attainment the unmonitored area analysis results area, there would not be a regulatory demonstration, a state should select the would be required as part of the requirement for the air agency to future modeling year such that all attainment demonstration identify enforceable controls to control measures relied on for documentation. In contrast to Option 2, eliminate the potential violation. For attainment will have been fully however, the unmonitored area analysis example, the air agency could instead implemented by the beginning of that results would not be used as part of the elect to site a new monitor to further year. To demonstrate attainment, the specific analytical approach for characterize air quality in the area. The modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions 123 analysis costs associated with Option 3 All states are required to have an annual would thus be similar to Option 2. controls implemented no later than the monitoring plan (see Section II of this preamble) beginning of the last calendar year which meets the siting criteria for PM2.5 monitors Option 4 most closely describes the (40 CFR 58.10). current policy for the PM2.5 NAAQS preceding the attainment date will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

result in PM2.5 concentrations that meet to the CAA, additional considerations Administrator to reclassify the area to the level of the standard.124 are necessary before an attainment date Serious.125 While states should choose the future can be established for a Moderate PM2.5 The EPA believes that it is not modeling year based on a number of nonattainment area. For purposes of reasonable to require states to model factors, the EPA recommends the last determining the attainment date that is each and every calendar year to possible year permitted under the as expeditious as practicable, the state determine the appropriate attainment statute as a starting point for modeling. must conduct future year modeling date for a nonattainment area. There are several reasons for this. First, which takes into account expected Developing and modeling future year states with Moderate areas that submit growth and known controls. For inventories is a time-consuming and an impracticability demonstration must example, for a Moderate nonattainment resource intensive process. Multiple show that the area cannot attain the area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, a future emissions models are needed in order to NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar base case scenario for the year 2021 (6 generate year-specific emissions for the year following designation of the area. years after designations) would project various emissions sectors (e.g. mobile, Therefore, the appropriate future future air quality given implementation non-road, non-EGU point and EGU modeling year for such a demonstration of existing federal, state and local point). In some cases it may be is the sixth calendar year after measures. If this base case scenario reasonable to model one additional designation. Even if a state does not demonstrates attainment, then the state interim year before the maximum submit (or does not intend to submit) an must demonstrate whether attainment statutory attainment date.126 However, impracticability demonstration, could be achieved in an earlier year. in most cases, the air quality benefits of modeling the sixth calendar year is a Therefore, the state needs to conduct an an identified set of RACM and RACT logical starting point to determine if analysis to determine if, collectively, all and additional reasonable measures can attainment by that year is likely. technologically and economically be estimated through model sensitivity Second, even though attainment is feasible measures identified by the state analyses and the development of determined based on 3 years of ambient for which the state can initiate transfer factors (factors to relate tons of data, states do not have to model 2 years implementation by the beginning of the emissions reductions in the area to before the attainment date to show sixth calendar year following PM2.5 concentration changes in the modeled attainment. Since the design designations, can advance the area). For example, states can model value is an average of the annual or 98th attainment date by at least 1 year. across-the-board percentage reductions percentile value for 3 consecutive years Results of this analysis may indicate in direct PM2.5 and/or precursor of data, attainment can still be shown attainment can be achieved earlier, emissions (in separate model runs) to even if concentrations exceed the through implementation of all determine the impact of emissions NAAQS in one or more of the 3 years reasonable control measures (i.e., RACM reductions on PM2.5 concentrations in used to determine attainment (as long as and RACT and additional reasonable the area. This modeling can be the average of the three annual values is measures). performed with a single attainment year below the level of the NAAQS). If the future base case scenario does modeling platform, which is much less Therefore, it can be appropriate to not demonstrate attainment, then a resource intensive than modeling model any of the 3 years used to control case scenario is needed to additional future years. The identified determine attainment. Third, if ambient examine whether the implementation of potential emissions reductions available data show attainment level all technnologically and economically from RACM and RACT and additional concentrations in the final statutory reasonable measures can be compared to feasible measures identified by the state attainment year, a state may be eligible the magnitude of the modeled PM would result in attainment in 2021 (for 2.5 for up to two 1-year extensions of the reductions from the sensitivity analyses purposes of this example based on the attainment date, if the area meets the to determine if all such controls will 2012 PM NAAQS). The control case criteria for such extensions under CAA 2.5 advance attainment by a year. The EPA scenario would add to the model section 188(d). Therefore, modeling strongly recommends that states discuss potential control measures (i.e., RACM attainment level concentrations for the the selection of the future year(s) to and RACT and additional reasonable last year permitted by statute is model with their respective EPA measures, plus any additional intrastate acceptable. Regional Office as part of the modeling transport measures or other measures on For all of the reasons stated above, it protocol development process and is both acceptable, and will in fact be sources outside of the nonattainment before embarking on running the most efficient, for a state to begin the area that the state has identified as model(s). attainment demonstration process by feasible to implement by the attainment modeling the last year permitted under date). This modeling, along with other 9. Modeling Analysis of Controls That the statute to determine future year relevant information, would inform a Have a De Minimis Impact on Ambient judgment as to whether attainment of PM2.5 Concentrations modeled PM2.5 concentrations in the sixth year after designations. Thus, in the relevant NAAQS is practicable by In Section IV.D of this preamble, the the attainment demonstrations for areas the end of the sixth year after EPA is proposing that if a state designated nonattainment in the first designation or earlier. In the case of determines that a Moderate areas designated nonattainment for the round of designations for the 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area can attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, it would be appropriate for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the first round of states to model air quality for 2021. designations, if the analysis does not 125 A demonstration that the area cannot Because an area must attain ‘‘as demonstrate attainment by December practicably attain by the Moderate area attainment 31, 2021, then the analysis could serve date would not be the only trigger for a expeditiously as practicable’’ according discretionary reclassification to Serious. The as the technical basis for the state to Administrator maintains wide discretion in making 124 Note that for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, submit a demonstration that attainment such a determination, with an impracticability a determination of attainment (or failure to attain), by the latest statutory attainment date demonstration serving as one potential source of which the EPA is required to make after the for Moderate areas is impracticable. analysis to inform such a determination. attainment date has passed, is based on an average 126 If several future modeling years are available, of the most recent 3 years of ambient data prior to This demonstration in turn could serve in some cases it may be appropriate for states to the area’s attainment date. as the technical basis for the interpolate PM2.5 concentrations between years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15385

NAAQS by the statutory attainment emissions within the nonattainment In the context of implementing the date, the state must adopt and area allocated to on-road sources as PM2.5 NAAQS, ‘‘generally linear implement as reasonable control defined in the submitted attainment progress’’ means that emissions of direct 128 measures (i.e., as RACM and RACT and plan. Such motor vehicle emissions PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from additional reasonable measures) only budgets would be calculated using the controlled sources generally decrease those technologically and economically latest planning assumptions and the year by year such that the area feasible control measures that are latest approved motor vehicle emissions ultimately attains the relevant NAAQS necessary to ensure that the area will model available at the time that the by the applicable attainment date. In the attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as attainment plan is developed.129 Addendum, the EPA provided guidance practicable. In a Moderate PM 2.5 F. RFP Requirements and identified four specific situations in nonattainment area that cannot which ‘‘linear progress’’ in emissions practicably attain the relevant NAAQS 1. Statutory Requirements and Existing reductions to meet RFP may be by the statutory attainment date, the Guidance appropriate: EPA similarly believes that it may not ‘‘Reasonable further progress’’ (RFP) 1. When pollutants are emitted by be reasonable in all cases to require that is a concept included in the CAA under numerous and diverse sources. a state implement all technologically part D, title I to assure that states make 2. Where the relationship between and economically feasible control steady, incremental progress toward any individual source and the overall measures. The EPA is thus proposing an attaining air quality standards in the air quality is not explicitly quantified. option under which the state may years prior to the attainment date for a 3. Where a chemical transformation is evaluate the air quality impact of nonattainment area, rather than merely involved. technologically and economically deferring implementation of control 4. Where the emission reductions feasible control measures to determine if measures and therefore emissions necessary to attain the standard are there is a subset of such measures that reductions until the date by which the inventory-wide.130 collectively will only achieve negligible standards are to be attained. As For example, a state with an area reductions in ambient PM2.5 discussed elsewhere in this preamble, whose nonattainment problem is caused concentrations in the area. Similar to section 172 of the CAA addresses primarily by area sources, such as the EPA’s proposed approach, described nonattainment plan provisions in residential wood combustion, should be earlier in this section, to determine if a general. Section 172(c)(2) requires able to demonstrate generally linear set of technologically and economically attainment plans to provide for RFP, progress toward attainment in that area. feasible control measures can which is defined in section 171(l) as In such an area, the state might be able collectively advance the attainment date ‘‘such annual incremental reductions in to require the replacement of a specified by a year for a Moderate nonattainment emissions of the relevant air pollutant as percentage of the residential woodstoves area for which a state can demonstrate are required by [part D of title I] or may on an annual basis for each year to attainment by the statutory attainment reasonably be required by the assure RFP on an annual basis. date, the state would be required under Administrator for the purpose of The EPA’s guidance in the Addendum this proposed option (for a Moderate ensuring attainment of the applicable also provided examples of situations in area that cannot practicably attain the national ambient air quality standard by nonattainment areas in which it might NAAQS by the statutory attainment the applicable date.’’ Section 172(c)(3) be less appropriate to expect RFP to be date) to use an air quality model to requires the state plan to include ‘‘a linear, including: determine the impact on ambient PM 2.5 comprehensive, accurate, current 1. Where there are a limited number levels of the set of otherwise inventory of actual emissions from all of sources. ‘‘reasonable’’ controls that it believes sources of the relevant pollutant or 2. Where the relationships between will not collectively reduce ambient pollutants in such area . . .’’ Section individual sources and air quality are PM concentrations in the area. For 2.5 172(c)(1) requires the state plan to relatively well defined. this analysis, the state would have to include ‘‘all reasonably available control 3. Where the emission control systems show that the collective set of controls measures as expeditiously as practicable utilized (e.g., at major point sources) will have little to no effect on reducing (including such reductions in emissions PM concentrations in the area. will result in swift and dramatic 2.5 from existing sources in the area as may emission reductions.131 10. Attainment Year Motor Vehicle be obtained through the adoption, at a In nonattainment areas characterized Emissions Budgets minimum, of reasonably available by any of these circumstances, the EPA The transportation conformity rule control technology) . . .’’ understands that RFP may be better requires that attainment plans establish In general terms, the EPA interprets represented as step-wise progress as motor vehicle emissions budgets for the that the purpose of requiring RFP is to controls are implemented and achieve area’s attainment year. Therefore, once ensure that states with nonattainment significant reductions soon thereafter. an area’s attainment date has been areas develop attainment plans that For example, if an area’s nonattainment established, the state would establish achieve generally linear progress toward problem can be attributed to a few major motor vehicle emissions budgets for attainment, rather than deferring stationary sources, the EPA’s guidance emissions reductions until the direct PM2.5 and any relevant PM2.5 indicates that ‘‘RFP should be met by precursor for the attainment year.127 A applicable attainment date for the area. ‘adherence to an ambitious compliance motor vehicle emissions budget for the schedule’ which is likely to periodically 128 A state would also establish motor vehicle purposes of a PM2.5 attainment plan is yield significant emission emissions budgets for an area’s attainment year. 132 133 that portion of the total allowable Those budgets would be the motor vehicle reductions.’’ While the EPA noted emissions that the SIP establishes as being 127 130 For more information on PM2.5 precursor necessary to attain the NAAQS. Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR requirements, see section 93.102(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of 129 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42015. the transportation conformity rule. See also the May the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest 131 Ibid. 6, 2005, final transportation conformity rule that approved version of AP–42 should be used unless 132 USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and addressed requirements for PM2.5 precursors. (70 FR the EPA has approved an alternative model for the Standards, ‘‘Guidance Document for Correction of 24280). area. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

in the Addendum that adherence to statutory definition of RFP. The plan standards for mobile sources may such a schedule does not necessarily must include an implementation achieve reductions in a generally linear mean it would be unreasonable to schedule for control measures on manner over time, as a portion of the achieve generally linear progress, the sources in the nonattainment area and existing vehicle fleet is replaced each agency has long interpreted the an analysis that demonstrates when— year with new vehicles meeting the language of section 171(1) not to require and through what control measures— more stringent standards. On the other some specific level of emissions emissions will decline from the hand, regulations to reduce emissions reductions in any given year. Unlike applicable baseline year to the from certain stationary source sectors certain provisions under subpart 2 attainment year. As part of the analysis, often have a single compliance date by governing ozone NAAQS the RFP plan must include a projected which controls must be in place, which implementation, subpart 4 does not inventory for sources in the area for one typically result in a significant drop in specify a set percentage of emissions (or more) interim year(s). The EPA is emissions over a relatively short period reductions to be achieved over a certain proposing and seeking comment on two (i.e., yield step-wise reductions). period of time. Accordingly, the EPA options for developing an RFP plan, as Because the statute does not clearly believes that the facts and well as on related requirements, as establish the applicable baseline year circumstances of each specific area will described below. See proposed 40 CFR from which to begin calculating annual be relevant to whether the emissions 51.1012. The EPA also notes that emissions reductions for purposes of reductions meet the agency’s quantitative milestones required under demonstrating RFP, the EPA is expectations for ‘‘generally linear section 189(c) are directly linked to the proposing to require and seeks comment progress.’’ RFP plan, as interim quantifiable on a requirement that states use the With respect to implementation indicators intended to demonstrate that same year as the base year inventory schedules, the EPA recommended in the an area is making progress toward chosen for the area, as this inventory Addendum that to meet the statutory attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, and are will serve as the basis for developing the RFP requirements, attainment plans therefore related to the implementation control strategy necessary to bring the must include ‘‘detailed schedules for schedule of control measures for a PM2.5 area into expeditious attainment. compliance with emission regulations nonattainment area. Quantitative Furthermore, in developing their RFP in the [nonattainment] areas and milestones are more fully discussed in analyses for specific nonattainment accurately indicate the corresponding Section IV.G of this preamble. areas, the EPA expects that states will annual emission reductions to be a. Proposed Option 1. Under the first use the emissions inventories developed realized from each milestone in the option, the EPA proposes that the RFP for those areas and air quality modeling schedule. In reviewing the SIP, the EPA analysis for any Moderate PM2.5 they have completed for attainment will determine whether the annual nonattainment area that can planning purposes. This approach is incremental emission reductions to be demonstrate attainment by the statutory consistent with the EPA’s proposed achieved are reasonable in light of the attainment date must demonstrate approach, described later in this section, statutory objective to ensure timely either: (i) Generally linear progress not to interpret the CAA as allowing toward attainment by the applicable states to take credit for emissions attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA believes that it is attainment date through emissions reductions from sources outside a appropriate to require early reductions to be achieved annually nonattainment area when developing their plan to meet the statutory RFP implementation of the most cost- between a baseline year and the projected attainment date for the area; requirements for PM nonattainment effective control measures . . . while 2.5 or, (ii) step-wise progress toward areas. phasing in the more expensive control attainment by the applicable attainment For states with Moderate areas that measures.’’ 134 date that will be achieved through cannot demonstrate attainment by the The EPA believes that these prior adherence to an ambitious compliance statutory Moderate area attainment date, interpretations of the Act’s provisions schedule that would not necessarily the statutory RFP requirements still for RFP continue to be appropriate for achieve reductions on an annual basis. apply. However, the EPA proposes to the PM NAAQS. Accordingly, the 2.5 In the second case, the state would be require that, for such areas, the state following section describes the EPA’s required to submit a clear rationale and must provide an analysis of the proposal for requirements to ensure that supporting information to explain why anticipated emissions reductions states meet the statutory provisions for generally linear progress during the associated with implementing the RFP for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment attainment period is not reasonable on control measures identified as RACM areas. an annual basis (e.g., due to the nature and RACT and additional reasonable 2. General Proposed Approach to RFP of the nonattainment problem and the measures for the area. The EPA notes types of sources contributing to PM that even if a state adequately To satisfy the statutory requirements 2.5 levels in the area as discussed in demonstrates that it cannot attain the for RFP at section 172(c)(2), the EPA Section IV.F.1 of this preamble). The NAAQS in a given area by the statutory proposes that a state must submit an EPA also proposes to require that RFP attainment date, the CAA still requires RFP plan as part of its Moderate area analyses need to show progress in the state to submit a Moderate area attainment plan submission. The RFP achieving emissions reductions only for attainment plan meeting the plan must contain appropriate direct PM2.5 and any precursors that are requirements for such attainment plans, information to demonstrate that controlled in the attainment plan for the including for RFP. An additional RFP adequate emissions reductions will be nonattainment area. analysis will be required as part of the achieved through control measures in Note that the two approaches Serious attainment plan for the area the attainment plan in order to meet the presented in Option 1 for demonstrating once the EPA reclassifies it to Serious. RFP within the nonattainment area are Similar to the approach taken for RFP Part D SIP’s for Nonattainment Areas,’’ Research Triangle Park, NC, January 24, 1984, page 25. consistent with the pattern of emissions in the remanded 2007 PM2.5 133 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR reductions of many nationally- Implementation Rule, the EPA is 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42015. applicable federal emissions reduction proposing under this option that all 134 Ibid. at 42016. measures. For example, new emission states must follow one primary

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15387

approach for conducting the RFP would also need to achieve emissions uncertainty as to whether alternate analysis, but that they also have an levels that represent attainment in 2021. emissions control scenarios will achieve option to conduct a secondary analysis If the attainment plan requires a 10 equivalent benefits. Nevertheless, the that will provide greater flexibility in percent reduction in NOX emissions and EPA believes that it is important to setting RFP goals with alternative a 14 percent reduction in PM2.5 direct provide the flexibility to address emissions reductions and air quality emissions from 2011 levels in order for different pollutants on different improvement scenarios. The primary the area to demonstrate attainment in timetables so long as the plan can approach would be to benchmark 2021, then the RFP benchmark for NOX reasonably be expected to achieve the emissions reductions on a pollutant-by- would reflect roughly a 1 percent intended air quality benefits represented pollutant basis starting from the reduction in NOX emissions per year, by the RFP benchmark analysis. In pollutant’s baseline emissions level. The and the benchmark level for PM2.5 general, the EPA would not expect a state would then be required to would be roughly a 1.4 percent state to conduct dispersion modeling calculate reductions in emissions of reduction per year. specifically to assess whether an each pollutant on an annual basis that The EPA proposes that states must alternative approach to meeting RFP would be needed to bring the area into provide an implementation schedule for will provide equivalent air quality attainment by the projected attainment control measures that would achieve benefits as the benchmark approach. date. emissions reductions consistent with Instead, the attainment plan modeling The EPA recognizes that different those calculated as part of the RFP addresses the nonlinearities at control measures address different benchmark analysis. However, a state attainment levels, and the EPA believes pollutants, and that states may be able could choose to submit an for RFP analysis purposes that the to implement some measures more ‘‘equivalency’’ analysis in addition to relationship between emissions and air quickly than others. Thus, in the the RFP benchmark analysis and quality at attainment levels provides an optional secondary analysis, the state associated implementation schedule adequate approximation of the could present a different combination of that presents an alternative combination relationship at interim RFP levels. emissions reductions at similar time of pollutant emission reductions (i.e., b. Proposed Option 2. Under the intervals that would provide an alternative implementation schedule for second option, the EPA proposes a equivalent or better result in terms of control measures) that achieves air simplified approach to developing an net air quality improvement. This quality improvements that are RFP plan that focuses on the emissions ‘‘equivalency determination’’ would equivalent to or better than the RFP reductions anticipated from each of the allow states flexibility to address benchmark analysis. In such a case, the particular control measures identified different pollutants (i.e., direct PM2.5 state would need to make an adequate by the state as part of the analysis to and PM2.5 precursors regulated under showing that the alternative schedule identify RACM and RACT and the control strategy for the area) for implementing control measures will additional reasonable measures for according to different schedules so long provide estimated air quality sources in the nonattainment area. as the EPA finds the projected net air improvements that are roughly the same Under this option, the first step in quality improvements to be achieved as, if not better than, those that the developing the RFP plan would be for through this alternative combination of emissions reductions determined the state to establish the implementation emissions reductions to be equivalent to through the RFP benchmark analysis schedule on a year-by-year basis for all or better than those that would be would provide. If a state elects to follow control measures contained in the achieved through generally linear this approach, it must provide in its RFP control strategy for sources in the area emissions reductions across all plan the information necessary to assess beginning with the date of designation pollutants in the area. This proposed whether an alternative schedule of of the area and ending with the approach recognizes that an important emissions reductions is generally projected attainment date of the area. element of establishing appropriate equivalent, in air quality terms, to the The schedule would need to comply emissions reductions targets for meeting RFP benchmark analysis reduction with the statutory requirement that all RFP requirements for PM2.5 is levels, such as attainment RACM and RACT must be implemented quantifying the relative degrees of demonstration modeling results that within the first 4 years following control of various pollutants. link emissions reductions of various designation, but the state would have As discussed above, the primary precursor emissions with air quality discretion beyond that requirement to approach for ensuring that RFP is met improvements. Under this proposed schedule the implementation of any in a PM2.5 nonattainment area is to approach, the EPA would require states other measures necessary for require that the state reduce each to use this information to evaluate the expeditious attainment. Overall, the pollutant—that is, direct PM2.5 and all equivalence of alternative combinations implementation schedule would need to precursors not otherwise eliminated of pollutant emissions reductions. The demonstrate that control measures to from control requirements—by some EPA would recommend that states bring the area into attainment will be amount on an annual basis. The EPA’s estimate air quality improvements implemented as expeditiously as primary proposed RFP analysis, an associated with intermediate emissions practicable. emissions benchmark analysis, would control levels (i.e., air quality The second step in developing an RFP reflect generally linear progress (or step- improvement targets) by assuming that plan under this second proposed option wise progress if more appropriate and the same relationship between would be for the state to calculate the adequately justified) to reduce those emissions and air quality applies at emissions reductions that would be pollutants that the state intends to intermediate levels as would apply at achieved by all measures implemented control to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by attainment levels. on sources in the area corresponding the applicable attainment date. See The EPA continues to recognize that with quantitative milestone dates (i.e., proposed 40 CFR 51.1012(b). For because atmospheric processes are quite by 4.5 years and 7.5 years after example, a state that can demonstrate complex, a specific percent change in designation of the area). These are the that their Moderate nonattainment area emissions of PM2.5 precursors does not dates by which milestones for the area can attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by an lead to an equivalent percent change in must be met, after which a report is due attainment date of December 31, 2021 air quality, potentially creating to the EPA from the state to verify that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

135 the area has met the milestones the area. For example, the first round 2007 PM2.5 implementation rule. This identified for the area and thereby has of designations for the 2012 PM2.5 section describes the evolution of policy also met the RFP requirements for the NAAQS become effective in April 2015; on a similar RFP issue in the ozone area. The EPA proposes that the state Moderate area attainment plans for NAAQS implementation program, and it must calculate the emissions reductions these areas will thus be due 18 months discusses the reasoning behind this to be achieved at each milestone year on later, or in October 2016. The first revised approach for PM2.5. a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. quantitative milestones for each of these In the preamble to the remanded 2007 areas would then have to be met in The third step under this proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the EPA October 2019; the second quantitative option would be for the state to conduct allowed states to incorporate reductions milestones, in October 2022; and so on, modeling or employ another of NOX and SO2 emissions up to 200 km until the area attains the NAAQS. Under quantitative method to predict the from outside the nonattainment area the EPA’s proposed approach for overall PM concentrations in the (and potentially for reductions of VOC 2.5 projected emissions inventories for RFP nonattainment area in each milestone or ammonia) into their RFP plan when analyses, the state would be required to year. This air quality target could certain conditions were met. This policy submit such inventories as part of the simply be interpolated between the was included in the 2007 PM2.5 Moderate area attainment plan due in design value at the time of the area’s Implementation Rule in part to be October 2016 that project emissions designation and the design value in the consistent with a similar RFP policy for from sources in the nonattainment area projected attainment year. These air NOX and VOC that was included in the for the same calendar years as those for quality target values would serve as a November 2005 Phase 2 ozone NAAQS which quantitative milestones would be points of comparison for the monitored implementation rule which provided due. ambient air data that the EPA is guidance for states on implementing the The transportation conformity rule 1997 ozone NAAQS.139 proposing that the state must submit as requires that attainment plans establish

part of the milestone report due after the motor vehicle emissions budgets. RFP Under the policy in the 2007 PM2.5 area reaches each milestone date. plans submitted as part of an attainment NAAQS implementation rule, if a state This simplified approach to plan submission would therefore be intended to include emissions determining RFP for a Moderate required to establish motor vehicle reductions from outside the nonattainment area in the RFP plan, the nonattainment area could apply equally emissions budgets for direct PM and 2.5 state would need to take on the well to areas that can demonstrate any relevant PM precursor.136 A 2.5 additional work associated with attainment with the relevant NAAQS by motor vehicle emissions budget for the developing: (i) An expanded baseline the statutory attainment date and those purposes of a PM RFP plan is that 2.5 emissions inventory for the entire that cannot. See proposed 40 CFR portion of the total allowable emissions geographic area (i.e., the nonattainment 51.1012(c). In addition, the EPA allocated to on-road sources as defined area plus the additional area outside the believes it offers a reasonable approach in the submitted RFP plan for the nonattainment area) that characterizes to ensure that RFP is generally being relevant years as described above.137 emissions for all stationary, area and met in the area without requiring Such motor vehicle emissions budgets mobile sources (rather than for just a extensive quantitative analysis so long would be calculated using the latest select few stationary sources) in the as it is generally linear for purposes of planning assumptions and the latest overall area; and, (ii) a projected achieving annual emissions reductions. approved motor vehicle emissions attainment year inventory for this The EPA seeks comment on these two model available at the time that the expanded area outside the boundaries of options proposed for states to meet the attainment plan is developed.138 statutory RFP requirements. the designated nonattainment area. By 4. Geographic Coverage of Emission requiring inclusion of all types of 3. RFP Inventories for RFP Analyses Sources for RFP sources in these ‘‘expanded area’’ emissions inventories, the EPA intended The EPA proposes that a state with a The EPA is proposing that the RFP demonstration to be included with a for this approach to reflect the projected Moderate PM nonattainment area 2.5 state’s PM net emissions reductions in this area must submit one or more emissions 2.5 nonattainment area plan must include emissions only for sources (the difference between the ‘‘expanded projections as part of the RFP plan (the area’’ base year inventory and the ‘‘RFP inventory’’) for the area that, at a located in the nonattainment area, and not from an area larger than the projected attainment year inventory). minimum, includes projected emissions However, it should be noted that by different source types corresponding nonattainment area. This policy approach differs from the remanded development of these more extensive to the quantitative milestone date(s) for inventories would likely have involved the area, described in greater detail in 135 According to section 189(a)(2)(B), Moderate a substantial amount of additional time Section IV.H of this preamble. area attainment plans are due to the EPA 18 months and resources. In addition, the state Specifically, the EPA proposes that the after designation. would have needed to have provided 136 RFP plan for any Moderate area must For more information on PM2.5 precursor information supporting its decision contain a projected RFP inventory for requirements, see section 93.102(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of the transportation conformity rule. See also the May regarding how far outside the each calendar year in which 6, 2005, final transportation conformity rule that nonattainment area the RFP inventory quantitative milestones for a Moderate addressed requirements for PM2.5 precursors. (70 FR should extend. While this ‘‘outside the nonattainment area must be met. For 24280). nonattainment area’’ RFP approach was 137 example, as explained in Section IV.H A state would also establish motor vehicle theoretically available to states in of this preamble, a state must identify as emissions budgets for an area’s attainment year. Those budgets would be the motor vehicle developing their PM2.5 attainment plans part of the attainment plan submission emissions that the SIP establishes as being due in 2008, there were no states to the for a Moderate nonattainment area necessary to attain the NAAQS. agency’s knowledge that elected to quantitative milestones to be achieved 138 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in follow this approach. every 3 years from the Moderate area the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest approved version of AP–42 should be used unless attainment plan due date, or 4.5 years the EPA has approved an alternative model for the 139 See Phase 2 Ozone Implementation rule, 70 FR from the effective date of designation of area. 71612 (November 29, 2005).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15389

Both the 2005 Phase 2 ozone for reconsideration on this issue in the geographic areas covered by RFP implementation rule and the 2007 PM2.5 2010, after the D.C. Circuit issued its plans for the two pollutants differed. Implementation Rule were challenged decision on the Phase 2 Ozone Second, a policy allowing the on several issues. With regard to the Implementation Rule.141 142 geographic area of the RFP plan to be Phase 2 ozone implementation rule, the Specifically, the EPA believes that the larger than the nonattainment area EPA granted a petition for DC Circuit’s interpretation of the phrase would conflict with a key provision of reconsideration and ultimately issued a ‘‘sources in the area’’ applies to RACT subpart 4 which requires annual final notice of reconsideration in June and RFP requirements for both the incremental reductions in emissions 2007. In November 2008, the U.S. Court ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. from sources within the nonattainment of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard oral In particular, for PM2.5, the statutory area. Under subpart 4, an area that fails argument concerning multiple petitions language at section 171(1) defines RFP to attain the standard by the Serious for judicial review of the Phase 2 ozone in terms of ‘‘reductions in emissions’’ area attainment date is then subject to rule and the notice of reconsideration. required in an attainment plan, which the provisions of section 189(d). Section One of the issues in this case involved the EPA interprets as being directly 189(d) specifies that the state must whether compliance by EGUs with a linked to the baseline emissions submit a plan revision within 12 regional emissions trading program inventory for sources located in a PM2.5 months which provides for ‘‘an annual could be considered to meet the RACT nonattainment area. The baseline reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor requirement for those sources located in emissions inventory is the foundation emissions within the area of not less a nonattainment area. In its July 2009 for the attainment plan. The emissions than 5 percent of the amount of such decision, the court emphasized that: inventory requirement of section emissions as reported in the most recent ‘‘the RACT requirement calls for 172(c)(3) explicitly requires that the inventory prepared for such area’’ reductions in emissions from sources in attainment plan inventory include all (emphasis added). The EPA does not the area; reductions from sources sources of the relevant pollutants ‘‘in believe the rule should include an RFP outside the nonattainment area do not such area,’’ which is a clear reference to policy approach which would not be satisfy the requirement . . . the designated nonattainment area. consistent with section 189(d). Accordingly, participation in the NOX Given that the baseline inventory must After reconsideration of the approach SIP call would constitute RACT only if reflect the emissions ‘‘in such area,’’ and to RFP that was opposed in the petition participation entailed at least RACT- that this inventory provides the starting for reconsideration of the 2007 PM2.5 level reductions in emissions from point for a state’s RFP analysis, in Implementation Rule, and in light of the sources within the nonattainment area.’’ which the state must calculate generally DC Circuit decision on the Ozone Phase In light of this court decision, the EPA linear progress in emissions reductions 2 Implementation Rule, the EPA has determined that the best reading of that will lead to attainment of the believes the best reading of the statute the statute would be to interpret the NAAQS in the area, the EPA believes it term ‘‘sources in the area’’ in the same is that the CAA does not allow for a is appropriate that a state should focus state to include emissions reductions manner where it appears in different on sources located within the nonattainment provisions for ozone. from sources outside a nonattainment nonattainment area when conducting its area when developing the plan to meet The term appears in CAA section 182 analysis to determine the annual (requirements for ozone nonattainment the CAA section 172(c)(2) RFP emissions reductions necessary for requirements for a PM2.5 nonattainment areas) with regard to RFP as well as demonstrating RFP. RACT. The decision on the Phase 2 area. The EPA seeks comment on this The EPA believes that the most proposed approach. ozone rule found that section 182(b)(2) appropriate approach with regard to the requires that a SIP must provide for geographic area required to be covered 5. Other RFP Considerations implementation of RACT (under section for demonstrating RFP in a PM2.5 172(c)) for emissions sources ‘‘in the In general, the EPA seeks to ensure attainment plan also should be limited that PM2.5 nonattainment areas that are area,’’ meaning in the nonattainment to the nonattainment area for two other area. Similarly, the EPA believes that shared by more than one state or tribe reasons. First, EPA believes that it meet RFP requirements as a whole. when section 182(b)(1)(A)–(B) defines makes policy sense for the PM baseline emissions for RFP as ‘‘the total 2.5 States and tribes that share a implementation rule approach to be nonattainment area should therefore amount of actual VOC or NOX emissions consistent with the approach in the consult with one another to develop the from all anthropogenic sources in the ozone implementation rule. In the past, area,’’ this also means sources in the RFP analysis and control strategy a number of areas have been designated implementation schedule for the area as nonattainment area. as nonattainment for both standards, With regard to the 2007 PM a whole. Such states and tribes should 2.5 and the nonattainment area boundaries Implementation Rule, the EPA received work with the EPA region or regions often are the same. For such areas, a a petition for reconsideration in June that oversee them to confirm that their common policy approach for the 2007 that raised objections on several collective approach is appropriate for geographic area covered by the RFP plan issues. One such issue dealt with the RFP. will be more efficient to implement and EPA’s interpretation of the statutory The EPA’s proposed approach for would be expected to be less RFP requirements to allow a state to states to meet the RFP requirement is burdensome for the air agency than if take ‘‘credit’’ for emissions reductions designed to ensure emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment area will yield incremental improvements in Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Natural when addressing RFP in its attainment Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club air quality on the path to attainment, plan.140 The EPA granted the petition (June 25, 2007). A copy of the petition is in the while being sufficiently flexible to docket for this action. accommodate the range of control 140 This same petition raised concerns regarding 141 Letter dated May 13, 2010, from Gina strategies necessary to address the the criteria used to determine the economic McCarthy to David S. Baron and Paul Cort, complex mixtures of pollutants feasibility of controls being considered for RACT for Earthjustice. A copy of the letter is located in the comprising PM2.5 in different areas. The the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ‘‘Petition for docket for this action. Reconsideration,’’ filed by Paul Cort, Earthjustice, 142 See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. EPA seeks comment on all of its on behalf of the American Lung Association, 2009). proposed requirements and options for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

RFP plans and analyses for Moderate milestone requirement, it should also this proposed requirement will help to PM2.5 attainment plans. demonstrate that RFP has been achieved ensure that the state maintains progress during each of the relevant 3 years.’’ 145 toward bringing the area into attainment G. Quantitative Milestones The EPA’s existing guidance in the during the period in which such area is 1. Statutory Requirements and Existing Addendum with respect to the reclassified to Serious, the state works Guidance quantitative milestone requirements of to develop a Serious area attainment CAA section 189(c) thus includes plan for the area, and the EPA approves Section 189(c)(1) requires that a PM10 NAAQS attainment plan submission has several important features: (i) That the it. Pursuant to the statute, the EPA must ‘‘quantitative milestones which are to be control measures comprising the RFP reclassify a Moderate area for which a achieved every 3 years until the area is plan should be implemented and in state submits an attainment redesignated to attainment and which place to meet the statutory quantitative impracticability demonstration within demonstrate reasonable further progress emissions reductions milestone 18 months after the Moderate area . . . toward attainment by the requirement; (ii) that it is reasonable for attainment plan due date, or no later applicable date.’’ Section 189(c)(2) the 3-year periods for quantitative than 3 years after the date of designation further requires that, within 90 days of milestones to run from the statutory due of the area. Even under a scenario in each milestone, each affected state must date for the Moderate area attainment which the state develops and submits a submit a demonstration that all plan submission; and, (iii) that the Serious area attainment plan 18 months measures to assure RFP have been precise form that the quantitative after being reclassified to Serious, the implemented and that the quantitative milestones should take is not specified, milestone date of 4.5 years after milestone has been met. Thus, the CAA but the state must choose milestones designation would likely come and go imposes requirements upon states not that will allow it to quantify or measure, before the area had a new set of only to make ‘‘reasonable further track and report progress adequately approved quantitative milestones with progress’’ toward attainment, but also to and objectively. which to demonstrate compliance. The EPA’s proposed approach to Similarly, the milestone date of 7.5 identify objective means (i.e., identifying quantitative milestones for years after designation could also come quantitative milestones) by which to any Moderate PM nonattainment area and go before the EPA is able to fully measure this reasonable further progress 2.5 and demonstrating compliance with the approve the Serious area plan and any every 3 years, and to submit them as milestones is generally consistent with quantitative milestones contained part of the attainment plan for the the existing guidance, as described in therein. Because of the timing of the nonattainment area. In addition, the following sections. various steps involved in reclassifying a according to section 189(c)(2), states Moderate area to Serious and a state must, within 90 days of the passage of 2. Proposed Approach developing a new Serious area plan, the each such milestone, submit to the EPA The statute at section 189(c) is clear EPA believes that requiring a state to a demonstration that control measures that quantitative milestones must be identify quantitative milestones that the have been implemented according to the achieved every 3 years, however it does area must achieve 4.5 years and 7.5 approved RFP plan schedule and the not make clear the starting date for years after designation as elements of its milestone has been met. counting the 3 year periods. In the Moderate area attainment plan is The EPA has previously described its General Preamble, the agency proposed reasonable and seeks comment on this interpretation of the requirements under that quantitative milestones must be proposed requirement. section 189(c) for the PM10 NAAQS in achieved every 3 years starting from the The EPA is also proposing that the the General Preamble and the attainment plan submission due date quantitative milestones contained in the Addendum and believes that these (i.e., because the Moderate area attainment plan for a Moderate interpretations should also apply both attainment plan is due no later than 18 nonattainment area must be constructed in developing plans that demonstrate months after designation of the area, the such that they can be tracked, quantified RFP and include appropriate first set of milestones would need to be and/or measured adequately in order for quantitative milestones, and in achieved 4.5 years after the area’s the state to meet its milestone reporting demonstrating that those milestones designation) until the attainment obligations, which come due 90 days have been met for the PM2.5 date.146 The EPA proposes to maintain after a given milestone date. In the NAAQS.143 144 The EPA’s guidance in this approach for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Addendum, the EPA suggested some the Addendum also noted that: ‘‘Section Specifically, the EPA proposes that the possible metrics that ‘‘support and 189(c) provides that the quantitative attainment plan for a Moderate area that demonstrate how the overall milestones submitted by a State for an can demonstrate attainment by the quantitative milestones identified for an area also must be consistent with RFP statutory Moderate area attainment date area may be met,’’ such as percent for the area. Thus, EPA will determine must identify appropriate quantitative implementation of control strategies, an area’s compliance with RFP in milestones to be achieved by 4.5 years percent compliance with implemented conjunction with determining its following designation of the area. For a control measures, and adherence to a compliance with the quantitative Moderate area that cannot practicably compliance schedule. This list was not milestone requirement. Because RFP is attain the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS within exclusive or exhaustive but reflected the an annual emission reduction the statutory timeframe for a Moderate EPA’s view that the purpose of the requirement and the quantitative area, the EPA proposes that a state must quantitative milestone requirement is to milestones are to be achieved every 3 submit two sets of quantitative provide an objective way to assess that years, when a state demonstrates an milestones—one set to be achieved at the state is making the necessary area’s compliance with the quantitative year 4.5 from designation and the progress towards attainment in the area second set to be achieved at year 7.5 by the applicable attainment date.147 143 See the Federal Register published on April The EPA continues to believe that the 16, 1992, General Preamble (57 FR 13498 and from designation. The EPA believes that 13539). quantitative milestone requirement 144 See the Federal Register published on August 145 Ibid. 16, 1994, Addendum to General Preamble (59 FR 146 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 147 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 41998, 42015, 42016 and 42017). 1992), at page 13539. 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15391

should be interpreted to allow states to after the date on which a milestone believes this guidance is still devise milestones that are suitable for applicable to the area occurs, each State appropriate for states demonstrating the specific facts and circumstances of in which all or part of such compliance with RFP and quantitative the attainment plan for a particular area, [nonattainment] area is located shall milestones for PM2.5 NAAQS and hereby so long as they provide an objective submit to the Administrator a proposes under the authority of section means to measure RFP. demonstration that all measures in the 301(a) to require that the milestone The EPA therefore proposes to require plan approved under this section have report submission must include the that states select the quantitative been implemented and that the following four components: milestones that are appropriate and milestone has been met. A First, the report must include a quantifiable and that will provide for demonstration under this subsection certification by the Governor or objective evaluation of progress toward shall be submitted in such form and Governor’s designee that the state’s attainment in their Moderate PM2.5 manner, and shall contain such attainment plan control strategy, nonattainment area, whether the area information and analysis, as the including the RFP plan, is being can practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS Administrator shall require.’’ implemented as described in the by the statutory attainment date or not. In the event a state fails to submit a applicable attainment plan. Second, as For this approach, the EPA is not milestone demonstration report by the described in the Addendum, the report proposing to require that such due date or the EPA determines that a must contain technical support, quantitative milestones must take any milestone was not met, the state must including calculations, sufficient to particular form, merely that they submit a SIP revision within 9 months document completion statistics for provide a means to evaluate progress of either the missed reporting deadline appropriate milestones and to (i.e., demonstrate RFP) meaningfully. or the EPA’s determination of the state’s demonstrate that the quantitative The EPA, in its attainment plan failure to meet a milestone. According milestones have been satisfied and how approval process, will determine if the to the statutory requirements of section the emissions reductions achieved to specific quantitative milestones 189(c)(3), the new SIP revision must date compare to those required or developed by the state for a specific assure ‘‘that the State will achieve the scheduled to meet RFP. Third, the state nonattainment area satisfy the statutory next milestone (or attain the national must submit an air quality screening requirements. The EPA recommends ambient air quality standard . . ., if analysis to determine if measured air that states confer with their respective there is no next milestone) by the quality progress is consistent with the EPA regional office to develop applicable date.’’ If a state fails to make expected air quality improvement target appropriate quantitative milestones. See a SIP submission to correct a failure to correlated with the RFP emissions proposed 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(1). meet RFP expeditiously, sanctions reductions for the previous 3-year In addition to this general proposed under sections 110(m) and 179(b) may period. Fourth, the report must contain approach for selecting quantitative apply. If a state is unable to correct a an evaluation of whether the PM2.5 milestones for a Moderate failure to meet RFP, this may be NAAQS will be attained by the nonattainment area, the EPA is evidence that the state cannot projected attainment date for the area. In proposing and seeks comment on a practicably attain the NAAQS by the addition, the EPA proposes that the requirement that, at a minimum, states applicable attainment date and may milestone report must include a must include in all attainment plans for serve as a basis for reclassification of the description and schedule for any Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas a area to Serious under the agency’s remedial actions the state has taken or metric to confirm that all control discretionary authority. See proposed 40 will take to address any failure to meet measures identified and adopted as CFR 51.1013(c). a quantitative milestone, including the RACM and RACT for the area have been Because the statute does not define implementation status of contingency fully implemented within 4 years of the parameters of these demonstrations, measures for failing to meet RFP in the designation. This metric specifically the statute grants the EPA discretion to area. See proposed 40 CFR 51.1013(b). derives from the statutory provision that determine the components of the The EPA seeks comment on these applies to all Moderate areas and thus required demonstration and the form proposed components to a milestone represents a milestone that all Moderate and manner for submission. In the report. areas must meet regardless of whether it Addendum, the EPA offered guidance The EPA stated in the Addendum that is listed explicitly as an individual about what the milestone report should the milestone report must be submitted milestone. The EPA believes it would be contain: ‘‘This report must contain from the Governor or Governor’s appropriate to include it as a metric that technical support sufficient to designee to the Regional Administrator any state with a Moderate document completion statistics for of the respective EPA Regional Office nonattainment area would need to appropriate milestones. For example, serving the submitting state, and that demonstrate compliance with when the demonstration should graphically the EPA will notify the state of its they submit their milestone report as display RFP over the course of the determination (regarding whether or not described below, and thus seeks relevant 3 years and indicate how the the state’s report is adequate) by sending comment on this proposal. emission reductions achieved to date a letter to the appropriate Governor or compare to those required or scheduled Governor’s designee. The EPA believes 3. Milestone Report Submittal to meet RFP and the required that it would be appropriate for states to Under the quantitative milestone [quantitative] milestones. The submit milestone reports, including requirement of section 189(c)(2), a state calculations (and any assumptions supporting documents, through the must demonstrate to the EPA that the made) necessary to determine the agency’s electronic SIP (eSIP) RFP plan for the area and its approved emission reductions to date should also submission system in order to simplify milestones are being met within 90 days be submitted. The demonstration should the process and reduce resource burden after the milestone due date. The EPA also contain an evaluation of whether on all sides. The EPA seeks comment on then has 90 days to determine whether the PM10 NAAQS will be attained by the how electronic reporting could facilitate or not a state’s demonstration is projected attainment date.’’ 148 The EPA a state’s submittal of the required adequate. Specifically, section 189(c)(2) milestone report, how it could requires that: ‘‘Not later than 90 days 148 Ibid. at 42017. accommodate the various narrative and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

data-dependent components that the recommended in earlier EPA guidance, candidate contingency measure may EPA is proposing be part of such a but seeks comment on particular have been deemed technologically and submittal, and what particular system proposed approaches that differ in economically feasible, but it was not features might be desirable to important ways from earlier guidance needed to achieve expeditious accommodate milestone report on contingency measures for the PM2.5 attainment in a Moderate area for which submissions through the eSIP system. NAAQS. The EPA believes that it may the state could demonstrate attainment be necessary to adopt a different by the statutory attainment date and H. Contingency Measures approach to contingency measures for therefore was not included as part of the States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas PM2.5 attainment plans due to proposed attainment demonstration for the area. must include contingency measures in changes in determining RFP for a PM2.5 The agency believes it is important that their attainment plans consistent with nonattainment area and in order to states make decisions concerning section 172(c)(9). Contingency measures accommodate Moderate PM2.5 contingency measures in conjunction are additional control measures to be nonattainment areas that cannot with their determination of the overall implemented in the event that an area practicably attain the standard by the control strategy for bringing the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails statutory Moderate area attainment date. into expeditious attainment, and that to attain the PM2.5 standard by the The EPA is proposing and seeking states first must identify those control applicable attainment date. These comment on the following general measures needed in order to measures must be fully adopted rules or requirements for contingency measures demonstrate expeditious attainment of control measures that are ready to be to be approvable as part of a state’s the standards; any remaining measures implemented quickly upon failure to Moderate area attainment plan should then be considered as candidates meet RFP or failure of the area to meet submission for the PM2.5 NAAQS: for contingency measures. the standard by its attainment date, and 1. Contingency measures must be For Moderate areas that cannot such measures are required to take effect fully adopted rules or control measures practicably attain the NAAQS by the without further action by the state or the that are ready to be implemented statutory attainment date, the EPA is EPA. The EPA provided extensive quickly upon a determination by the proposing that states must implement guidance on contingency measures in Administrator of the nonattainment all control measures that they determine the General Preamble and Addendum, area’s failure to meet RFP or failure to to be reasonable for sources in the area. including the following: ‘‘States must meet the standard by its attainment In such cases, the EPA expects that show that their contingency measures date. contingency measures for such can be implemented with minimal 2. The state’s attainment plan nonattainment areas would necessarily further action on their part and with no submission must contain trigger exceed the criteria for determining additional rulemaking actions such as mechanisms for the contingency whether a measure is reasonable (i.e., public hearings or legislative review. measures, specify a schedule for technologically and economically After the EPA determines that a implementation, and indicate that the feasible) as described in Section IV.D of moderate PM10 nonattainment area has measures will be implemented with this preamble. Such contingency failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS, the minimal further action by the state or by measures would only be triggered in the EPA generally expects all actions the EPA. event the area fails to meet RFP; the needed to effect full implementation of 3. Contingency measures must consist EPA does not interpret the requirement the measures to occur within 60 days of control measures that are not for contingency measures for failing to after the EPA notifies the state of the otherwise included in the control attain the NAAQS by the applicable area’s failure. The state should ensure strategy for the attainment plan. attainment date to apply to a Moderate that the measures are fully implemented 4. Contingency measures must area that a state demonstrates cannot as expeditiously as practicable after they provide for emissions reductions practicably attain the NAAQS by the take effect.’’ 149 approximately equivalent to 1 year’s statutory attainment date. Rather, the The EPA does not believe that the worth of reductions needed for RFP, EPA believes it is appropriate for the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA based on the overall level of reductions state to identify and adopt contingency affects the overall contingency measure needed to demonstrate attainment measures for failing to attain the requirements that were finalized in the divided by the number of years from the NAAQS in a timely way as part of the remanded 2007 PM2.5 Implementation base year to the attainment year, or Serious area attainment plan that it will Rule, because section 172(c)(9) imposes approximately equivalent to 1 year’s develop once the EPA reclassifies such the contingency measure requirement worth of air quality improvement or an area. for attainment plans for the PM2.5 emissions reductions proportional to the The EPA proposes that for any NAAQS and it is not superseded or overall amount of air quality Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, subsumed by any specific contingency improvement or emissions reductions to contingency measures can include measure requirements under subpart 4. be achieved by the area’s attainment measures that achieve emissions Although section 172(c)(9) requires plan. See proposed 40 CFR 51.1014. reductions on sources located outside contingency measures, the provision The EPA interprets the contingency the nonattainment area as well as from does not specify exactly what measure requirement of section sources within the nonattainment area, parameters such measures must meet. 172(c)(9) to require control measures provided that the measures are factually The EPA has longstanding that are not already included in the demonstrated to produce the interpretations of the statute with attainment plan for other purposes, such appropriate air quality impact within respect to the contingency measure as to meet RACM and RACT the nonattainment area. The EPA requirement, both for PM and for other requirements. However, suitable continues to believe it appropriate that pollutants, in the General Preamble and contingency measures may be measures a state might choose to rely on federal Addendum. The EPA proposes to adopt that were technologically and measures (e.g. federal mobile source an approach to contingency measures economically feasible for the area, but measures based on the incremental for the PM2.5 NAAQS similar to that did not qualify as RACM or RACT or turnover of the motor vehicle fleet each additional reasonable measures for one year) and local measures already 149 Ibid. at 42015. or more reasons. For example, a scheduled for implementation for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15393

purposes other than meeting attainment the contingency measures must be equal plan items) meeting the applicable plan requirements, such as RACM and to approximately 1 year’s worth of [subpart 1 nonattainment plan] RACT, as meeting part or all of the emissions reductions while the state is requirements. . . Such schedule shall, contingency measure requirements, as revising its attainment plan for the area. at a minimum, include a date or dates, the purpose of the contingency The EPA has historically applied a extending no later than 3 years from the measures is to provide a cushion while policy of equating 1 year’s worth of date of the nonattainment designation the attainment plan for the area is being emissions reductions for contingency . . .’’ The EPA believes it is reasonable revised to meet the missed attainment measures with those annual reductions to require the submittal of contingency milestone. The EPA has approved determined to be necessary to achieve measures for Moderate PM2.5 numerous attainment plans under an RFP for the area, unless the state nonattainment areas on the same interpretation that one or more federal demonstrates that some smaller schedule as the other Moderate area or local measures that are in place and reduction is appropriate. As described attainment plan requirements because of provide reductions in the year following in Section IV.F of this preamble, the the close relationship between an area’s a failure to attain the relevant NAAQS EPA is proposing an approach for control strategy, RFP analysis and or meet RFP in excess of the reductions interpreting the statutory RFP selection of quantitative milestones, and required by the attainment requirement that would require contingency measures. The EPA seeks demonstration or RFP plan can meet the demonstrating RFP based on reductions comment on this proposed due date for contingency measure from sources located inside the submission of contingency measures. requirements.150 151 nonattainment area. Keeping with the The EPA recognizes that some states historic linkage between RFP and I. Attainment Dates have historically relied on emissions contingency measures, the EPA is also 1. Statutory Requirements reductions achieved through the proposing and seeking comment on a implementation of control measures in similar approach for calculating 1 year’s Section 188 establishes the attainment

excess of what was determined to be worth of emissions reductions for dates for Moderate and Serious PM10 nonattainment areas, which also apply necessary to meet RFP in certain PM2.5 purposes of adopting appropriate

nonattainment areas in order to satisfy contingency measures. That is, the to Moderate and Serious PM2.5 the contingency measure requirement in EPA’s proposed approach for nonattainment areas. Section 188(c)(1) such areas. The EPA believes that this determining the level of emissions provides that for a Moderate area, ‘‘the approach is reasonable for Moderate reductions for contingency measure attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later PM2.5 nonattainment areas that can purposes is to calculate the annual than the end of the sixth calendar year demonstrate attainment by the statutory reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 after the area’s designation as attainment date, as the state would and PM2.5 precursors needed from calculate the emissions reductions sources located inside the nonattainment.’’ The EPA has the needed for RFP separately from the nonattainment area. The EPA seeks responsibility for determining whether a control strategy determination for such comment on this proposed approach. nonattainment area has attained the an area. However, crediting an area for The CAA requires that states must standard by its applicable attainment ‘‘excess’’ emissions reductions to satisfy implement contingency measures after date. Section 179(c)(1) requires the EPA the contingency measure requirement the EPA determines that the area has to make determinations of attainment no would not be possible for a Moderate either failed to meet RFP requirements, later than 6 months following the area that cannot practicably attain by or failed to attain the standards by the attainment date for the area. Under the statutory attainment date under the applicable attainment date. The purpose section 179(c)(2), the EPA must publish EPA’s proposed approach for of the contingency measure provision is a notice in the Federal Register calculating RFP for such areas, as RFP to ensure that corrective measures are identifying those areas which failed to would be calculated directly from the put in place automatically at the time attain by the applicable attainment date. projected emissions reductions from all that the EPA makes its determination The statute further provides that the control measures identified for the area that an area has either failed to meet EPA may revise or supplement its (as RACM and RACT or additional RFP or failed to meet the standard by its determination of attainment for the reasonable measures), such that there attainment date. The EPA is required to affected areas based upon more would be no difference between determine within 90 days after receiving complete information or analysis emissions reductions estimated from a state’s milestone demonstration, and concerning the air quality for the area as control measures and those estimated within 6 months after the attainment of the area’s attainment date. for demonstrating RFP. date for an area, whether these Section 179(c)(1) provides that the As mentioned earlier, contingency requirements have been met. The EPA is to base the attainment measures should represent a portion of consequences for states with areas that determination for an area upon an area’s the actual emissions reductions fail to attain the NAAQS or to meet RFP ‘‘air quality data as of the attainment necessary to bring about attainment in are described in section 179(d) of the date.’’ The EPA will make the the area. Consistent with the EPA’s past CAA and discussed in Section V of this determination of whether an area’s air approach for contingency measures for preamble. quality is meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date based PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the EPA As noted earlier in this section, the proposes to require that the emissions EPA proposes to require that states must upon data gathered from the air quality reductions anticipated by imposition of submit contingency measures at the monitoring sites which have been same time as the rest of the Moderate entered into the EPA’s Air Quality 150 See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR area attainment plan elements, i.e., System (AQS) database. No special or 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, within 18 months after designation. additional attainment plan submission 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). Section 172(b) requires the will be required from the state for this 151 A court ruling upheld contingency measures Administrator to ‘‘establish a schedule determination. for ozone attainment plans that were previously required and implemented where they were in according to which the State containing A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment excess of the attainment demonstration and RFP such [nonattainment] area shall submit area’s air quality status is determined in SIP. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir., 2004). a plan or plan revision (including the accordance with Appendix N of 40 CFR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

part 50. To show attainment of the than the end of the sixth calendar year needs additional time to attain the current 24-hour and annual standards after the area’s designation as relevant NAAQS, the state may request for PM2.5, the most recent 3 consecutive nonattainment.’’ For purposes of clarity, an attainment date extension for the years’ data prior to the area’s attainment the EPA proposes to interpret the Moderate nonattainment area under date must show that PM2.5 reference to ‘‘the area’s designation’’ in section 188 as long as certain conditions concentrations over the prior 3-year this provision as meaning ‘‘the area’s are met, as described in Section IV.J. period are at or below the levels of the effective date of designation,’’ consistent The EPA’s approach to approving an standards. A complete year of air quality with the agency’s approach for attainment date for a PM2.5 data, as described in part 50, Appendix implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area will be different for N, is comprised of all 4 calendar NAAQS and with its approach for a Moderate area that cannot practicably quarters with each quarter containing implementing NAAQS for other criteria attain the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS by the data from at least 75 percent of the pollutants under part D, title I of the end of the sixth calendar year after scheduled sampling days. CAA. See proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. As designation. Given that the agency will The EPA will begin processing and discussed elsewhere in this preamble, reclassify any such area to Serious and analyzing data related to the attainment the effective date of designation is April thereby trigger additional Serious area of Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas 15, 2015, for areas designated requirements for the area, the EPA will after the applicable attainment date for nonattainment in the first round of approve an attainment date for the area the affected areas. Current EPA designations for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. when it takes action on the Serious area regulations, under 40 CFR part 58, set For these areas, the Moderate area attainment plan submitted for the area. the deadline for the state to submit air attainment date would be as expeditious In the interim, before the EPA takes quality data into the AQS database as no as practicable, but no later than action to reclassify the area, the later than 90 days after the end of the December 31, 2021 (i.e., the end of the statutory Moderate area attainment date calendar year. sixth calendar year after designation). will continue to apply to such an area. While the EPA may determine that an The EPA seeks comment on this See proposed 40 CFR 51.1000 and area’s air quality data indicates that an proposed interpretation of the date of 51.1004(a)(1)(ii). When the EPA area may be meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS designation of a PM2.5 NAAQS reclassifies the area, then the for a specified period of time, this does nonattainment area and the resulting presumptive attainment date for the area not eliminate the state’s responsibility attainment date for such areas. will be as expeditious as practicable, but under the Act to adopt and implement As described in Sections IV.D and no later than the end of the tenth an approvable attainment plan. If the IV.E of this preamble, in the case of a calendar year following designation. A area’s monitored data indicates that the Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area for complete discussion of Serious area area is factually attaining the NAAQS, which a state can demonstrate attainment dates is provided in Section however, the EPA may issue a ‘‘clean attainment by the end of the sixth VI.H of this preamble. data determination’’ which will suspend calendar year following designation, the J. Attainment Date Extensions the obligation of the state to submit the state must follow a two-step process for elements of the attainment plan for the determining the appropriate attainment 1. Statutory Requirements area that are related to planning date for the area. First, the state must The CAA under subpart 4 provides requirements, as discussed in Section demonstrate through air quality the EPA with authority to grant IX.C of this preamble. If the EPA modeling that the area can attain the extensions of the attainment date for a determines that an area has attained the relevant NAAQS by the latest statutory Moderate area that otherwise could be standard as of its attainment date, the attainment date and determine which found to have failed to attain the area will remain classified as control measures and technologies are relevant PM2.5 NAAQS, if the area can nonattainment until the state has needed for the area to attain by that meet specific statutory criteria related to requested, and the EPA has approved, date. Second, the state must determine the implementation of measures redesignation to attainment for the area. whether implementing other reasonable contained in the attainment plan for the In order for an area to be redesignated controls (i.e., those not needed for area, and to monitored air quality in the as attainment, the state must comply attainment by the latest possible date area. Specifically, under section 188(d), with the five requirements listed under but that are technologically and a state may apply to the EPA for an section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Briefly, economically feasible) can cumulatively extension of a Moderate area’s this section requires that: advance the attainment date for the area • The EPA has determined that the attainment date of one additional year by at least 1 year. In the event that a (the ‘‘Extension Year’’) if ‘‘(1) the state area has met the PM2.5 NAAQS; • The EPA has fully approved the state determines that the area can attain has complied with all requirements and applicable state implementation plan; the relevant NAAQS earlier through the commitments pertaining to the area in • The improvement in air quality is application of other measures, the state the applicable implementation plan; due to permanent and enforceable must propose the earlier date as part of and (2) no more than one exceedance of reductions in emissions; the attainment plan submission for the the 24-hour [NAAQS] level for PM10 has • The EPA has fully approved a area. When the EPA takes action to occurred in the area in the year maintenance plan for the area; and, approve the different elements of the preceding the Extension Year, and the • The state(s) containing the area or attainment plan for the area, one of the annual mean concentration of PM10 in portions of the area have met all elements that the agency will take the area for such year is less than or applicable requirements under section action on will be the state’s proposed equal to the standard level.’’ Section 110 and part D. attainment date for the area. If the EPA 188(d) limits the number of 1-year approves an attainment date for the area extensions that the EPA may grant for a 2. Proposed Approach that is earlier than the latest date Moderate nonattainment area to two. As noted earlier, section 188(c)(1) allowed by statute, then the applicable The provisions of section 188(d) thus states that for a Moderate area, ‘‘the attainment date for the area will be the allow a state an opportunity to attainment date shall be as approved date. See proposed 40 CFR demonstrate that a Moderate area expeditiously as practicable but no later 51.1004(a)(1)(i). If the area ultimately should continue to be classified as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15395

Moderate and not be reclassified to FIP (or combination of SIP and FIP), concentration of PM10 in the area for Serious even if the area exceeded the then the EPA proposes that the state such year is less than or equal to the level of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in must have implemented the control standard level.’’ Again, the EPA may one or both of the 2 calendar years measures contained therein in order to grant up to two such 1-year extensions preceding the year in which the area is meet the statutory criteria at section and thus this criterion would apply to otherwise required to attain the 188(d)(1) for a Moderate area attainment the calendar year prior to the applicable NAAQS. Although section 188(d) date extension. The EPA seeks comment attainment date and to the Extension provides the criteria for such an on this proposed interpretation of Year, in the case of a second extension. extension, the EPA believes that there section 188(d)(1). See proposed 40 CFR The EPA believes that the references are some ambiguities in the statutory 51.1005(a)(2). to the ambient air quality standards in language that warrant interpretation and The EPA also proposes and seeks section 188(d)(2) are ambiguous in two clarification through regulations for the comment on an alternative significant ways in the context of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is thus interpretation of section 188(d)(1) that PM2.5 NAAQS implementation. First, proposing a preferred interpretation of would require a state to have a Moderate the statutory language explicitly sets section 188(d) to provide clarity to area attainment plan fully approved by ambient air quality conditions for an states about how and when they may the EPA as meeting the applicable attainment date extension in terms that qualify for a Moderate area attainment attainment plan requirements under relate factually to the 24-hour PM10 date extension for purposes of the PM2.5 sections 172 and 189 for a Moderate NAAQS that was in effect at the time of NAAQS. PM2.5 nonattainment area before the the 1990 Amendments of the CAA, state obtains an extension. Given that which has a statistical form that is 2. Proposed Interpretations of Moderate area attainment plans are due substantially different from the 24-hour Attainment Date Extension Criteria 18 months from the date of designation, PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the form of With respect to the criterion in and that RACM and RACT must be the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS allows for no section 188(d)(1) that requires that ‘‘the implemented within 4 years after more than one ‘‘exceedance’’ of the state has complied with all designation, states should have standard per year on average over 3 requirements and commitments sufficient time under the statutory years, and if there is more than one such pertaining to the area in the applicable schedule to satisfy all applicable exceedance on average over 3 years the implementation plan,’’ the EPA requirements in advance of seeking a area is violating the NAAQS. Thus, as proposes to interpret this provision to Moderate area attainment date a means of limiting extensions to areas mean that the state has implemented the extension. Under this alternative that are close to attaining the NAAQS in control measures in the SIP submission approach, the EPA proposes that a state the calendar year prior to the applicable it made to address the attainment plan subject to a FIP (or SIP and FIP) for a attainment date, section 188(d)(2) requirements for the applicable PM2.5 Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area imposes the criterion of having ‘‘no NAAQS, and not to require the area to could qualify for an attainment date more than one exceedance of the 24- have a fully approved attainment plan extension for the area if it had hour . . . standard level’’ as a way of that meets all of the CAA’s requirements implemented all requirements and demonstrating that a nonattainment area for Moderate areas. This proposed commitments of the FIP (or SIP and has ‘‘clean data’’ for the year prior to the interpretation is based on the plain FIP), as the FIP (or SIP and FIP) would attainment date.153 This statutory language of section 188(d) that does not be the ‘‘applicable implementation language does not translate readily to explicitly require that the state comply plan’’ for the area. Although this the PM2.5 NAAQS, which postdate the with all requirements pertaining to the alternative interpretation could also be creation of section 188(d) and are not area in the CAA, but merely requires a reasonable reading of this criterion of structured with the same mathematical that the state comply with all section 188(d)(1), the EPA considers it form. For example, the 2006 24-hour requirements in the applicable SIP.152 In less appropriate than the preferred PM2.5 NAAQS incorporates a 3-year other words, the EPA believes that interpretation because this approach average of the 98th percentile form, section 188(d)(1) should be interpreted could foreclose states from obtaining an which means that an area with valid to mean that so long as the state has otherwise appropriate extension merely monitored ambient readings every day submitted the necessary attainment plan because of logistical and timing (or almost every day) could have seven for the area for the applicable PM2.5 considerations that might have readings above the numerical level of NAAQs and is implementing the control prevented the EPA from acting on the the standard (i.e., ‘‘exceedances’’) in any measures in the submission, the fact state’s attainment plan by the requisite given year and still have ‘‘clean data’’ that the EPA has not yet acted on such point in time. Nevertheless, the EPA for that year. A literal interpretation of submission to make it an approved part seeks comment on this alternative section 188(d)(2) to permit only one of the applicable SIP should not be a interpretation of section 188(d)(1). exceedance of the 24-hour PM2.5 barrier to the state obtaining an The second criterion that states must NAAQS, rather than the number of extension of the attainment date under meet to qualify for an extension relates exceedances that is relevant for section 188(d)(1). For the same reason, to the monitored ambient air in a purposes of determining attainment of the EPA also proposes to read this nonattainment area in the year prior to such NAAQS, is illogical. In light of the provision not to bar an extension if all the attainment date for the area. If a different form of the PM NAAQS, the or part of an area’s Moderate area plan state has met the requirements of 2.5 statutory language of section 188(d)(2) is is disapproved or has been promulgated section 188(d)(1), the EPA may grant an thus ambiguous in how it should apply by the EPA as a federal implementation extension of a Moderate area’s to implementation of the 24-hour PM plan (FIP). In the case that the attainment date if the state also satisfies 2.5 NAAQS. ‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ is a the requirements of section 188(d)(2) Additionally, the language of section that ‘‘no more than one exceedance of 188(d)(2) may be considered ambiguous 152 This interpretation as applied to section 188(e) the 24-hour national ambient air quality for Serious area attainment date extensions was standard level for PM10 has occurred in 153 3 upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, set at 150 mg/m , Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d the area in the year preceding the cannot be exceeded more than once per year on 826 (9th Cir. 2004). Extension Year, and the annual mean average, over 3 years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

as to how it should apply to the PM2.5 to demonstrate a Moderate addition, the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to the extent that it does not nonattainment area met the air quality NAAQS does not have a ‘‘one specify whether the air quality criteria criteria of section 188(d)(2) in order to exceedance’’ form of the standard, as for an attainment date extension apply qualify for an attainment date extension. cited in section 188(d)(2). Nevertheless, equally for a Moderate area designated The agency also believes it is important the EPA requests comment on the nonattainment for both the 24-hour and to clarify how the air quality criteria of second and third interpretations of annual standards, or for just one of the section 188(d)(2) apply specifically for section 188(d)(2) described later in this standards. In practice, most areas the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For this section because they more closely designated nonattainment for the PM10 reason, the EPA is proposing a preferred reflect the specific statutory wording. NAAQS following passage of the 1990 interpretation of section 188(d)(2) for a. Proposed approach: the EPA CAA Amendments were designated application to current and future PM2.5 preferred option. The EPA’s proposed nonattainment only for the 24-hour NAAQS, and is seeking comment on interpretation of section 188(d)(2) PM10 NAAQS, with a few designated for two alternative interpretations that the would simply require that a state only the annual PM10 NAAQS or for agency considers less appropriate. demonstrate that in the year prior to the both the 24-hour and the annual PM10 The preferred proposed approach applicable attainment date for the area, NAAQS. The 24-hour NAAQS has would only require a state to a Moderate nonattainment area had served as the ‘‘controlling’’ (i.e., demonstrate that in the year prior to the clean data for the specific PM2.5 NAAQS functionally more stringent) PM10 applicable attainment date for the area, for which the state was seeking an standard, such that the agency’s a Moderate area did not exceed the level attainment date extension (the experience to date in granting PM10 of (i.e., had clean data for) the specific applicable NAAQS). Under this Moderate area attainment date extension PM2.5 NAAQS for which the area is proposed approach, a state seeking an requests has been limited to extending designated nonattainment (the attainment date extension for a the attainment date for the 24-hour PM10 ‘‘applicable NAAQS’’) and for which the Moderate nonattainment area for a 24- NAAQS.154 state is seeking the extension of the hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be required The situation is distinctly different for attainment date. The second approach, to demonstrate that the area had clean PM2.5 nonattainment areas, as the on which the EPA seeks comment, data for that particular standard in the specific facts and circumstances of a would require that a state demonstrate calendar year prior to the applicable particular area may warrant a that in the year prior to the applicable attainment date for the area, rather than nonattainment designation for either the attainment date for an area, the demonstrating that the area necessarily 24-hour standard or the annual Moderate area did not exceed the level had no more than one exceedance of the standard, but often not both. In most of the specific PM2.5 NAAQS for which 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. cases, for instance, the current the area is designated nonattainment For example, under this proposed nonattainment areas for PM2.5 are (the applicable NAAQS), and did not interpretation of section 188(d)(2), in designated either for the 1997 annual exceed the most stringent level of any the case of a state seeking an extension NAAQS or for the 2006 24-hour other PM2.5 NAAQS in effect nationally of the attainment date for a Moderate NAAQS, but not both.155 For example, at the time the area was designated for area designated nonattainment for the the EPA recently promulgated the applicable NAAQS. The third 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the state designations for areas violating only the approach, on which the EPA also seeks would need to demonstrate that the area annual PM2.5 NAAQS revised in 2012, comment, would require that a state had no more than the allowable number not the 24-hour NAAQS which was demonstrate that in the year prior to the of valid monitored readings exceeding retained at the level established during applicable attainment date for an area, 35mg/m3 to meet the 98th percentile the 2006 p.m. NAAQS review. If a PM2.5 the Moderate area did not have more statistical form of the standard in the nonattainment area is designated only than one exceedance of the level of the year prior to the area’s attainment date. for the 24-hour or only for the annual 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and that the The state would not have to PM2.5 NAAQS, this situation raises the annual mean concentration of PM2.5 in demonstrate that the area also had clean question of how section 188(d)(2) air the area for the attainment year was less data for any other PM2.5 NAAQS, quality criteria for both standards than or equal to the annual standard, including any annual PM2.5 NAAQS or should apply to such a PM2.5 NAAQS regardless of the NAAQS for which the later revision of the 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area if the state seeks an state is seeking an attainment date NAAQS. extension of the applicable attainment extension. Likewise under the EPA’s preferred date for such area. The EPA prefers the proposed approach, a state seeking an attainment Due to the ambiguities associated interpretation (described in more detail date extension for a Moderate with applying this subpart 4 later in this section) for implementing nonattainment area for an annual PM2.5 requirement to current and future PM2.5 the Moderate area attainment date NAAQS would be required to NAAQS, the agency believes it is extension criteria of section 188(d)(2) demonstrate that the area had clean data important to propose a reasonable considering the fact that, due to the for that particular standard in the interpretation of the statutory specific atmospheric conditions and calendar year prior to the applicable requirement and seek public comment source-dependent nature of PM2.5 attainment date for the area. For on this preferred interpretation as well problems in different areas around the example, in the case of a state seeking as two alternative interpretations country, the EPA has historically an extension of the attainment date for specifying the PM2.5 standard or designated, and may continue to a Moderate area designated standards for which a state would need designate, PM2.5 nonattainment areas for nonattainment for the 2012 annual either the annual or the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the state would need to 154 For examples of the EPA actions to extend NAAQS. As discussed earlier, the demonstrate that the annual mean attainment dates for Moderate PM10 areas, see 61 FR agency’s designations processes for the concentration of PM2.5 at each monitor 20730 (May 8, 1996), 61 FR 66602 (December 18, 2006 revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and in the area as analyzed in accordance 1996), and 66 FR 32752 (June 18, 2001). 155 Nonattainment areas designated for both the the 2012 revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS with Appendix N to 40 CFR part 50 for 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS are located in have each been conducted to address the year prior to the area’s attainment central and southern CA. only one standard individually. In date was less than or equal to 12.0 mg/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15397

3 m . Again, under this proposed hour PM2.5 NAAQS, now or in the had no more than one exceedance of the approach, the state would not have to future regardless of the specific 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. demonstrate that the area had clean data statistical form any such NAAQS may The EPA presents this first alternative for any other PM2.5 NAAQS. take. The EPA seeks comment on this interpretation of the statute for two Under the EPA’s preferred approach, preferred proposed approach. reasons. First, as noted earlier, the if a state were to have an area that is statute at section 188(b)(2) does not b. Alternative approach 1. The EPA designated nonattainment for both the specify whether the air quality criteria also seeks comment on two alternative 24-hour and the annual PM NAAQS, for an attainment date extension apply 2.5 interpretations of section 188(d)(2). The with the same applicable attainment for Moderate areas designated EPA’s first alternative interpretation of date, then a state seeking attainment nonattainment for both the 24-hour and section 188(d)(2) would require that a date extensions for both NAAQS would annual PM10 standards, or for just one need to meet the ambient air quality state seeking an attainment date of the standards. Read literally, criterion for both NAAQS. The EPA extension for a Moderate PM2.5 however, the statute seems to require notes that this would not be a common nonattainment area would have to that an area seeking an extension of a occurrence, but under this demonstrate that the area met the level Moderate area attainment date for any of the PM2.5 NAAQS for which it is interpretation, these would be the only PM10 NAAQS must be meeting the level circumstances under which a state seeking the attainment date extension, of both the 24-hour standard and the should be required to have clean data as well as met the numerical level of the annual standard, even if it was only for both NAAQS in order to qualify for most stringent PM2.5 NAAQS in effect at designated for just one of the standards. an extension of the applicable the time the area was designated Under this interpretation of the statute attainment date under section 188(d)(2). nonattainment. That is, under this for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 If a state has a nonattainment area that approach, the area would need to have NAAQS, even though an area may be is only designated for either the 24-hour clean data for the year preceding the designated nonattainment for only one or the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA attainment date for the PM2.5 NAAQS PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore seeking an believes that the state need only meet for which the state is seeking an attainment date extension only for that the air quality criterion of section attainment date extension and for the particular NAAQS, it would also have to 188(d)(2) for the NAAQS relevant to the other PM2.5 NAAQS that were part of meet the level of the other PM2.5 attainment date at issue. See proposed the same suite of PM2.5 standards (i.e., standards. As explained above, the EPA 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii) and (iii). both the 24-hour and the annual PM2.5 does not consider this the most The EPA believes this preferred NAAQS) in effect at the time the EPA appropriate interpretation of section interpretation of section 188(d)(2) is designated the area nonattainment. 188(d). However, under this alternative appropriate for two reasons. First, as For example, if a state seeks an interpretation the agency would take the discussed above, while most PM10 extension of the attainment date for an position that the other PM2.5 standards nonattainment areas were designated area designated nonattainment only for whose level the state must show the nonattainment for either just the 24- Moderate nonattainment area met in the the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, it would hour PM10 NAAQS or for both the 24- have to demonstrate that the annual year preceding its attainment date hour and annual PM10 NAAQS, the would be the most stringent PM2.5 mean concentration of PM2.5 at each majority of current PM2.5 nonattainment monitor in the Moderate area as NAAQS in effect nationally at the time areas are designated for either the 24- analyzed in accordance with Appendix the area was designated nonattainment. hour or the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and N to 40 CFR part 50 in the attainment For example, if the EPA were to should arguably only need to year was less than or equal to 12.0 mg/ strengthen the 24-hour PM2.5 standard demonstrate clean data for the NAAQS 3 m3. Additionally, the state would have below the current 35 mg/m prior to for which the area is designated to demonstrate that the 98th percentile December 31, 2021 (the anticipated nonattainment. For those few PM 2.5 of valid 24-hour monitored readings in statutory Moderate area attainment date nonattainment areas designated for 24- the area for the year preceding the for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS), then an hour and annual PM NAAQS, the EPA 2.5 attainment date did not exceed 35 mg/ area seeking an extension of the believes it may also be appropriate that m3, the level of the 24-hour PM Moderate area attainment date for the a state must only demonstrate clean data 2.5 NAAQS set in 2006 and retained with 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS would have to for the specific NAAQS for which the the 2012 p.m. NAAQS review as part of demonstrate that the area met the most state is seeking an attainment date stringent 24-hour PM NAAQS that the suite of PM NAAQS, even if the area 2.5 extension because such an approach is applied at the time it was designated (35 was not designated nonattainment for consistent with the statute’s overall mg/m3), and not the less stringent 24- the 2006 24-hour PM NAAQS.156 As approach to designating nonattainment 2.5 hour NAAQS set in 1997 (65 mg/m3) or with the agency’s preferred approach, a areas and implementing control any more stringent standard set after state seeking an attainment date strategies for each separate PM2.5 designation but before the attainment extension for a Moderate nonattainment NAAQS. date. Second, as discussed earlier, the area for a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would Second, as with the proposed statutory language that requires that a be required to demonstrate that the area approach to interpreting section nonattainment area have ‘‘no more than had clean data for that particular 188(d)(2), the EPA believes it is one exceedance of the 24-hour’’ NAAQS standard in the calendar year prior to appropriate to interpret the statutory level reflects a statistical form for the the applicable attainment date for the language regarding ‘‘no more than one area in accordance with the statistical 24-hour PM10 standard that is different exceedance of the 24-hour’’ NAAQS from the current form of the 24-hour form of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, level broadly to mean that the area had rather than demonstrating that the area PM2.5 NAAQS. This difference, and the clean data for the 24-hour PM2.5 fact that the form could be subject to NAAQS, consistent with the form of the further revision in the future, leads the 156 Given the rounding provisions specified in 40 NAAQS at issue, so that the requirement CFR part 50, Appendix N, these criteria would be EPA to conclude that it is appropriate to satisfied if the concentrations before final rounding can apply to any 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, describe this particular criterion more are less than an annual average of 12.05 mg/m3 and now or in the future. Even if it were broadly so that it can apply to any 24- a 24-hour value of 35.5 mg/m3. appropriate to interpret section

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

188(d)(2) to require that a state meet the the air quality criteria of section appropriate evaluation of the relevant air quality criterion for both the 24-hour 188(d)(2) that a state would need to criteria and facts in order to assure that and the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA demonstrate compliance with in order the extension is granted or denied after believes that the statutory provision for the EPA to consider granting an full evaluation. This process also is concerning the number of exceedances extension of a Moderate PM2.5 area consistent with past practice by the EPA must still be read in light of the different attainment date. in granting attainment date extensions, form of the 24-hour PM NAAQS. The 2.5 3. Proposed Process for Attainment Date most recently for ozone nonattainment EPA seeks comment on this first Extension Request Submittals areas. In addition, for ease of alternative interpretation of section implementation, the EPA proposes to 188(d)(2). Regardless of which interpretation of interpret section 188(d) to authorize the c. Alternative approach 2. The EPA’s section 188(d)(1) the EPA finalizes as EPA to stipulate that any extension second alternative interpretation of part of this rulemaking, the EPA would begin on January 1 and end on section 188(d)(2) would require that a proposes to require states to submit December 31 of the extension year and state demonstrate that a Moderate area sufficient information to demonstrate these dates would not depend on when did not have more than one exceedance that they have complied with applicable the state submitted its request for an of the applicable 24-hour PM2.5 standard requirements and commitments in the extension or was granted the extension level, and the annual mean applicable implementation plan. This by the EPA. The EPA believes this is a concentration of PM2.5 in the area was information would be needed in order reasonable approach as the applicable less than or equal to the applicable for the EPA to make a decision on attainment date for the area will either annual PM2.5 standard level, in the year whether to grant a 1-year attainment be the end of the sixth calendar year preceding the applicable attainment date extension. The EPA would not be following designation of the area, or the date for the area. In other words, the authorized to grant an attainment date end of an earlier calendar year if the EPA would not interpret the air quality extension to an area unless the state can state could advance attainment of the criterion with respect to the 24-hour demonstrate that it has met all of the area by at least 1 year through the PM2.5 NAAQS in light of the requirements and commitments implementation of extra control significantly different form of the PM2.5 contained in the state’s applicable measures. In addition, compliance with NAAQS. Furthermore, as with the first implementation plan for the area. Under the relevant NAAQS will be evaluated alternative interpretation, the the EPA’s first proposed approach for based on monitored data collected over ‘‘applicable’’ PM2.5 standards would be interpreting section 188(d)(1), a state a full calendar year (i.e., over the period would have to demonstrate that control those that applied at the time the beginning January 1 and ending measures have been submitted in the Moderate area was designated for a December 31), so starting the extension form of a SIP revision and that RACM given PM2.5 NAAQS, even if the area year on January 1 is logical. was not designated nonattainment for and RACT and additional reasonable all of them. This interpretation would measures for sources in the area have Because air quality criteria are part of mean that regardless of the form of the been implemented. Under the agency’s the conditions that must be met in order for the EPA to grant a Moderate area applicable 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the alternative proposal for interpreting Moderate area seeking an attainment section 188(b)(1), the attainment plan attainment date extension, the EPA date extension could not have more submitted by the state would have to proposes to require that a state seeking than one exceedance of the numerical have been fully approved by the EPA such an extension must submit its level of the applicable 24-hour standard and the state would have to be in complete attainment date extension in order to qualify for a Moderate area compliance with any elements required request, including any available attainment date extension. This under any applicable FIP for the area. In preliminary data for the year preceding requirement would be more stringent— addition, under the EPA’s second the area’s applicable Moderate and in some cases considerably so— proposed approach, the state would attainment date, on or before the area’s than under the preferred proposed and have to demonstrate that: (i) RACM and attainment date. The EPA also proposes first alternative interpretations, given RACT and additional reasonable to require that the state requesting such the current statistical form of the 24- measures for sources in the area have an extension must submit to the hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, been implemented, and (ii) the area has respective EPA Regional Office certified under this reading of section 188(d)(2), made emissions reductions progress that ambient PM2.5 monitoring data for the any future changes to the PM2.5 NAAQS represents RFP toward attainment of the year preceding the attainment date for in terms of form or averaging time NAAQS and has met its quantitative the area in question by no later than would also not be addressed, potentially milestones, and the state has submitted February 28 of the year following the creating confusion with respect to how a milestone compliance demonstration area’s attainment date. Submission of a PM2.5 Moderate area could qualify for (milestone report) to that effect if due. the necessary data by this date will an attainment date extension in the Any decision made by the EPA to allow the EPA to review the state’s future. extend the attainment date for an area request and take appropriate action on The EPA believes that, while this would be based on facts specific to the the request prior to the date by which interpretation of section 188(d)(2) may nonattainment area at issue. the EPA is required to make a appear to be a straightforward reading of Section 188(d) does not specify the determination that the area failed to the statutory language, it does not process by which the EPA should attain by its Moderate area attainment reasonably account for the important evaluate and act upon requests from date, i.e., within 6 months of the differences between the statistical form states for an extension of the Moderate applicable attainment date (see the of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or area attainment date. However, the EPA discussion of reclassification in Section between the EPA’s longstanding proposes that an attainment date V of this preamble). The EPA seeks convention for designating PM10 and extension would only be granted after comment on these proposed deadlines PM2.5 nonattainment areas generally. the agency provides notice in the for a state to request an extension of a The EPA therefore seeks comment on its Federal Register and an opportunity for Moderate area’s attainment date and preferred proposed approach and two the public to comment. This notice-and- submit certified air quality data as alternative approaches for interpreting comment process would allow for required under CAA section 188(d)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15399

As noted earlier in this discussion of be triggered by the EPA making a then have until April 2018 (18 months Moderate area attainment date determination that the Moderate area in following the Moderate area attainment extensions, the statute at section 188(d) question could not practicably attain by plan submission deadline) to use its provides that a state may seek up to two its statutory attainment date. discretionary authority to reclassify any 1-year extensions of the Moderate area The CAA does not specify the basis area that the EPA determines at that attainment date if it meets the on which the EPA may make the time cannot practicably attain by the applicable criteria of sections 188(d)(1) determination that the area cannot Moderate area attainment date of and 188(d)(2). The statute makes no practicably attain by the applicable December 2021. attainment date. In the General distinction between the criteria that As noted above, the EPA believes that Preamble, the EPA explained that the must be met for the first 1-year while a Moderate area impracticability agency could base this determination extension and the criteria for the second demonstration as contemplated in upon whatever factors are pertinent and 1-year extension, therefore the EPA section 189(a)(1)(B) is desirable in order do so whether or not the state in plans to apply the same interpretations to help the agency make a determination question has submitted a Moderate area of the statutory criteria proposed that the area cannot practicably attain throughout this section, including the attainment plan, and whether or not the by its attainment date, such a proposed deadlines for the state to state has made the demonstration demonstration is not necessary to trigger submit the extension request and the contemplated in section 189(a)(1)(B).157 action by the EPA to reclassify a certified air quality data, for purposes of The EPA may make such a Moderate area to Serious. The statute a state seeking a second 1-year determination based on evaluation of does not prohibit the EPA from using attainment date extension for a the attainment plan for the Moderate the weight of available evidence, Moderate nonattainment area. area in question or other facts known to The EPA seeks comment on the the agency. As discussed earlier in this including information available in the proposed approaches described above preamble, the attainment plan that a public record of a state, to make such a for interpreting the criteria of section state would submit for a Moderate determination, even in the absence of a 188(d)(1) and 188(d)(2) and establishing nonattainment area must include either complete attainment plan submission. a process for states to request attainment a demonstration that the area will attain Thus, the EPA expressed in the General date extensions for Moderate areas. the NAAQS by the statutory Moderate Preamble that: area attainment date or a demonstration . . . under the plain meaning of the terms of V. How would a PM Moderate 2.5 that attaining by the statutory Moderate section 188(b)(1) EPA has general discretion nonattainment area be reclassified to area attainment date is impracticable. If to reclassify at any time before the applicable Serious? the state makes and the EPA concurs attainment date any area EPA determines As discussed elsewhere in this with an impracticability demonstration cannot practically attain the standards by preamble, subpart 4, part D of title I of submitted as part of the attainment plan, such date. Accordingly, CAA section the CAA establishes a two-tier then the demonstration could serve as 188(b)(1) is a general expression of delegated classification system for areas the basis for the EPA initiating a notice- rulemaking authority. In addition, designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 and-comment rulemaking to reclassify subparagraphs (A) and (B) of CAA section NAAQS. While all areas designated the area to Serious. However, the CAA 188(b)(1) mandate that the EPA reclassify at nonattainment are initially classified as does not specify the basis for the EPA’s specified timeframes any areas it determines Moderate, section 188(b) describes two exercise of its discretionary authority appropriate for reclassification at those dates. pathways by which the EPA has the and does not require the EPA to make These subparagraphs do not restrict the authority or the duty to reclassify a its determination based on a submission general authority but simply specify that, at Moderate nonattainment area to a a minimum, it must be exercised at certain from the state. Indeed, such a 158 Serious nonattainment area. Pursuant to prerequisite would be illogical in the times. section 188 (b)(1), the EPA has general case of a state that fails to make any The EPA continues to consider this the discretionary authority to reclassify attainment plan submission or fails to correct interpretation of the statutory from Moderate to Serious any area that address the issue of the need for requirements concerning its authority to the Administrator determines cannot reclassification in such submission. reclassify a Moderate nonattainment practicably attain the NAAQS by the Section 188(b)(1)(B) does establish area to Serious at any time prior to the applicable Moderate area attainment mandatory timeframes by which EPA area’s Moderate area attainment date, if date. Pursuant to section 188(b)(2), the must act if it intends to exercise its the agency determines that the area EPA has a mandatory duty to reclassify discretionary authority to reclassify cannot practicably attain the relevant from Moderate to Serious any area that areas as appropriate following the PM2.5 NAAQS by that date. fails to attain the NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment plan due date, applicable Moderate area attainment stating that ‘‘the Administrator shall The EPA emphasizes that states with date. Both of these pathways are more reclassify appropriate areas within 18 an area designated as nonattainment for fully described below. months after the required date for the the PM2.5 NAAQS are required to meet all Moderate area attainment plan A. Discretionary Authority state’s submission of a SIP for the Moderate Area.’’ In the case of areas requirements, even after the EPA The EPA’s discretionary authority to designated nonattainment for the 2012 reclassifies the area to Serious. Section 189(b)(1) states clearly that ‘‘in addition reclassify a Moderate area to Serious PM2.5 NAAQS in the first round of derives from language in section designations, states will be required by to’’ the Moderate area attainment plan 188(b)(1) of the CAA which provides statute to submit a Moderate area requirements, states with areas that: ‘‘The Administrator may reclassify attainment plan within 18 months of the reclassified to Serious must also meet as a Serious PM10 nonattainment area date of designation (April 2015), or no Serious area attainment plan . . . any area that the Administrator later than October 2016. Pursuant to requirements, i.e., the reclassification determines cannot practicably attain the section 188(b)(1)(B), the EPA would does not eliminate the statutory [NAAQS] . . . by the attainment date obligation to meet Moderate area . . . for Moderate Areas.’’ The use of 157 See the Federal Register published on April this discretionary authority thus would 16, 1994 (57 FR 13498, 13537 and 13538). 158 Ibid. at 13537.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

attainment plan requirements.159 Thus, area qualifies. Under such assure timely implementation of BACM the EPA believes that reclassifying circumstances, the EPA has a mandatory and BACT on sources in the Moderate areas to Serious at any time duty to identify any area that fails to nonattainment area. The EPA believes under its discretionary authority does attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the that it is reasonable for a state with a not reward areas who delay applicable Moderate area attainment Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area to development and implementation of date. Reclassification under such have 18 months plus the additional time control measures by excusing states circumstances would happen by needed by the EPA to issue a Federal from meeting substantive Moderate area operation of law when the EPA Register document announcing the attainment plan requirements or by determines that the area failed to attain area’s failure to attain by the applicable extending the applicable attainment the NAAQS by the applicable Moderate area attainment date and date. The EPA articulated this position attainment date, in accordance with subsequent reclassification (up to 6 in the General Preamble, explaining that section 188(b)(2)(A). Section 188(b)(2) additional months) to ensure that the this interpretation: requires that ‘‘within six months state has time to develop and submit a following the applicable attainment date thorough, complete and accurate . . . creates an incentive for the timely for a PM nonattainment area, the Serious area attainment plan that will submittal and effective implementation 10 Administrator shall determine whether provide for timely attainment of the of moderate area SIP requirements and the area attained the standard by that NAAQS. Second, the statutory facilitates the PM attainment objective. 10 date’’ and publish its determination in attainment date for a Serious area For example, if an area that fails to the Federal Register. The EPA proposes reclassified under any circumstances is submit a timely moderate area SIP is that the date of reclassification for an as expeditious as practicable but no reclassified, this does not obviate the area reclassified under the EPA’s later than the end of the tenth year requirement that the area submit and mandatory duty to reclassify an area following designation of the area, and is implement RACM consistent with the would be the effective date of the thus independent of the date of moderate area schedule. Accordingly, Federal Register document announcing reclassification of the area. Allowing a the area could be subject to sanctions for that the area had not attained the state some additional amount of time its delay in submitting the RACM SIP relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and is therefore beyond 18 months from the missed requirement . . . Further, reclassified by operation of law. Thus, attainment date to develop and submit reclassification before the applicable for example in the case of the 2012 a complete Serious area attainment attainment date will ensure that PM2.5 NAAQS, assuming a Moderate plan, including adopting BACM and additional control measures (i.e., in PM2.5 nonattainment area fails to attain BACT, will not change the statutory addition to RACM, serious areas must the standard by its approved attainment obligation on the state for the area to implement best available control date of December 31, 2021, the EPA attain the relevant NAAQS by the measures (BACM)), are implemented would be required to publish in the applicable attainment date. On the sooner and will expedite the application Federal Register no later than June 30, contrary, the EPA believes that the extra of more stringent new source review 2022 its determination that the area time may in fact help the area timely requirements to the area . . . Similarly, failed to attain the NAAQS and is attain the relevant NAAQS by allowing where an area submits a timely therefore reclassified as Serious by the state to develop a more effective moderate area SIP, EPA may not operation of law. The date of attainment plan for the area. discover that the area cannot practicably reclassification for the area would be the The EPA seeks comment on its attain until sometime after it begins effective date of the Federal Register proposed approach of basing the date of implementing its moderate area control document, or sometime after June 30, reclassification for an area reclassified measures. The EPA then may want to 2022. To meet the requirements of under the agency’s mandatory duty in reclassify the area in order to facilitate section 189(b)(2), the Serious area section 188(b)(2) on the effective date the development and implementation of attainment plan for the area would be for the Federal Register document in BACM.160 due within 18 months thereafter, or no which the EPA announces that the area The EPA considers this the correct later than December 2023. failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the interpretation of the statutory An alternative approach for setting applicable Moderate area attainment requirements and proposes to apply this the date of reclassification for an area date and is reclassified by operation of longstanding interpretation of section reclassified to Serious under the EPA’s law. The EPA intends to make 188(b)(1) to nonattainment areas for the mandatory authority could be to make it determinations of whether or not an PM2.5 NAAQS. the same date as the missed attainment area attained the relevant NAAQS date for the area. Applying this pursuant to section 188(b)(2) via notice- B. Mandatory Duty approach in the example above would and-comment rulemaking. yield an earlier date of reclassification In addition to the EPA’s discretionary VI. What are the EPA’s proposed of December 31, 2021, and an earlier authority to reclassify a Moderate area requirements for Serious area Serious area attainment plan due date of to Serious under certain circumstances, attainment plans? the CAA also directs the EPA to do so June 30, 2023. under other circumstances. The Although section 188(b)(2) does not Sections 189(b) and (c) of the CAA alternative circumstances under which explicitly address this issue, the EPA include the following requirements for the EPA will reclassify an area from believes that its proposed approach is a Serious area attainment plan Moderate to Serious are if that area fails reasonable interpretation of statutory submissions: (i) An attainment to attain the relevant NAAQS by the ambiguity in section 188(b)(2) and demonstration (section 189(b)(1)(A)); (ii) applicable Moderate area attainment preferable over the alternative approach provisions for the implementation of date, including any extension of that for two reasons. First, the statute at best available control measures (BACM) date under section 188(d) for which the section 189(b)(2) gives a state 18 months no later than 4 years after from the date of reclassification of an reclassification of the area to Serious 159 See, Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended area to submit for the EPA’s approval an (section 189(b)(1)(B)); (iii) quantitative at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). attainment demonstration with air milestones that will be used to evaluate 160 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13537. quality modeling and provisions to compliance with the requirement to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15401

demonstrate RFP (section 189(c)); and, must submit a new attainment Therefore where there is ambiguity in (iv) regulation of PM2.5 precursors (in demonstration for the area no later than the statutory provisions, the EPA is general to meet attainment and control 18 months after reclassification. For an proposing one or more approaches to strategy requirements and as specifically area reclassified to Serious pursuant to schedule submission of the various required for major stationary sources by the agency’s discretionary authority elements of Serious area attainment section 189(e)). Other subpart 1 provided under section 188(b)(1), a state plans in a way that will facilitate better requirements for attainment plans not must submit a new attainment development and evaluation of such otherwise superseded under subpart 4 demonstration no later than 4 years after attainment plan submissions. The EPA’s 162 also apply to Serious areas for the PM2.5 reclassification of the area. For all proposed options for due dates for NAAQS, including: (i) A description of Serious nonattainment areas, section specific elements of a Serious area the expected annual incremental 189(b)(2) requires a state to submit attainment plan are described below. reductions in emissions that will within 18 months of an area’s 1. Area Reclassified to Serious After demonstrate RFP (section 172(c)(2)); (ii) reclassification ‘‘provisions to assure Failing To Attain the PM NAAQS emissions inventories (section that the best available control measures 2.5 172(c)(3)); (iii) other control measures [BACM] for the control of PM10 shall be If the EPA reclassifies a Moderate area (besides BACM and BACT) needed for implemented no later than 4 years after to Serious because of a failure to attain attainment (section 172(c)(6)); and, (iv) the date the area is classified (or the relevant NAAQS by the applicable contingency measures (section reclassified) as a Serious Area.’’ attainment date, section 189(b)(2) 172(c)(9)). In contrast, section 172(b) provides requires that the state must submit both Additionally, section 189(b)(1) the EPA discretion to set a due date for the attainment demonstration for the requires that ‘‘in addition’’ to the subpart 1 attainment plan elements that area and provisions to ensure timely attainment plan requirements specific to is no later than 3 years after designation BACM and BACT implementation to the Serious areas, states must also meet all of the area. In the Addendum, the EPA EPA within 18 months after Moderate area attainment plan interpreted the date of reclassification of reclassification. Because an up-to-date requirements. The EPA interprets the an area to Serious to be analogous to the base year emissions inventory, required statutory language of section 189(b)(1) to date of designation of the area to under section 172(c)(3), will serve as the require states with areas that are nonattainment generally.163 If the EPA foundation of a state’s BACM and BACT reclassified to Serious to meet Moderate selects the proposed option, discussed determination, and additional control area attainment plan requirements, later in this section, to adopt this measures (beyond BACM and BACT) including any areas that the EPA convention, the subpart 1 attainment that are necessary for expeditious reclassifies through rulemaking under plan elements of provisions to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as its discretionary authority, even if that demonstrate RFP, emissions inventories, required under section 172(c)(6) will occurs before the area has met all of its additional control measures beyond need to be identified in order to Moderate area attainment plan BACM and BACT needed for complete the control strategy for the requirements.161 expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 area, the EPA proposes that both the The remainder of this section presents NAAQS, and contingency measures base year inventory and additional the EPA’s proposed regulatory could in theory be due as late as 3 years control measures (beyond BACM and approaches to implement the after reclassification of an area to BACT) needed for expeditious requirements for attainment plan Serious. For the reasons discussed attainment must also be submitted submissions for Serious areas. below, the EPA believes that it is within 18 months after reclassification necessary to harmonize the submission of the area to Serious by operation of A. Plan Due Dates dates of the various elements of a law. The timing of Serious area attainment Serious are attainment plan for the The EPA also proposes and seeks plan elements is dictated by two PM2.5 NAAQS to provide for more comment on two possible due dates for provisions of the CAA: Section 189(b)(2) effective evaluation of such attainment the remaining Serious area attainment for certain subpart 4 elements and plan submissions by states, the EPA and plan elements for areas that failed to section 172(b) for subpart 1 elements members of the general public. attain the NAAQS by the applicable not superseded by subpart 4 As with Moderate area attainment Moderate area attainment date. Those requirements. Section 189(b)(2) plans consisting of both subpart 1 and plan elements are provisions for RFP, addresses the due dates for Serious area 4 elements, the EPA presumes that quantitative milestones and contingency attainment demonstrations due under simultaneous development and measures. The first proposed due date section 189(b)(1)(A) and provisions for submission of most, if not all, of the for these remaining Serious area BACM and BACT implementation Serious area attainment plan elements attainment plan elements would be no under section 189(b)(1)(B). Specifically, will be most effective, both for the state later than 18 months after section 189(b)(2) stipulates two in developing the plan and for the EPA reclassification of the area, consistent alternative schedules for states to in reviewing the state’s submission, with the due date for the plan elements submit Serious area attainment given the interplay between all plan already described above. As noted demonstrations, depending upon the elements in the formation of a above, the EPA maintains that requiring statutory authority invoked by the EPA successful control strategy for the area. states to submit all elements of an to reclassify the area from Moderate to Just as importantly, a complete attainment plan by the same date is Serious. For an area reclassified to attainment plan submission facilitates reasonable because it allows for a Serious by operation of law under the general public’s review of the entire complete review of the state submission section 188(b)(2) upon a determination control strategy adopted by the state. by the EPA, regulated entities, and the by the EPA that the area failed to attain general public, and it also may prove the relevant NAAQS by the applicable 162 Section V of this preamble provides a more most efficient for states. See proposed detailed discussion of the process for reclassifying 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(2)(ii). Moderate area attainment date, a state areas with severe nonattainment problems to Serious. The alternate proposed due date for 161 See Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended 163 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR the remaining elements would be 3 at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42015. years following reclassification to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Serious, which would be consistent Serious because it cannot practicably elements due 3 years following with guidance the EPA provided in the attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the reclassification. Addendum specific to the due date for applicable Moderate area attainment The EPA believes that this proposed contingency measures for Serious date. This due date could generally be due date for certain attainment plan areas.164 This guidance references the appropriate, notwithstanding the related elements required under subparts 1 and EPA’s discretion under section 172(b) to issues discussed in the following 4 would be most appropriate if finalized establish due dates up to 3 years after paragraphs, if the EPA finalizes an in conjunction with proposed Option 2 designation for attainment plan approach for determining the overall for BACM and BACT, which would elements required under section 172(c), control strategy for the area in which require the state to submit the which also include RFP provisions. BACM and BACT are identified attainment demonstration for the area Subpart 4 meanwhile requires independent of the attainment within 18 months after reclassification quantitative milestones to demonstrate demonstration for the area (see of the area to Serious. However, in the RFP but does not specify a due date for proposed Option 1 for BACM and BACT event the EPA finalizes proposed submitting such milestones as part of determinations described in Section Option 1 for determining BACM and the attainment plan for the area (as VI.D of this preamble). BACT for a Serious nonattainment area separate and distinct from the clear However, the EPA is also proposing independent of the attainment statutory requirements related to an alternative approach for determining demonstration for the area, the demonstrating compliance with those the control strategy for a Serious area, attainment demonstration for the area milestones established in the attainment under which BACM and BACT and would be due no later than 4 years after plan). When taken together, the EPA additional feasible measures would be the date of reclassification of the area to believes that these statutory provisions identified in conjunction with the Serious. Given the integral role that the may be read to permit a state to submit attainment demonstration for the area attainment demonstration plays in these three elements of the plan as late (see proposed Option 2 for BACM and helping to identify additional feasible as 3 years after reclassification of the BACT determinations described in measures (beyond BACM and BACT) area. While the EPA does not believe Section VI.D of this preamble). Under that an area may need to attain the that such a reading is as logical as the such an approach, the EPA proposes relevant standard expeditiously (and agency’s first proposed approach, the that the due date for the Serious area which are required under section EPA seeks comment on this alternative attainment demonstration would be no 172(c)(6)), to calculate emissions proposed approach to setting due dates later than 18 months after reductions needed on an annual basis to for a state to submit an RFP plan, reclassification if the EPA finalizes its demonstrate RFP, and to calculate the quantitative milestones and contingency proposed Option 2 for determining emissions reductions that contingency measures for a Serious area reclassified BACM and BACT for the area, as the measures need to achieve and identify under the EPA’s mandatory authority. attainment demonstration would be what controls could constitute such necessary in order for the EPA and the measures, the EPA is proposing and 2. Area Reclassified to Serious Due to an public to determine whether the control Inability To Practicably Attain the seeking comment on an alternative strategy identified for the area is submittal deadline for provisions for NAAQS by the Statutory Moderate Area adequate, and the statute requires that a Attainment Date RFP and quantitative milestones, state submit its BACM provisions additional control measures needed for If the EPA determines that a Moderate within 18 months after reclassification expeditious attainment, and area cannot practicably attain the of an area. contingency measures that would align relevant NAAQS by the applicable With respect to other elements of a their due date with the statutory Serious attainment date and reclassifies the area Serious area attainment plan, under the area attainment demonstration due date, to Serious pursuant to its discretionary EPA’s prior interpretation as described no later than 4 years from the date of authority under section 188(b)(1), in the Addendum, the EPA had reclassification. See proposed 40 CFR section 189(b)(2) requires the state to suggested that states could submit 51.1003(b)(2)(i). The EPA believes that submit provisions to ensure timely contingency measures no later than 3 coordinating submission of attainment implementation of BACM and BACT to years after reclassification of an area to plan elements so that they may be the EPA within 18 months after Serious because of the language of developed and reviewed together can reclassification. As stated earlier, section 172(b).165 The EPA believes it prove most efficient for the submitting because an up-to-date emissions may be appropriate to extend a similar inventory serves as the foundation for a approach to establishing due dates for state, the EPA, and the general public, state’s BACM and BACT determination some other attainment plan elements and therefore this proposed alternative and pursuant to the authority granted to required under subpart 1. Therefore, the is the agency’s preferred approach. the EPA under section 172(b), the EPA EPA proposes to provide a state with the However, the EPA seeks comment on all proposes that the state must meet the maximum time permitted under section of its proposed due date options for the emissions inventory requirement under 172(b)—3 years from the date of various elements of a Serious area section 172(c)(3) also within 18 months reclassification of the area—to submit attainment plan. after reclassification of the area by the following plan elements: Provisions B. Emissions Inventory Requirements submission of an up-to-date emissions to demonstrate RFP, other control 1. What emissions inventory inventory. measures (beyond BACM and BACT) With respect to the attainment needed to bring the area into requirements apply to Serious area demonstration requirement for Serious expeditious attainment, and attainment plans? areas reclassified pursuant to section contingency measures. The EPA As with PM2.5 nonattainment areas 188(b)(1), section 189(b)(2) allows the proposes that quantitative milestones, classified as Moderate, Congress did not state up to 4 years after reclassification required under subpart 4 but linked to create a specific emissions inventory to submit a new attainment RFP which is required under subpart 1, requirement in subpart 4 that would demonstration for an area reclassified to would also be included with the plan supersede the emissions inventory requirement under subpart 1 for Serious 164 Ibid. at 42015. 165 Ibid. at 42015. areas. Thus, the statutory emissions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15403

inventory requirements that apply for the nonattainment area’s status (e.g. Moderate area plans) using the lower Serious area attainment plans continue failure to attain by the applicable threshold specified in the CAA and to be those of section 172(c)(3), which attainment date resulting in codified in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. explicitly requires ‘‘a comprehensive, reclassification). In addition, pursuant Also as described above and in 40 CFR accurate, and current inventory of actual to CAA section 301, the EPA has part 51, subpart A, this means that all emissions of the relevant pollutants’’ in additional authority to promulgate other smaller stationary sources must be the nonattainment area. In addition, the regulations as necessary for the included in the inventory as nonpoint specific attainment plan requirements implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, sources. for the PM2.5 NAAQS set forth in section including requirements pertaining to Third, Section VI.A of this preamble 189(a) and associated modeling emissions inventories. Accordingly, the describes the EPA’s proposal to require requirements make an accurate and up- EPA is proposing specific emissions that a state submit the base year to-date emissions inventory a critical inventory requirements it considers inventory for a Serious nonattainment element of any viable attainment plan. necessary to effectuate the attainment area at the same time that it submits Finally, the additional attainment plan plan requirements of the CAA for the provisions to implement BACM and requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS for PM2.5 NAAQS. BACT on sources in the area (due no Serious areas contained in subpart 4 at Like Moderate areas, there are three later than 18 months from section 189(b) have additional key facets of the EPA’s proposed reclassification of the area pursuant to requirements that affect the emissions emissions inventory requirements, as section 189(b)(2)) as the base year inventory requirements for Serious laid out below: (i) The types of inventory serves as the starting point for areas.166 inventories required; (ii) the content of conducting a BACM and BACT As noted earlier in this preamble, these inventories; and, (iii) the timing of determination. On the other hand, states must use the best available, submittal of these inventories. The three because the attainment projected current emissions inventory information facets are addressed in the following inventory is more closely related to the for attainment plan development, paragraphs. Serious area attainment demonstration, because complete, high quality First, the EPA proposes that the same the EPA believes that a state should be emissions inventory data are essential two types of inventories required for required to submit its attainment for the development of an effective Moderate areas are also required for projected inventory with the attainment control strategy. To assist states in Serious areas. While these inventories demonstration for a given Serious area preparing complete, high quality are the same types and names of in order to allow effective evaluation of inventories, the EPA provides guidance inventories as for Moderate areas, they the attainment plan as a whole. for developing emissions inventories in must be created specifically for Serious Consequently, the EPA is proposing to its SIP Emissions Inventory Guidance, area attainment plans in accordance establish the regulatory requirement that available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ with the applicable Serious area attainment projected emissions chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html. The requirements. The first type of inventories be submitted at the same EPA recommends that states consult inventory, the ‘‘base year inventory for time as the Serious area attainment this guidance while developing the nonattainment area,’’ is expressly demonstration, which would mean no emissions inventories to meet required by section 172(c)(3). The later than 18 months after requirements for Serious area second type of inventory the EPA is reclassification for areas reclassified attainment plans. proposing to require under section after failing to attain the NAAQS by the 301(a)(1) is necessary to implement the applicable Moderate area attainment 2. How do states meet the inventory attainment demonstration requirement date, or no later than 4 years after requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS for of section 189(a)(1)(B). This second reclassification for areas reclassified by areas classified as Serious? inventory is called the ‘‘attainment the EPA because the area cannot As with Moderate PM2.5 projected inventory for the practicably attain the NAAQS by the nonattainment areas, neither section nonattainment area.’’ See proposed 40 statutory attainment date if the EPA 172(c)(3) nor the provisions specifically CFR 51.1008(b)(1) and (2). finalizes proposed Option 1 for applicable to attainment plans for the Second, the EPA proposes that the determining BACM and BACT for area. content of the inventories will follow PM2.5 NAAQS in subpart 4 specify how See proposed 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(3) and states should meet statutory emissions the content requirements for Moderate (4). If the EPA finalizes an approach for inventory requirements for Serious area inventories, with one exception determining BACM and BACT that links needed to meet the requirements of PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Section the control strategy analysis to the 172(c)(3) requires that states submit ‘‘a section 189(b)(3). For Serious areas, attainment demonstration, then the comprehensive, accurate, current section 189(b)(3) defines a separate attainment demonstration including the inventory of actual emissions from all emissions threshold for major sources in attainment projected emissions sources of the relevant pollutant or Serious nonattainment areas (70 tpy inventory would be due no later than 18 pollutants in such area, including such potential to emit of PM10), and this months after reclassification (i.e., at the periodic revisions as the Administrator major source threshold is used in 40 same time BACM provisions are due may determine necessary to assure that CFR part 51, subpart A (the AERR) to under the statute). the requirements of this part are met’’ define which sources must be reported The EPA seeks comment on these (emphasis added). The EPA interprets as point sources for PM10. This proposed requirements and due dates this provision to authorize the agency to threshold is lower than the 100 tpy for emissions inventories for Serious require states to revise their base year potential to emit general requirement for area attainment plans. emissions inventories whenever the major sources of PM10, PM2.5 or one of its precursors that is used for Moderate C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the state is required to submit a new Plan attainment plan because of a change in area emissions inventories. Inventories for Serious area attainment plans must Section III of this preamble includes 166 All definitions described in Section IV.B of include these smaller sources as point a detailed discussion about how states this preamble for areas classified as Moderate apply sources (rather than the nonpoint source should address PM2.5 precursors in in this section. category that would apply for these in attainment plans and in the NNSR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

program for purposes of implementing required to update the precursor BACM and BACT). A state may need to current and future PM2.5 NAAQS. While demonstration taking into account any require emissions reductions on sources evaluating sources of direct PM2.5 for relevant information or technical tools located outside of a PM2.5 BACM and BACT is an implicit that had been developed since the nonattainment area if such reductions requirement in the context of initial demonstration was approved, but are needed in order to provide for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS under could still conclude that control expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 any scenario, the EPA is proposing and requirements are not required for NAAQS. seeking comment on several options for Serious area attainment planning if the The following sections describe the addressing PM2.5 precursors under the updated demonstration still shows that EPA’s proposed approach for a state to PM2.5 NAAQS implementation program. all source emissions of a precursor do follow in order to identify and select the The EPA interprets the requirements of not significantly contribute to PM2.5 complete suite of measures needed for the CAA to allow an air agency to levels that exceed the standard. an approvable attainment plan provide a ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ • Option 3: An attainment planning submission for a Serious PM2.5 that can seek to make a technical case analysis demonstrating that control nonattainment area.

to the EPA that one or more PM2.5 measures for all types of sources of a 2. Identification and Selection of BACM precursors need not be subject to control particular precursor are not needed for and BACT and Additional Feasible requirements in a given nonattainment expeditious attainment also would be Measures area, whether from sources in general or deemed to meet the section 189(e) from major stationary sources. Section technical demonstration requirement, a. Statutory requirements and existing III presented three options describing meaning that the state would not need guidance. As discussed earlier, a state different proposed approaches to such to regulate emissions of the particular must prepare a new attainment plan for precursor demonstrations, and precursor from major stationary sources any Moderate area reclassified to requested comment on each. The under the NNSR permitting program or Serious. Such a plan must include discussion for each option described other control requirements for major provisions to implement BACM on how precursors would be addressed for stationary sources. As under proposed sources in a Serious nonattainment area, Moderate areas and for Serious areas. precursor Option 1, for an area as provided by section 189(b)(1)(B), no In general terms, the three options can reclassified to Serious, the state would later than 4 years after reclassification. be summarized as follows: Under section 189(b)(2), a state has 18 • once again need to evaluate potential Option 1: Two independent control measures for all sources of direct months following reclassification to analyses: (a) An attainment planning submit these BACM provisions. PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursor emissions analysis demonstrating that control Section 189(b)(1)(B) refers only to as part of the control strategy BACM, but the EPA has long interpreted measures for a particular precursor are determination process (see Section VI.D not needed for expeditious attainment, this term to include BACT, just as the of this preamble). analogous term for RACM includes meaning that the precursor can be The EPA will finalize its approach to RACT for Moderate areas. The excluded from measures needed to PM precursors and clarify the 2.5 legislative history for the 1990 attain as expeditiously as practicable for implications for states conducting Amendments to the CAA supports this all types of sources; and, (b) a section analyses to determine the appropriate interpretation, as the EPA has explained 189(e) technical demonstration showing control strategy for a Serious area after in past guidance.167 Additionally, the that major stationary sources of a considering public comment received requirement for BACT in the context of particular precursor do not contribute on this proposal. significantly to levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS implementation in PM2.5 standard, meaning that the D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy nonattainment areas is separate and distinct from the requirement for BACT precursor can be excluded from control 1. General Approach To Designing a under the Prevention of Significant requirements for major sources and from Control Strategy for a Serious Deterioration (PSD) permitting program NNSR permitting. For an area Nonattainment Area reclassified to Serious, the state would for new stationary sources in areas once again need to evaluate potential As noted in Section IV.D of this designated as attainment or control measures for all sources of direct preamble, the statutory attainment unclassifiable for the PM2.5 NAAQS. As PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursor emissions planning requirements of subparts 1 and described later in this section, the as part of the control strategy 4 were established to ensure that states process and criteria that states have determination process (described more meet the following goals of the CAA: (i) historically used to determine BACT for fully in Section VI.D of this preamble). Implement measures that provide for PSD have been applied to determine • Option 2: Single analysis attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as BACT for PM10 NAAQS demonstrating that all emissions of a expeditiously as practicable, and (ii) implementation, but these requirements particular precursor from within the adopt emission reduction strategies that are otherwise unrelated. area do not significantly contribute to will be the most effective, and the most Longstanding guidance in the General PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard, cost effective, at reducing PM2.5 levels in Preamble and Addendum, together with meaning that control requirements for nonattainment areas. A state has past practice associated with emissions of the precursor from major discretion to require reductions from implementing the PM10 NAAQS under stationary and area sources, as well as any source inside or outside of a PM2.5 subpart 4, have helped to establish a mobile sources, would not be required nonattainment area (but within the general approach for states and the EPA for expeditious attainment, control state’s boundaries) in order to fulfill its to determine BACM and BACT for requirements for major sources, or for obligation to demonstrate attainment in Serious PM10 nonattainment areas. This NNSR permitting. For an area a PM2.5 nonattainment area as approach has served as the basis for reclassified to Serious for which a expeditiously as practicable, in addition developing a more stringent control precursor had previously been to having an obligation to meet the strategy for a Serious PM10 demonstrated to not significantly statutory requirements for specific nonattainment area than that developed contribute to PM2.5 levels that exceed control measures on sources located the standard, the air agency would be within a nonattainment area (e.g., 167 Ibid. at 42008–09.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15405

for such area when it was classified as be the maximum degree of emission without stating that ‘‘all’’ BACM must Moderate. Indeed, as BACM and BACT reduction achievable from a source or be implemented, the EPA has are required to be implemented when a source category which is determined on interpreted this language as providing Moderate nonattainment area is a case-by-case basis, considering energy, the EPA discretion to exclude from reclassified as Serious due to its actual economic and environmental impacts BACM requirements source categories or projected inability to attain the and other costs.171 that do not contribute significantly to an relevant NAAQS by the Moderate area The EPA has described BACM as a area’s nonattainment status. attainment date through the generally independent requirement, to Additionally, in the Addendum, the implementation of ‘‘reasonable’’ be determined without regard to the EPA argued that based on the decision measures, it is logical that ‘‘best’’ specific attainment analysis (i.e., in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, the attainment demonstration) for the control measures should represent a courts have supported the interpretation area.172 The EPA established that such more stringent and potentially more that sources that contribute negligibly to costly level of control.168 The level of an interpretation is in accordance with an area’s nonattainment status can be stringency generally refers to the overall the structural scheme of the CAA, excluded from regulation.174 The EPA level of emissions reductions of a which by its definition requires that control measure or technology, or of when an area is classified as Serious, further indicated that the same criteria such measures and technologies BACM are implemented in addition to used in the NSR permitting program at combined. RACM. Because of the two types of the time to determine if a source Congress first defined BACT in CAA measures employed, the EPA found it category contributes significantly to an section 169(3) for the PSD permitting reasonable in the past to interpret the area’s nonattainment status should program as: ‘‘an emission limitation statute as requiring a different analysis apply, such that a source category based on the maximum degree of for determining BACM, i.e., that while would be considered a significant reduction of each pollutant . . . which RACM has been interpreted as those contributor to an area’s nonattainment the permitting authority, on a case-by- reasonable measures necessary to bring status if its emission contribution was case basis, taking into account energy, a nonattainment area into expeditious expected to exceed 5 mg/m3 for the 24- 3 environmental, and economic impacts attainment, BACM has been interpreted hour PM10 NAAQS (150 mg/m at the 3 and other costs, determines is as those measures that best control time), or 1 mg/m for the annual PM10 achievable for such facility through sources’ emissions without regard to NAAQS (50 mg/m3 at the time). application of production processes and whether such measures are needed for A discussion of the EPA’s existing available methods, systems, and purposes of attainment of the relevant process and criteria for determining techniques . . .’’ NAAQS in the area. The view that BACM and BACT for Serious PM In the Addendum, the EPA provided BACM and BACT measures are 10 guidance concerning the requirements generally independent of the attainment nonattainment areas and the agency’s for BACM and BACT for Serious area needs of the area is also consistent with proposed options for defining the attainment plan requirements for the the statutorily specified submission date criteria by which a state must determine 169 PM10 NAAQS. The EPA discussed in for BACM and BACT control measures, BACM and BACT and additional the Addendum that when Congress versus the statutorily specified feasible measures for a Serious PM2.5 amended the CAA, Congress selected submission date for the attainment nonattainment area are presented in the the same ‘‘best’’ terminology for PM10 demonstration for Serious areas. sections that follow. nonattainment areas as they did for the Specifically, states with Serious In accordance with the PM10 guidance language selected for the PSD program nonattainment areas must submit BACM in the Addendum, the EPA has applied in 1977. The EPA interpreted this word and BACT measures within 18 months a four-step process for states to use to choice at the time to mean that PSD of reclassification of areas to Serious, identify measures that constitute BACM BACT and PM10 nonattainment area whereas they are given up to 4 years or BACT for sources located in PM10 BACM should be generally analogous in from reclassification to submit the Serious areas. The four-step BACM definition and implementation, but with attainment demonstration for such selection process was designed to take some differences due to different end areas. into account the local facts and policy goals between the PSD and In addition, the EPA has historically circumstances and the nature of the air nonattainment area programs.170 The provided an exemption from BACM and pollution problem in a given EPA thus defined BACM for PM10 BACT for source categories that nonattainment area. The BACM Serious nonattainment area planning to contribute only de minimis levels to determination process for PM10 Serious ambient PM10 concentrations in a 168 Ibid. at 42009. Serious nonattainment area. In the nonattainment areas has historically 169 Ibid. at 42009. Addendum, the EPA proposed that all entailed: (i) Developing a 170 Ibid. at 42010. ‘‘EPA will interpret PSD BACT sources in a Serious area are subject to comprehensive inventory of sources and and PM–10 BACM as generally similar because, source categories of directly emitted despite the similarity in terminology, certain key BACM unless ‘‘the state adequately differences exist between control measures demonstrates that a particular source PM10 and PM10 precursors; (ii) applicable in the PSD and PM–10 serious category does not contribute evaluating source category impact and nonattainment area programs. The BACT under the determining if any source categories are PSD program applies only in areas already meeting significantly to nonattainment of the the NAAQS, while PM–10 applies in areas which NAAQS.’’173 Because the language de minimis and thus do not need further are seriously violating the NAAQS. The difference regarding BACM implementation in evaluation for emission controls; (iii) in policy goals, arguably, suggests that the PM–10 section 189(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires evaluating alternative control measures BACM control standard should be more stringent available for significant source than that for PSD BACT. . . . EPA considers it ‘‘provisions to assure that best available reasonable to use the approach adopted in the PSD control measures (BACM) for the control categories for technological feasibility; BACT program as defined in section 169(3) of the of PM10 shall be implemented . . .’’ and, (iv) evaluating costs (i.e., economic Act as an analogue for determining appropriate feasibility) of the technologically PM–10 nonattainment control measures in serious areas, while at the same time retaining the 171 Ibid. discretion to depart from that approach on a case- 172 Ibid. at 42011. 174 See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d by-case basis as particular circumstances warrant.’’ 173 Ibid. at 42011. 323, 360–61 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

feasible control measures.175 176 These categories impacting the nonattainment ton of pollutant reduced) was high steps are described more fully below. area except those with a de minimis relative to other measures, but the same Step 1: Inventory sources and impact considering emission reductions measure could qualify as BACM if, for precursors. As with any control strategy achieved with RACM.’’ 179 Control the increased cost, it would ultimately analysis for a nonattainment area, the measures were supposed to be provide substantial PM2.5 attainment EPA recommended that a state begin expanded to include options not benefits. An example of RACM might be with a current emissions inventory as previously considered RACM as well as to implement a particular control in a the first step toward determining what consider additional measures not limited way, while BACM could mean constitutes BACM or BACT for a previously evaluated in the RACM a more widespread implementation of particular Serious PM10 nonattainment analysis. that same measure, even though wider area. The EPA expected that a state Under the Addendum, the test for implementation would incur greater would start with the base year emissions determining technological feasibility cost. In the PM10 context, states and the inventory submitted with the Moderate could differ depending on the type of EPA have determined that BACM have area attainment plan for the area as source category evaluated. For area sometimes been measures that were first required under section 172(c)(3), and sources, the EPA’s guidance suggested implemented as RACM, but were then update it as necessary to reflect new that technological feasibility depended later implemented on a broader scale as source construction, facility shutdowns, on the ability to alter the characteristics BACM in the nonattainment area after it growth in certain source categories, and that affect emissions from the sources, was reclassified as Serious.183 any other relevant changes. The EPA such as the size or extent of the area While the proposed approaches and reiterated in the Addendum that the sources and operation procedures. The criteria for identifying appropriate emissions inventory for the area must EPA’s guidance suggested that for control measures for a Serious area are identify both nonanthropogenic and specific point sources, technological necessarily different than for a Moderate anthropogenic emissions sources.177 feasibility should consider factors such area, it is important to note two Step 2: Evaluate source category as layout of the plant, space available to similarities: first, that the EPA interprets impact. The next step in the BACM make changes in the plant, energy the requirement under section 172(c)(6) analysis for PM10 Serious areas was for requirements, operating procedures, and for a state to adopt ‘‘other measures’’ the state to identify source categories materials used, among others.180 needed for attainment to apply to having significant (i.e., non-de minimis) Step 4: Evaluate costs of control. The sources located inside and outside of impacts on air quality in the Serious EPA’s previous guidance recommended any PM2.5 nonattainment area (but area. The EPA suggested in the that a control should be considered within the state’s boundaries), whether Addendum that receptor modeling, economically feasible by the state when the area is classified as Moderate or screening modeling, or refined ‘‘the control technology in question has Serious; and, second, similar to the dispersion modeling would likely be previously been implemented at other RACM requirement for Moderate necessary to identify key source sources in a similar source category nonattainment areas under subpart 4, categories, which the state may have without unreasonable economic section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that BACM performed during the development of impacts.’’ 181 Feasibility of public must be implemented no later than 4 the Moderate area attainment plan.178 funding for BACM could have been a years after a Moderate area is Step 3: Evaluate alternative control consideration that states evaluated for reclassified to Serious. techniques. Once the significant source all of the technologically feasible Taking these two statutory provisions categories were identified for a PM10 control measures determined in Step 3. together, the EPA proposes that the Serious nonattainment area, the state Other costs that could be considered other measures required under section was expected to evaluate the included capital costs, operating and 172(c)(6) must include ‘‘additional technological and economic feasibility maintenance costs, and the cost feasible measures,’’ which would be of control measures ‘‘discussed in the effectiveness of a particular control those measures and technologies that BACM guidance documents and other measure or technology.182 otherwise meet the criteria for BACM relevant materials for all source The EPA believes that the difference and BACT but that can only be between RACM and BACM primarily implemented in whole or in part 175 For additional information, see ibid. at 42012– lies in the extent of the actual emissions beginning 4 years after reclassification 13. reductions achieved through the 176 of an area, but no later than the statutory For examples of how states have applied these application of a given suite of candidate attainment date for the area. See steps and criteria for Serious PM10 nonattainment areas and how the EPA has evaluated them, see measures. For example, a state may have proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. Such generally Approval and Promulgation of deemed a candidate RACM or RACT measures would necessarily be Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin measure economically infeasible implemented on sources in the Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area because its cost effectiveness (dollar per Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual nonattainment area, and a state would PM–10 Standards, 69 FR 5412 (February 4, 2004); only be required to implement them if Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 179 Ibid. at 42012. At the time of publication of they were needed in addition to BACM Plans for California—San Joaquin Valley PM–10 the Addendum, the EPA had already issued BACM and BACT to bring the area into Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for guidance documents pursuant to section 190 for Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM–10 residential wood combustion, prescribed burning, expeditious attainment. The state must Standards, 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004); Approval and fugitive dust. The agency referred to these and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for documents as establishing the control measures that 183 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR Arizona; Maricopa County PM—10 Nonattainment a state should consider, at a minimum, as BACM 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42014. The Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 24- for those PM10 sources in Serious PM10 Addendum provides one example of RACM to nonattainment areas. Hour and Annual PM–10 Standards, 73 FR 45542 reduce PM10, to ‘‘[p]ave 4 miles of unpaved city 180 (August 14, 2008); Approval and Promulgation of Ibid. at 42013 (discussing in detail factors streets.’’ Ibid. BACM for PM10 for the same Implementation Plans; Arizona—Maricopa County which affect the selection of mobile, area, and point nonattainment area could later mean to ‘‘[p]ave 10 PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for source alternative control techniques for particulate miles of the most heavily-traveled, unpaved county Attainment of the Annual PM–10 Standard, 65 FR matter). roads.’’ Ibid. Therefore, the measure itself was not 19964 (April 13, 2000), at page 19972. 181 Ibid. at 42013. necessarily changed, but the extent to which the 177 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 182 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth measure was implemented was significantly 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42012. Edition, (EPA/452/B–02–001), July 2002 (explaining expanded. Such a measure would also contribute to 178 Ibid. how to determine costs under a BACT analysis). more expeditious attainment of the NAAQS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15407

also assess whether there are other within 18 months of the attainment plan be BACM or BACT (or additional control measures that it can implement due date (i.e., by April 2018). The feasible measures) in the area, if those to control sources within the state but statutory Serious area attainment date measures would not be necessary to outside the nonattainment area that would be the end of the tenth year bring the area into attainment with the contribute to the PM2.5 nonattainment following designation, or December 31, relevant NAAQS by the statutory status of the area in order to bring the 2025. In such a case, the state would attainment date, and the collective area into attainment as expeditiously as need to implement BACM for the area emissions reductions from such practicable, and may consider existing within 4 years of reclassification, or by measures would not be sufficient to measures that, applied more April 2022, leaving over 3.5 years advance the attainment date by at least extensively, could meet the more between the statutory deadline for 1 year in the area. A discussion of the stringent criteria for control measures implementing BACM and the statutory proposed options follows. that must be adopted to bring a Serious attainment date for the area. The EPA’s nonattainment area into expeditious proposal to require the state to identify i. Proposed Option 1. The EPA seeks attainment. and adopt additional feasible measures comment on a proposed approach to These ‘‘additional feasible measures’’ for the area would mean that the state maintain, with some modifications, the would be analogous to the ‘‘additional would need to identify those control existing approach to determining BACM reasonable measures’’ in the proposed measures and technologies that are and BACT for Serious PM10 RACM and RACT analysis process, feasible (according to the proposed nonattainment areas to BACM and which are technologically and BACM and BACT criteria described BACT determinations for Serious PM2.5 economically feasible measures that later in this section) and that can be nonattainment areas. Under this cannot qualify as RACM or RACT implemented between April 2022 and approach, a state would be required to because they cannot be implemented December 2025. The EPA expects that determine BACM and BACT and within 4 years of designation of a while such a long span of time may be additional feasible measures for a Moderate nonattainment area. Under available only to a very few Serious Serious PM nonattainment area either of the two proposed approaches 2.5 nonattainment areas, it would be independent of an analysis of the for determining BACM and BACT for appropriate to require such areas to specific attainment needs of the Serious sources in a Serious nonattainment area implement measures in addition to descrfibed later in this section, a state BACM and BACT if, taken together, they area; in other words, the BACM and would identify additional feasible can advance the attainment date for the BACT analysis would need to be measures as part of the BACM and area by at least 1 year. The EPA seeks conducted without regard to whether all BACT determination process, just as comment on its proposal to require such controls are needed to bring the additional reasonable measures would additional feasible measures for Serious area into expeditious attainment. be identified as part of the state’s RACM nonattainment areas as described here. Keeping in mind that the overall and RACT determination process. b. Proposed approaches for objective of the implementation of The EPA recognizes that only a determining BACM and BACT and BACM and BACT and additional nonattainment area that is reclassified additional feasible measures for Serious feasible measures is to bring a Serious under the agency’s discretionary PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The EPA PM2.5 nonattainment area into authority might have sufficient time proposes and seeks comment on two attainment as expeditiously as between the required date for approaches for a state to meet the practicable, this option would continue implementing BACM and BACT and the statutory control requirements that to provide that the test for BACM puts statutory Serious area attainment date to apply for Serious nonattainment areas. a ‘‘greater emphasis on the merits of the implement additional measures beyond The EPA is first proposing an approach measure or technology alone,’’ rather BACM and BACT. BACM and BACT consistent with prior guidance than on ‘‘flexibility in considering other must be implemented no later than 4 summarized in the preceding section of factors,’’ in contrast to the approach for years after reclassification of the area; this preamble which would center on determining RACM and RACT areas reclassified to Serious because determining BACM and BACT and described in both the EPA’s past they cannot practicably attain the additional feasible measures ‘‘generally relevant NAAQS by the applicable independent’’ of whether such measures guidance and in this proposal in Section 184 attainment date could potentially have are needed for expeditious attainment of IV.D. This Option 1 is consistent with the statutory provisions governing the significantly more than 4 years between the relevant NAAQS in a Serious PM2.5 the date of reclassification and the nonattainment area. Under this first timing for submission of BACM and statutory Serious area attainment date, proposed approach, states would have BACT measures versus the timing for during which time the area could the option, with the proper evidence attainment demonstrations for Serious continue to implement additional and justification, to eliminate de areas. By interpreting the statutory measures to bring the area into minimis source categories from requirement for BACM and BACT for attainment. By way of illustration, for consideration for controls. Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas as a areas designated in the first round of The EPA’s second proposed approach requirement that a state must meet designations for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, would require states to identify BACM independent of the attainment planning the statutory Moderate area attainment and BACT and additional feasible needs of the area, the EPA would not date will be no later than December 31, measures simply within the context of consider such requirement to be a 2021. If a state submits a Moderate area what is necessary to bring an area into ‘‘planning’’ requirement tied to the attainment plan by the statutory attainment as expeditiously as actual attainment status of the area, and attainment plan due date (18 months practicable. In other words, the second thus would not suspend such a after designation, or in this example, proposed option would take a different requirement in the event the agency October 2016) and the plan approach to determining Serious area determines that a Serious area is demonstrates that the area cannot control measures from the approach practicably attain the NAAQS by included in prior EPA guidance, in that attaining the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and December 31, 2021, then the EPA has a it would allow states not to impose statutory duty to reclassify such an area specific measures that would otherwise 184 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

in turn grants a clean data source category, then the state may (including those measures that were determination for the area.185 eliminate the source category from rejected in the RACM and RACT Under the EPA’s first proposed further consideration for BACM or determination and additional new approach, a state would be required to BACT.187 A state would be required to potential measures) for reducing follow a multi-step process similar to evaluate for BACM and BACT controls emissions from the remaining (i.e., non- the existing BACM process for PM10 all other sources in the nonattainment de minimis) source categories listed in (outlined earlier in this section) to area in source categories that do not the latest base year emissions inventory identify and select control measures and qualify as de minimis. for the area. For purposes of identifying technologies more stringent than RACM This option could be beneficial for new measures to consider in its BACM and RACT and additional reasonable some states that may already exclude de and BACT analysis, the EPA proposes to measures for non-de minimis source minimis PM10 source categories from require that the state conduct a survey categories in the nonattainment area. BACM in Serious PM10 nonattainment of other nonattainment areas for the This process would involve analyzing areas or that may exclude de minimis PM2.5 NAAQS and other NAAQS (i.e., the impact of the different source PM2.5 source categories from RACM and PM10, ozone, SO2 and NOX) both in the categories identified in the up-to-date RACT and additional reasonable same state and in other states to identify base year emissions inventory for the measures in Moderate PM2.5 potential control measures that other air area to identify those with a significant nonattainment areas. As discussed agencies are implementing, and the state

contribution to the area’s PM2.5 earlier, a state may rely on receptor or must incorporate such measures into the concentrations. Any source categories dispersion modeling conducted for the list of potential control measures for the found not to have such an impact would area as part of its Moderate area source categories in the Serious be considered de minimis and therefore attainment plan. Alternative or nonattainment area. The EPA would exempt from further consideration. The additional modeling, including expect the state to identify an array of specific steps the EPA is proposing for screening modeling, or filter analysis existing and potential new measures at this approach are explained below. See may also be necessary to identify least as broad as that identified for the proposed 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for significant contributors to PM2.5 levels proposed Option 1. in the area. More discussion on the same area as part of the RACM and Step 1: Update base year emissions EPA’s proposal regarding how to RACT analysis, in order to ensure that inventory for the area. The first step evaluate source category impacts and the state has a sufficiently expansive under this proposed approach would be identify those that are de minimis can and comprehensive set of potential for the state to develop a detailed be found in Section IV.D of this measures to evaluate. Therefore, at a emissions inventory of the various preamble. The EPA notes that a state minimum, the EPA proposes that the sources and source categories that emit may face the same challenges in list of potential measures must include direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the establishing de minimis source all measures identified as potential Serious area. This inventory should be categories for PM2.5 sources in a Serious control measures for the nonattainment the most comprehensive and accurate nonattainment area as it did in area when it was classified as Moderate inventory available. The EPA expects establishing de minimis source or, for a given source category, one or that the work for this step would be categories for PM2.5 sources when the more alternative control measures or completed in order to meet the area was classified as Moderate. technologies that would control emissions inventory requirements for Therefore, the EPA seeks comment on emissions even more stringently than Serious area plans as described in its proposed options, described in the measures and technologies included Section VI.B, and would start with Section IV.D, for defining source in the RACM and RACT analysis. In this reviewing and updating the emissions categories and determining the way, the state will begin its BACM and inventory submitted as part of the appropriate threshold for de minimis BACT determination with a list of Moderate area attainment plan for the emissions. The EPA requests that potential control options that is as area. commenters submit any relevant data or complete and up-to-date as possible. Step 2: Evaluate source category analyses to support their comments. In In addition to identifying existing impacts. As with BACM for PM the 10, the absence of compelling evidence to control measures for sources in a EPA proposes to allow states to exempt support establishing a nationally- Serious PM nonattainment area, a from further consideration de minimis 2.5 applicable ‘‘bright line’’ threshold for state must develop a comprehensive list source categories in Step 2 of the defining a de minimis source category of potential control measures for sources agency’s first proposed approach for for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 in the area. The EPA’s RACT/BACT/ determining BACM and BACT for a NAAQS in a Serious nonattainment Serious PM nonattainment area. The LAER Clearinghouse provides a central 2.5 area, the EPA would apply a data base of air pollution technology EPA proposes to apply the same presumptive approach allowing a state overarching test for identifying de information that may be highly relevant to apply its own reasoned judgment to to states seeking information on minimis source categories as that determine whether a particular source 186 stationary source control technology described in the Addendum. That is, category should be considered de if a state can demonstrate that a that may qualify as BACT for PM2.5 minimis in the event the EPA finalizes NAAQS implementation, and is particular source category does not proposed Option 1 for BACM and BACT contribute significantly to available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ determinations. RBLC/. There are also other resources nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS Step 3: Identify existing and potential available to assist states in identifying after the application of any RACM or control measures. After evaluating other potential control measures and RACT controls on the sources in the source category impacts to eliminate de control technologies for their BACM and minimis source categories from further 185 BACT determinations. The EPA For a complete discussion of the EPA’s Clean consideration, the state would identify Data Policy and the EPA’s proposal for applying encourages states with Serious PM all existing and potential measures 2.5 this policy for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 nonattainment areas to visit the agency’s NAAQS, see Section IX.C of this preamble. Web site to find links to other online 186 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 187 Ibid. See also Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42011. F.2d 323, 360–61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). sources of information on potential

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15409

control measures for states to technologically feasible as BACM for an additional reasonable measures) for the consider.188 area or mobile source, the EPA proposes same nonattainment area. Specific to potential control measures that a state may consider factors in Indeed, consistent with prior for mobile source emissions, the EPA’s conducting its analysis that are similar guidance on evaluating costs of a past guidance has indicated that where to factors the state may have considered potential BACM or BACT control, the mobile sources contribute significantly during the RACM and RACT EPA maintains that while the economic to PM2.5 violations, ‘‘the state must, at determination process, such as the feasibility of a control measure is as a minimum, address the transportation social acceptability of the measure, and important as its technological feasibility control measures listed in CAA section local circumstances, such as the under the RACM and RACT 108(f) to determine whether such condition and extent of needed determination process, economic measures are achievable in the area infrastructure, population size or feasibility is a less significant factor in considering energy, environmental and workforce type and habits, which may the BACM and BACT determination economic impacts and other costs.’’ 189 prohibit certain potential control process. In other words, a state must The EPA proposes to retain this measures from being implementable. apply a higher standard for eliminating guidance and require that a state However, in the instance where a given a technologically feasible control include for evaluation as BACM for control measure has been applied in measure from further consideration as mobile sources those measures listed in another NAAQS nonattainment area (for BACM due to cost alone. In the Addendum, the EPA stated that section 108(f), and the agency seeks PM2.5 or other pollutant), the EPA comment on this specific requirement. proposes that the state will need to ‘‘for PM10 BACM purposes, it is Step 4: Determine whether an provide a detailed justification for reasonable for similar sources to bear 192 available control measure or technology rejecting any potential BACM measure similar costs of emission reduction.’’ is technologically feasible. After as technologically infeasible. Additionally, the EPA indicated that developing a list of existing and Furthermore, if the state identifies a ‘‘economic feasibility for PM10 BACM potential new measures to evaluate for certain control measure for area or purposes should focus upon evidence BACM and BACT, the state would then mobile sources that has been that the control technology in question need to determine the technological implemented in another nonattainment has previously been implemented at feasibility of each identified control area and may qualify as BACM or BACT other sources in a similar source measure in light of a number of category without unreasonable for the state’s Serious nonattainment 193 considerations, including each area, the state must provide a reasoned economic impacts.’’ Thus, a state measure’s individual energy and may not eliminate a particular control 190 justification if it deems it environmental impacts. technologically infeasible to implement measure from further consideration as (1) Stationary sources. As described the same control measure to the same potential BACM if similar sources have under the technological feasibility successfully implemented such a extent or magnitude as it was applied in criteria for the control measures analysis measure. That is, a state must at a the other nonattainment area. for Moderate area attainment plans in minimum continue to consider as Section IV.D, the EPA’s prior guidance The EPA seeks comment on the potential BACM any technologically on factors to consider for judging factors described above for states to feasible control measures or whether a particular control technology consider when evaluating the technologies implemented by similar is technologically feasible should technological feasibility of a control sources. include a source’s processes and measure or technology for BACM and In addition, the EPA seeks to clarify operating procedures, raw materials, BACT. that a state may not automatically physical plant layout and potential Step 5: Determine whether an eliminate a particular control measure environmental impacts such as available control technology or measure merely because other sources have not increased water pollution, waste is economically feasible. The fifth step implemented the measure. In other disposal and energy requirements. For under this proposed approach is to words, a state must continue to consider example, the EPA recognizes that the evaluate the costs of implementing each technologically feasible measures that process, operating procedures and raw of the technologically feasible control have not been implemented by similar materials used by a source can affect the measures and technologies in order to sources but that can nonetheless feasibility of implementing process eliminate from further consideration effectively reduce emissions from the changes that reduce emissions and can any measures determined to be source category in question at a cost that also affect the selection of add-on economically infeasible. As discussed is not wholly cost prohibitive. emission control equipment. The elsewhere in this proposal, in assessing As with the EPA’s proposed approach feasibility of modifying processes or ‘‘best’’ control measures and for evaluating economic feasibility of applying control equipment also can be technologies, states with Serious PM2.5 potential reasonable measures for influenced by the physical layout of the nonattainment areas must identify a Moderate area attainment plans, the particular plant, if the physical space control strategy for the area that overall EPA proposes that for each available in which to implement such is more stringent than that identified for technologically feasible control measure changes limits the choices.191 the area when the state considered only or technology, a state must evaluate the (2) Area and mobile sources. With the ‘‘reasonableness’’ of potential economic feasibility of the measure or respect to determining whether a given control measures. Thus the EPA is control through consideration of the control measure might not be proposing to require states to consider capital costs, operating and emission reduction measures with maintenance costs, and cost 188 Links are provided to a number of national, higher costs per ton when assessing the effectiveness (i.e., cost per ton of state and local air quality agency sites from the economic feasibility of BACM and pollutant reduced by that measure or EPA’s PM2.5 Web site: http://www.epa.gov/pm/ BACT controls (and, where applicable, measures.html. technology) associated with such 189 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR additional feasible measures) as measure or control. While the EPA is 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42013. compared to the economic feasibility 190 Ibid. at 42012. criteria applied in their RACM and 192 Ibid. 191 Ibid. at 42013. RACT analysis (and analysis for 193 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

not proposing a fixed dollar per ton cost reclassification, the state must adopt the control strategy determination process, threshold for economic feasibility of partial measure as BACM. but rather would serve as another controls identified as potential BACM The EPA proposes that a state must interim step in the process prior to and BACT, the EPA proposes that the identify those technologically and making a final determination of what threshold should be higher for the economically feasible control measures constitutes BACM and BACT and BACM and BACT analysis than it was and technologies that it can implement additional feasible measures for the area for the RACM and RACT analysis for the fully or partially within 4 years of through modeling for the attainment same nonattainment area. In addition, if reclassification of its Serious PM2.5 demonstration. The EPA’s proposed a state contends that a source-specific nonattainment area. These measures requirements for what the state would control-level should not be established will be considered BACM and BACT for need to evaluate during this step under because the source(s) cannot afford the the area. ‘‘Additional feasible measures’’ this second proposed approach are control measure or technology that is would be ‘‘best’’-level, feasible measures described in greater detail in the demonstrated to be economically that a state could implement in whole following section. feasible for purposes of BACM for other or in part on sources in the area The EPA emphasizes that proposed sources in its source category, the state sometime after the fourth year following Option 2 for determining BACM and must support the claim with reclassification and prior to the BACT and additional feasible measures information regarding the impact of statutory attainment date for the area. depends on the state submitting its imposing the identified control measure ii. Proposed Option 2. The second attainment demonstration earlier than or technology on the following financial proposed approach for evaluating may otherwise be required under the indicators, to the extent applicable: control measures and technologies and statute so that it can be 1. Fixed and variable production costs determining which qualify as BACM or contemporaneous with the submission ($/unit); BACT or additional feasible measures of BACM and BACT measures, due 18 2. Product supply and demand for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area months after the date of reclassification elasticity; would directly link the control strategy of a PM2.5 nonattainment area to 3. Product prices (cost absorption vs. determination process with the Serious. cost pass-through); attainment demonstration for the area, Given all of the above, the EPA is 4. Expected costs incurred by allowing a state to eliminate potential proposing and seeking comment on a competitors; measures that are not necessary to second approach for determining BACM 5. Company profits demonstrate attainment of the relevant and BACT and additional feasible 6. Employment costs; NAAQS in the area and would not measures for a Serious PM2.5 7. Other costs (e.g., for BACM collectively advance the attainment date nonattainment area comprised of the implemented by public sector entities). for the area by at least 1 year. For this following steps. See proposed 40 CFR second proposed approach, the EPA The EPA seeks comment on the 51.1010(a) for proposed Option 2. Note proposes a process similar to the one factors described above for states to that Steps 1 through 5 would proposed for Moderate area control consider when determining whether a incorporate the same considerations and strategy determinations. However, the control measure or technology is requirements as those in the equivalent specific potential control measures to be economically feasible as BACM or steps described in the EPA’s first evaluated as BACM and BACT and BACT.194 proposed approach with the two additional feasible measures would Step 6: Determine the earliest date by important exceptions discussed in the continue to be distinguished by stricter which a control measure or technology preceding section: criteria to yield a set of control measures can be implemented in whole or in part. Step 1: Update base year emissions that reflects an overall higher level of Section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that inventory for the area. stringency in the control strategy for the Step 2: Identify existing and potential Serious area attainment plans provide nonattainment area than that provided control measures for all emissions for the implementation of BACM no by the implementation of reasonable sources in the emissions inventory for later than 4 years after reclassification of control measures (i.e., RACM and RACT the area. the area to Serious. As with the EPA’s and additional reasonable measures). Step 3: Determine whether an proposed approach to RACM and RACT, Under the EPA’s second proposed available control measure or technology the EPA proposes the term ‘‘implement’’ approach for determining which is technologically feasible. to mean that the control measure or measures must be part of the control Step 4: Determine whether an technology has not only been adopted strategy for a Serious PM2.5 available control measure or technology into the SIP for the area but has also nonattainment area, a state would is economically feasible. been built, installed and/or otherwise follow many of the same steps as Step 5: Determine the earliest date by physically manifested and the affected described under the EPA’s first which a control measure or technology sources are required to comply. See proposed approach for the such can be implemented in whole or in part. proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. The EPA thus determinations, with two important During this step in the process, the expects a state with a Serious differences. First, Step 2 as described state would be required to identify two nonattainment area to take deliberate above would be eliminated from the groups of measures. The first group of and timely action to implement BACM process. That is, after a state updates the measures would be potential BACM and and BACT in the area. The EPA baseline emissions inventory for sources BACT; that is, ‘‘best’’-level, feasible proposes that if a state evaluates a located in the area, the state would be measures that the state could implement potential BACM or BACT measure and required to identify existing and in whole or in part within 4 years of determines that it can be implemented potential new measures for all sources reclassification. The second group of only partially within 4 years after in the inventory for evaluation as measures would be additional feasible potential BACM and BACT and measures, defined as ‘‘best’’-level, 194 These long-standing factors were established additional feasible measures without feasible measures that a state could in EPA guidance in 1992 and are applicable to implementation programs for all NAAQS exempting any source categories as de implement in whole or in part on pollutants. See the appendices to the General minimis. Second, Step 6 as described sources in the area sometime after the Preamble, 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). above would not be the last step in the fourth year following reclassification

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15411

and prior to the statutory attainment or BACT or additional feasible measures Congress required in section date for the area. from implementation in a given Serious 189(b)(1)(B), however. Rather, the Step 6: Model to determine the nonattainment area. agency believes that in order to ensure attainment date that is as expeditious as One notable point of discussion in the that a state develops an appropriately practicable. As with the proposed Addendum indicates that short-term stringent control strategy for a Serious Moderate area attainment plan control BACM measures are not preferred by the PM2.5 nonattainment area, it is strategy analysis, the EPA proposes that EPA unless such a measure is the only appropriate to require that state to states would need to model air quality way to implement BACM within 4 identify and evaluate potential control 195 impacts to determine the Serious area years. This is because the ultimate measures for all sources of direct PM2.5 attainment date that is as expeditious as goal of selection of BACM controls is emissions and emissions of any PM2.5 practicable for the area. After that those measures will prevent future precursors not otherwise found to developing an inventory, identifying emissions, rather than a temporary contribute insignificantly to PM2.5 levels potential measures, determining reduction of emissions. Therefore, in the area. Eliminating the possibility economic and technological feasibility, consistent with this previous guidance, for de minimis source category and determining whether a measure the EPA proposes that those measures exemptions means that a state’s would be able to be implemented in 4 that a state must reject first under this evaluation of potential control measures years or between 4 years from proposed approach would be those that and technologies will be more thorough reclassification and the statutory offer only short-term emissions and comprehensive and potentially lead attainment date for the area, the state reductions. to the implementation of controls on a would conduct modeling that shows the Step 6b: If an area cannot wider variety of source categories. combined air quality impact of all demonstrate attainment by the statutory Additionally, the test of whether the BACM and BACT measures and attainment date, then submit request for potential BACM and BACT and additional feasible measures as Serious area attainment date extension additional feasible measures not needed applicable. The purpose of this including adopting MSM. Section for an area to attain the NAAQS by the modeling would be to determine the 189(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires a state outside statutory attainment date could attainment date that is as expeditious as to submit as part of its Serious area collectively advance the attainment date practicable and to identify whether attainment plan either a demonstration for the area by at least 1 year could there are certain control measures that that the plan will provide for attainment result in a state implementing such a state could eliminate from the Serious by the statutory Serious area attainment measures on source categories which, if area attainment plan because they date, or a demonstration that attainment they had each been evaluated separately cannot collectively expedite attainment by such date is ‘‘impracticable.’’ If the for purposes of a de minimis source of the area by 1 year or more. A state cannot demonstrate attainment category analysis, might have been based on the implementation of all complete discussion of the EPA’s exempted from control. Furthermore, as BACM and BACT and additional proposed modeling requirements for noted earlier in this section, in order for feasible measures by the end of the Serious area attainment demonstration the state, the EPA, and the general tenth calendar year following is presented in Section VI.E below. public to be able to fully evaluate Step 6a: If area can demonstrate designation of the area, then under whether the selected control strategy attainment by the statutory attainment sections 189(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 188(e), the (i.e., BACM and BACT and additional date, then select only those control state must submit as part of its Serious feasible measures) will provide for measures needed for expeditious area attainment plan a complete request expeditious attainment of the NAAQS attainment as BACM or BACT or to extend the attainment date for the in a Serious PM additional feasible measures. Under this area that meets the statutory provisions 2.5 nonattainment area, second proposed approach to BACM of section 188(e) and meets all of the the state would be required to submit and BACT determinations, the EPA regulatory criteria proposed under the attainment demonstration for the proposes that if a Serious area will be Section VII in this preamble, including area at the same time as it submits able to demonstrate attainment by the the evaluation and adoption of MSM. provisions to meet the BACM and BACT statutory Serious area attainment date, The EPA acknowledges that this requirement under section 189(b)(1)(B), then the state must adopt all measures second proposed approach for 18 months after reclassification of the identified as potential BACM and determining BACM and BACT and area to Serious. This date would be BACT, and additional feasible measures additional feasible measures for a stricter than the statutory due date for if applicable, that will ensure that the Serious area, which would authorize a Serious area attainment demonstration attainment date is as expeditious as states to link the attainment control for areas reclassified to Serious under practicable. The state may, however, strategy to the attainment needs for an the EPA’s discretionary authority of reject those potential BACM and BACT area, is different from the approach the section 188(b)(1), which is no later than and additional feasible measures that agency has historically applied to 4 years from the date of reclassification would not collectively contribute to BACM determinations for PM10. The of the area. emissions reductions that could EPA believes that effectively eliminating By defining a process for determining advance the attainment date for the area the step of exempting de minimis source BACM and BACT and additional by at least 1 year. categories the beginning of the control feasible measures in a way that is The EPA recognizes that identifying strategy determination process and similar to the process for determining the measures that would not collectively linking the determination of BACM and RACM and RACT and additional advance the attainment date for a BACT and additional feasible measures reasonable measures for the same area, Serious area by at least 1 year will likely with the attainment analysis for a the EPA believes that a state with a be an iterative process that requires Serious area would not be a relaxation Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area may additional modeling. As with modeling of the statutory requirement for be able to conserve resources by relying for Moderate area attainment implementation of ‘‘best’’ measures in in part on the analytical work performed demonstrations, the EPA believes that Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas as for the RACM and RACT analysis for the such extra effort is reasonable for a state area when it was classified as Moderate. seeking to reject certain potential BACM 195 Ibid. Furthermore, the challenges associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

with properly identifying de minimis from further consideration due to a information to meet the following four source categories as described earlier in determination by the state that the criteria. this section may be avoided. Finally, the control measure or technology was not First, the base year emissions from the EPA believes that tying the final technologically feasible, a narrative source or group of sources to which the selection of BACM and BACT and explanation and quantitative or control measure applies and the future additional feasible measures to the qualitative supporting documentation to year projected emissions from those specific attainment needs of a justify the state’s conclusion; sources once controlled must be • For each technologically feasible nonattainment area could help to focus quantifiable so that the projected emission control measure or technology, limited air agency resources on control emissions reductions from the sources the state must provide the following measures that are most needed to bring can be attributed to the specific a Serious area into expeditious information relevant to economic measures being implemented. Once attainment for the PM NAAQS. feasibility: (i) The control efficiency by 2.5 again, it is important that the emissions The EPA seeks comment on all pollutant; (ii) the possible emission aspects of both proposed approaches reductions by pollutant; (iii) the from the source category in question are and criteria for determining BACM and estimated cost per ton of pollutant accurately represented in the base year BACT and additional feasible measures reduced; and, (iv) a determination of inventory so that emissions reductions for a Serious nonattainment area. The whether the measure is economically are properly calculated. In particular, it agency may finalize either of the feasible, with narrative explanation and is especially important to ensure that proposed approaches or various quantitative supporting documentation both the filterable and condensable elements of each after analyzing to justify the state’s conclusion; components of PM2.5 are accurately submitted comments. • For each technologically and represented in the base year. economically feasible emission control Second, the control measures must be 3. BACM and BACT Submittal measure or technology, the date by enforceable, meaning that they must Requirements which the technology or measure could specify clear, unambiguous and To ensure that attainment plan be implemented. measurable requirements. The submissions contain the necessary As with a Moderate area attainment measurable requirements for larger supporting information for EPA review plan submission, the EPA recognizes emitting facilities must include periodic and approval of the state’s selected that the base year emissions inventory source testing to establish the capability BACM and BACT and additional for the area that the state submits in of such facilities to achieve the required feasible measures as applicable, the EPA conjunction with its Serious area emission level. Additionally, to verify proposes to require under the authority attainment plan will likely contain the the continued performance of the of section 301(a) that a state must information proposed to be required control measure, specific emissions under the first two items in this list. submit the following information as part monitoring programs appropriate for the However, the EPA believes that it is of its Serious area attainment plan type of control measure employed and incumbent on the state to ensure that submission: the level of emissions must be included • the information needed for the EPA to A list of all emissions source to verify the continued performance of evaluate the state’s BACM and BACT categories, sources and activities in the the control measure. The control and additional feasible measures nonattainment area that emit direct measures and monitoring program must PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor (for multi- analysis is presented as part of that analysis and in a format that provides also have been adopted according to state nonattainment areas, this would proper legal procedures. include source categories, sources and transparency, consistency and the activities from all states which make up ability for another party to evaluate the Third, the results of application of the the area); state’s analysis effectively and to control measures must be replicable. • For each source category, source or duplicate the state’s results. For this This means that where a rule contains activity in the nonattainment area, an reason, the EPA is proposing to require procedures for interpreting, changing or inventory of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 the state to include the base year determining compliance with the rule, precursor emissions; emissions inventory information with the procedures are sufficiently specific • For each source category, source or the BACM and BACT submittal and as and objective so that two independent activity in the nonattainment area, a one element of the state’s attainment entities applying the procedures would comprehensive list of potential control plan due 18 months after obtain the same result. measures considered by the state for the reclassification of the area to Serious. Fourth, the control measures must be 196 197 nonattainment area; 4. Criteria for Effective Regulations To accountable. For example, source- • For each potential control measure Implement BACM and BACT and specific emission limits must be considered by the state but eliminated Additional Feasible Measures permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the attainment 196 As with control measures identified The EPA believes that it is not necessary to plan for the area, including the identify every possible variation of every type of as part of a Moderate area’s attainment control measure, or all possible combinations of control strategy, after a state has modeling conducted in conjunction technologies and measures that would apply to a identified its BACM and BACT and with the attainment demonstration. The given source or activity, as long as the state has attainment plan must establish properly characterized the potentially available additional feasible measures for a emissions reductions and their costs. For example, particular nonattainment area, it must requirements to track emissions changes the EPA believes that the state can conduct a implement those measures through a at sources and provide for corrective thorough analysis of VMT reduction measures legally enforceable mechanism to be action if emissions reductions are not without including every possible level or stringency achieved according to the plan. of implementation of certain possible measures or included in the SIP. As with Moderate combinations of measures for reducing VMT, so area control measures, the EPA is The EPA seeks comment on these long as those measures would not affect the overall proposing that in order for the agency to criteria for approval of any control assessment of VMT reduction capabilities and the associated costs. be able to approve any Serious area measures adopted by a state for a 197 The Menu of Control Measures document is control measure and approve it as part Serious area to assure that such available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. of the SIP, the state will have to provide measures are legally enforceable.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15413

5. Relevance of Prior BACT, LAER and 7. Environmental Justice Considerations after the maximum statutory Serious BART Determinations for Developing the Attainment Plan area attainment date (based on the Control Strategy for a Serious PM2.5 criteria specified in section 188(e)). The EPA believes that BACT or lowest Nonattainment Area Attainment demonstrations are due 18 achievable emission rate (LAER) months after reclassification if the EPA The EPA strongly urges states to provisions for new sources (as distinct reclassifies the area to Serious after consider the environmental justice from BACT for existing sources), or best failure of the area to attain the aspect of any control measures they available retrofit technology (BART) for applicable Moderate area deadline. existing sources, could qualify as BACM have identified as BACM and BACT or Alternatively, section 189(b)(2) requires or BACT for purposes of meeting the additional feasible measures. Because states with designated Serious Serious area attainment plan the criteria for determining BACM and nonattainment areas to submit requirements. However, the EPA does BACT will lead in most cases to the attainment demonstrations no later than not believe it is appropriate for a state selection of an overall more stringent 4 years after reclassification of the area to assume that just because a certain control strategy in a Serious area than to Serious if the reclassification occurs control technology was determined to what RACM and RACT could provide, before the Moderate area attainment meet BACT, LAER, or BART criteria for an appropriate control strategy for a deadline. However, the EPA is Serious nonattainment area will likely a new source, such a control will also proposing an approach for determining implicitly include the best measures for automatically meet the criteria for an appropriate attainment plan control ensuring that overburdened populations BACM or BACT or additional feasible strategy for a Serious PM2.5 are appropriately protected. measures for attainment planning nonattainment area that would require Nonetheless, the EPA encourages states purposes because the regulated the state to submit the attainment when possible to select BACM and pollutant or source applicability may demonstration for the area within 18 BACT measures that will result in the differ and the analyses may be months after reclassification regardless least possible burden and greatest conducted many years apart. Thus, a of when or the authority under which degree of health protection for state may not simply rely on prior an area was reclassified to Serious. overburdened populations in the BACT, LAER or BART analyses for the Sections VI.A and VI.D of this preamble nonattainment area. purposes of showing that a source has describe more fully the EPA’s proposed also met BACT for the relevant PM2.5 E. Modeling for Attainment approach for control strategy analyses NAAQS. Rather, the EPA expects that in Demonstrations and due dates for all elements of a Serious area attainment plan. Section Step 2 of either of the agency’s proposed Section IV.E. describes the EPA’s approaches to the BACM and BACT VI.J of this preamble provides a proposed attainment demonstration and complete discussion of the EPA’s determination process, the state would modeling requirements for Moderate identify such measures as ‘‘existing proposed criteria for granting a Serious area plans, and the EPA is proposing area attainment date extension. measures’’ that should be further that the same general requirements evaluated as potential BACM or BACT should apply to Serious area attainment 2. Attainment Demonstrations for or additional feasible measures. demonstrations. However, Serious area Serious Areas 6. Multi-State Nonattainment Areas plans have additional statutory As described in Section IV.E of this requirements, which the EPA proposes preamble, an attainment demonstration States that share a multi-state Serious to address as described below. is a plan that demonstrates how a state PM nonattainment area must consult 2.5 1. Statutory Requirements will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the with one another on BACM and BACT applicable attainment date. The EPA is and additional feasible measures that Section 189(b) generally requires a proposing that the demonstration for will be required for the nonattainment state with a designated Serious Serious areas must consist of: (i) area in the different states. This nonattainment area to submit an Technical analyses such as base year requirement would be consistent with attainment plan for such area. As and future year modeling of emissions the overall requirements for BACM and discussed earlier, section 189(b)(1)(A) which identify sources and quantify BACT and additional feasible measures more specifically requires the state to emissions that are contributing to determinations, as all states with submit an attainment demonstration violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS; and, (ii) Serious areas need to consider including air quality modeling to analyses of future year projected implementing BACM and BACT-level establish either: (i) That the area will emissions reductions and air quality measures that have been implemented attain the relevant NAAQS by the improvement resulting from existing in other states, even if those measures applicable attainment date, or (ii) if the (i.e. already-adopted or ‘‘on the books’’) incur higher costs. The EPA anticipates state is seeking an extension of the national, regional and local programs, that states may potentially adopt attainment date, that it is impracticable and potential new local measures controls that differ from state to state, for the area to attain the relevant needed for attainment, including RACM based upon each state’s determination NAAQS by the statutory Serious area and RACT and BACM and BACT of what qualifies as ‘‘best’’ given the attainment date. For Serious controls for the area, as well as other mixture of sources and potential nonattainment areas, the attainment measures either inside the controls in the state portions of relevant date is as expeditiously as practicable, nonattainment area or outside the nonattainment areas, subject to EPA but no later than the end of the tenth nonattainment area but within the state approval. If the state can adequately calendar year after designation as that could potentially accelerate demonstrate that its chosen BACM and nonattainment. An attainment attainment. Each state with a Serious BACT and additional feasible measures demonstration that shows that it is nonattainment area must submit an fully meet the EPA’s proposed criteria impracticable for the area to attain attainment plan with an attainment for such measures, then the agency may within this timeframe must also provide demonstration that includes analyses consider approving individual state for attainment of the NAAQS by the supporting the state’s determination of plans that differ in implementation of most expeditious alternative date its proposed attainment date. In all control measures. practicable, but no later than 5 years cases, the state must show that the area

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously impracticability demonstration for demonstration or a Serious area as practicable, but not later than the Moderate areas described in section impracticability analysis must select a tenth calendar year after designation. In 189(a)(1)(B)(ii), the impracticability future year for the analysis. For an order to establish that the attainment demonstration for Serious areas in attainment demonstration, a state date is as expeditious as practicable, the section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii) also requires air should select the future modeling year state must explain why the control quality modeling establishing the most such that all emissions control measures measures adopted in the attainment expeditious alternative attainment date relied on for attainment will have been plan provide for the most expeditious practicable. Therefore, air quality implemented by the beginning of that attainment and must either: (i) Under modeling is a required element in all year. To demonstrate attainment, the proposed Option 1 for the BACM and attainment demonstrations for Serious modeling results for the nonattainment BACT determination include all BACM areas. area must predict that emissions and BACT controls in the analysis, or Other than the timing of plan reductions implemented by the (ii) under proposed Option 2 for BACM submissions and additional required beginning of the last calendar year and BACT, provide the requisite elements of a Serious area plan (such as preceding the attainment date will analysis to show that implementation of BACM and BACT), the relevant air result in PM2.5 concentrations that meet additional emissions controls, including quality modeling procedures and the level of the standard.198 any potential BACM and BACT, would guidance for Moderate and Serious area While states should choose the future not advance the attainment date for the plans are the same. See Section IV.E. of modeling year based on a number of area by at least 1 year if considered this preamble for more details on factors, the EPA recommends the last collectively. proposed modeling requirements and year of the statutory attainment date as A state with a Serious nonattainment guidance for all PM2.5 nonattainment a starting point for modeling for two area can also submit an impracticability areas. reasons. First, a state with a Serious area demonstration (under section for which it submits an attainment date 4. Will areas reclassified to Serious need 189(b)(1)(A)(ii)) as part of seeking an extension request under section 188(e) to submit two separate attainment extension of the attainment date under must show that the area cannot demonstrations? section 188(e). The impracticability practicably attain the NAAQS by the demonstration for a Serious area would Under section 189(a)(1)(B), a state is end of the tenth calendar year following be similar to an impracticability required to submit as part of an area’s designation of the area. Therefore, the demonstration for Moderate areas Moderate area attainment plan a appropriate future modeling year for because it must include air quality demonstration that the area either will making such a demonstration would be modeling which shows that the area attain or cannot practicably attain the the tenth year after designations. Even if will not be able to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory Moderate area a state does not submit (or does not NAAQS by the outside statutory attainment date. Regardless of whether intend to submit) a Serious area attainment date, which in this case is by the state submits an attainment attainment date extension request, the end of the tenth calendar year demonstration or an impracticability modeling the tenth year is a logical following designation. However, in demonstration for a Moderate area, if starting point to determine if attainment order to support a Serious area such area is reclassified to Serious prior by year 10 is likely. If attainment-level impracticability demonstration, the state to or after failing to attain the applicable concentrations of PM2.5 are not expected must also show (through modeling) that NAAQS, the state is required under in the tenth calendar year after attainment cannot be reached by the section 189(b)(1)(A) to submit a new designations, then the area must also, as statutory Serious area attainment date, attainment demonstration as part of an a requirement to receive an extension of even if all RACM and RACT and BACM area’s Serious area attainment plan. The the Serious area attainment date, submit and BACT controls, as well as other separate statutory requirements for a demonstration (using air quality measures either inside the Moderate and Serious nonattainment modeling) that provides for attainment nonattainment area or outside the areas anticipate two separate attainment by the most expeditious alternative date nonattainment area but within the state, plan submissions, and the EPA’s practicable, but no later than the end of were implemented before the attainment existing guidance in the General the fifteenth year after designation, with date. Moreover, in addition to the Preamble and Addendum further the implementation of MSM (see Serious area impracticability support this expectation. While the state Section VI.J of this preamble for details demonstration, to support an extension would be required to submit a separate about MSM determinations). of the attainment date, the Serious area Serious area attainment plan, the EPA Second, even though attainment of plan must demonstrate (again, using air anticipates that certain control strategies any PM2.5 NAAQS is determined based quality modeling) that it provides for may build upon those previously on 3 years of ambient data, states do not attainment by the most expeditious adopted and implemented as part of the have to model 2 years before the alternative date practicable employing Moderate area plan. For example, it attainment date to show modeled MSM, as specified in section 188(e). As could be the case that an area attainment. Since the design value is an a result, the required plan is both an dominated by woodsmoke emissions average of the annual or 98th percentile impracticability demonstration (to could not attain the standard by the value for 3 consecutive years, justify an extension beyond the statutory Moderate area attainment date attainment can still be shown even if statutory attainment date) and an because all necessary woodstove concentrations exceed the NAAQS in attainment demonstration which serves change-outs could not occur in that one or more of the 3 years used to as the basis for proposing an appropriate timeframe, but additional woodstove determine attainment (as long as the alternative attainment date. change-outs could occur by the statutory average of the 3 annual values is less Serious area attainment date. 3. What modeling is required? 198 Note that for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, States are required to submit air 5. What future year(s) should be a determination of attainment (or failure to attain), modeled in attainment demonstrations? which the EPA is required to make after the quality modeling in support of an attainment date has passed, is based on ambient attainment demonstration for a Serious A state performing a modeling data from the most recent 3 years prior to the PM2.5 nonattainment area. Unlike the analysis for an attainment attainment date for the area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15415

than the NAAQS). Therefore, it can be would be impracticable. Any proposed vehicle emissions budget for the appropriate to model any of the 3 years attainment date after the 10 year period purposes of a Serious area PM2.5 used to determine attainment. For these must include modeling of BACM and attainment plan is that portion of the reasons, it is acceptable, and may in fact BACT controls plus the most stringent total allowable emissions within the be most efficient, for a state to begin the measures that are included in the nonattainment area allocated to on-road Serious area attainment demonstration implementation plan of any state and sources as defined in the submitted process by modeling the final year of the can be feasibly implemented in the area. attainment plan.201 Such motor vehicle statutory attainment date to determine The attainment date extension beyond emissions budgets would be calculated future year modeled PM2.5 10 years can be for up to 5 additional using the latest planning assumptions concentrations in the tenth year after years, but the proposed attainment date and the latest approved motor vehicle designations. must also be shown to be as expeditious emissions model available at the time Because an area must attain ‘‘as as practicable. Section VI.J of this that the attainment plan is expeditiously as practicable,’’ additional preamble provides a complete developed.202 discussion of the EPA’s proposed considerations are necessary before an F. RFP Requirements attainment date can be established. For interpretation of the statutory purposes of determining the attainment requirements for a Serious area 1. Statutory Requirements date that is as expeditious as attainment date extension under section As with Moderate area attainment 188(e). practicable, the state must conduct plans, Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area future year modeling which takes into As with Moderate area attainment plans must provide for RFP as required account growth and known controls demonstrations, the EPA believes that it under CAA section 172(c)(2). Section (including any controls that were is not necessary or reasonable to require IV.F of this preamble fully describes the previously determined to be RACM and states to model each and every year to statutory requirements and overall RACT for the area). For example, for an determine the appropriate attainment proposed approaches for states to fulfill area designated nonattainment for the date for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment the RFP requirement in the context of 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS during the first area given the resource demands Moderate area attainment plans. The 199 round of designations and subsequently associated with modeling. In some EPA believes that the proposed reclassified to Serious, a future case cases it may be reasonable to model one approaches described for RFP for scenario for the year 2025 (10 years after additional interim year before the Moderate area plans can apply to the initial nonattainment designation) maximum statutory attainment date. Serious area attainment plans as well. would be needed to examine whether However, in most cases, the air quality The following section offers additional the the BACM and BACT identified by benefits of an identified set of detail about how the EPA proposes that the state would result in attainment. reasonable control measures, BACM and the approach to RFP should apply Under the proposed BACM and BACT BACT and additional feasible control specifically to Serious area attainment determination Option 1 (where BACM measures can be estimated through plans. and BACT must be determined model sensitivity analyses and the independent of the attainment development of transfer factors (factors 2. Proposed Approach demonstration for the area), the future to relate tons of emissions reductions in As with a Moderate area attainment case scenario must include BACM and the area to PM2.5 concentration changes plan, the EPA is generally proposing BACT controls in the analysis plus any in the area). The EPA strongly that a state must submit an RFP plan as additional measures on sources inside recommends that states discuss the part of any attainment plan submission and outside of the nonattainment area selection of the future year(s) to model for a Serious nonattainment area in (but within the state) that the state has with their respective EPA Regional order to satisfy the statutory identified as feasible to implement by Office as part of the modeling protocol requirements for RFP. The plan must the attainment date. Under proposed development process prior to embarking include a schedule and an analysis that Option 2 for determining BACM and on the modeling. collectively demonstrate when and BACT (where BACM and BACT is 6. Attainment Year Motor Vehicle through what control measures determined according to what is needed Emissions Budgets emissions from sources in the to expeditiously attain the NAAQS), the nonattainment area will decline from future case scenario must show whether As with Moderate areas, the the applicable baseline year to the implementation of emissions controls, transportation conformity rule requires projected attainment year. The EPA is including all BACM and BACT and that Serious area attainment plans proposing that the applicable baseline additional feasible measures on sources establish motor vehicle emissions year must be the same year as that inside and outside of the nonattainment budgets for the area’s attainment year. represented by the latest base year area (but within the state), collectively Therefore, once a Serious area’s inventory for the Serious area. The would advance the attainment date by at attainment date has been established, projected attainment year may be up to least 1 year. Note that similar to RACM the state is required to establish motor the end of the tenth year following and RACT, BACM and BACT controls vehicle emissions budgets for direct designation of the area for a Serious area must be implemented within 4 years PM2.5 and any relevant PM2.5 precursor 200 after reclassification to Serious for the attainment year. A motor addressed requirements for PM2.5 precursors. (70 FR nonattainment. In order to justify an 24280). extension of the attainment date beyond 199 States with Serious areas that request an 201 A state would also establish motor vehicle attainment date extension beyond 10 years must emissions budgets for an area’s attainment year. the end of the tenth year after model the tenth year after designation of the area Those budgets would be the motor vehicle designation, the state must show that as part of an impracticability demonstration, plus emissions that the SIP establishes as being attainment by that date (including the an additional year beyond that which represents the necessary to attain the NAAQS. anticipated emissions reductions from attainment date. 202 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in 200 For more information on PM2.5 precursor the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest RACM and RACT and additional requirements, see section 93.102(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of approved version of AP–42 should be used unless reasonable measures, and BACM and the transportation conformity rule. See also the May the EPA has approved an alternative model for the BACT and additional feasible measures) 6, 2005, final transportation conformity rule that area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

that can demonstrate attainment comment on the proposed options impractical to expect that a state will pursuant to section 189(b)(1)(A), or up described in Section IV.F of this always be able to quantify and compare to the end of the fifteenth year following preamble regarding how to prepare an real and projected emissions reductions, designation for a Serious area that is RFP plan, geographic coverage of and submit a report to the EPA within seeking an extension to the statutory emission sources for RFP, and RFP 90 days of a given milestone, as required attainment date pursuant to section requirements for multi-state under section 189(c)(2). Therefore, the 188(e).203 The RFP analysis must clearly nonattainment areas, which would also EPA proposes that the general proposed convey how the schedule for apply to Serious area attainment plans. approach to selecting quantitative milestones, described in Section IV.G, implementing BACM and BACT and G. Quantitative Milestones any additional control measures will should apply to any attainment plan for provide for generally linear progress The attainment plan for any Serious a PM2.5 nonattainment area, towards attainment or, if step-wise nonattainment area must include independent of its classification. progress is more appropriate for the quantitative milestones pursuant to Specifically, the EPA proposes that specific nonattainment area in question, section 189(c). These quantitative states be allowed to select the the analysis must convey an appropriate milestones would be in addition to quantitative milestones that they implementation schedule and must those identified in the area’s Moderate identify as appropriate and quantifiable explain why generally linear progress area attainment plan, and would need to and that will provide for objective towards emissions reductions in the continue to be achieved every 3 years evaluation of progress toward area is not appropriate (e.g., due to the until the area attains the NAAQS. attainment in their Serious PM2.5 nature of the nonattainment problem Specifically, the Serious area plan for an nonattainment area, and that the EPA, and the types of sources contributing to area that can demonstrate attainment by in its attainment plan approval process, the statutory Serious area attainment PM2.5 levels in the area). For a Serious will determine if they satisfy the area that cannot demonstrate attainment date would have to contain quantitative statutory requirements of section 189(c). by the statutory Serious area attainment milestones to be achieved by 7.5 years In addition to this general proposed date, the EPA proposes that the state from the area’s date of designation as approach for selecting quantitative must include in its RFP analysis the nonattainment. This date would be 3 milestones and similar to an option anticipated emissions reductions years after the first quantitative proposed for Moderate area attainment expected to be achieved through the milestones for the area, to be met 4.5 plans, the EPA proposes to require that, implementation of BACM and BACT years from designation of the area and at a minimum, states must include in all and MSM on sources in the 3 years after the Moderate area attainment plans for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. As with RFP plans attainment plan was due to the EPA. nonattainment areas a measure to for Moderate areas, the EPA proposes The EPA also proposes and seeks confirm that some specific portion of that a state must submit one or more comment on a requirement that a BACM and BACT for the area has been projected emissions inventories as part Serious area plan for an area that can implemented as appropriate in order to demonstrate attainment by the statutory comply with the statutory requirement of the RFP plan for any Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area following the same Serious area attainment date must also at section 189(b)(1)(B). The EPA guidance that applies to emissions include quantitative milestones to be acknowledges that the precise inventories for attainment plans (see reached 10.5 years from designation, to quantifiable metric (e.g., 50 percent of Section VI.B of this preamble for a help assess the state’s progress toward BACM and BACT measures implemented by milestone date 7.5 complete discussion of emissions attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS in the event years from designation) would need to inventories for Serious area attainment the area fails to attain by the applicable be determined on a case-by-case basis, plans). These projected inventories must attainment date. For a Serious area that as it would depend upon the date of correspond with the quantitative cannot demonstrate attainment by the reclassification of the area, whether the milestone date(s) for the area as statutory Serious area attainment date, metric is to be achieved at year 7.5 or described in Section VI.H of this the EPA proposes that the state must year 10.5 from designation, and the preamble. The EPA proposes that motor include in the Serious area attainment anticipated implementation timing and vehicle emissions budgets must also be plan quantitative milestones to be nature of the BACM and BACT controls established for direct PM and any achieved at years 7.5, 10.5 and 13.5 2.5 themselves. Nonetheless, the EPA relevant PM precursor using the latest from the area’s date of designation. 2.5 The Addendum included guidance believes it would be appropriate to planning assumptions and the latest that recommended milestones ‘‘should include it as a metric that any state with approved motor vehicle emissions be addressed by quantifying and a Serious nonattainment area must model available at the time that the comparing the annual incremental adopt as a quantitative milestone to Serious area attainment plan is emission reductions which result from demonstrate RFP (and thus must developed.204 implementation of BACM and BACT demonstrate compliance with when The EPA seeks comment on all (required within 4 years after the area is they submit their milestone report), as it aspects of the agency’s proposal for reclassified as serious) and from derives from a statutory provision that meeting the statutory RFP requirements additional measures included in the applies to all Serious areas and thus as they apply to Serious nonattainment final serious area SIP to those represents a milestone that all Serious areas. Furthermore, the EPA seeks reductions which were identified in the nonattainment areas must meet. The EPA seeks comment on these 203 As noted in Section VI.B of this preamble, SIP as quantitative milestones necessary depending upon when the area is reclassified from to achieve the NAAQS by the applicable proposed options for interpreting the Moderate to Serious, this base year inventory may attainment date.’’ 205 statutory quantitative milestone need to be more recent than the inventory The EPA continues to agree with the requirements for Serious areas. submitted with the Moderate area attainment plan. fundamental concept conveyed in the 204 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in H. Contingency Measures the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest existing guidance, but believes that it is approved version of AP–42 should be used unless As noted in Section IV.G of this the EPA has approved an alternative model for the 205 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR preamble, all PM2.5 nonattainment areas area. 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42016. must include in their attainment plans

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15417

contingency measures consistent with improvement or emissions reductions to implemented. Further, the affected section 172(c)(9). Contingency measures be achieved by the area’s attainment states must ensure that serious areas are additional control measures to be plan. have adequate contingency measures implemented in the event that an area The EPA further proposes that a state considering, among other things, new fails to meet RFP requirements or fails may elect to rely on contingency information about the potential to attain the PM2.5 standard by the measures that achieve emissions attainment shortfall for the newly applicable attainment date. These reductions on sources located outside reclassified serious area.’’ 207 The EPA measures must be fully adopted rules or the nonattainment area, but within the continues to believe that this approach control measures that are ready to be state, as well as from within the to the statutory contingency measure implemented quickly upon a nonattainment area, provided that the requirement is appropriate and proposes determination by the EPA that the area measures on sources outside the to adopt it for purposes of implementing failed to meet RFP or failed to meet the designated nonattainment area are the PM2.5 NAAQS in Serious standard by the applicable attainment demonstrated to produce the nonattainment areas. date, and such measures are required to appropriate air quality impact within With regard to the timing for take effect without significant further the nonattainment area. implementing contingency measures, action by the state or the EPA. As with contingency measures for the EPA reiterates that the purpose of The statutory contingency measure Moderate nonattainment areas, the EPA contingency measures is to ensure that requirement at section 172(c)(9) is not believes it appropriate that a state might corrective measures are put in place superseded or subsumed by any rely on additional reductions in the automatically at the time that the EPA requirement under subpart 4, nor does years following a failure to meet RFP makes a determination that an area has it apply only to Moderate area requirements or a failure to attain the failed to meet RFP or failed to meet the attainment plans. Thus, contingency NAAQS by the applicable attainment NAAQS by the applicable attainment measures are required for Serious PM2.5 date from federal or local measures date. For any nonattainment area, the nonattainment areas as part of a state’s already scheduled for implementation EPA is required to determine within 90 Serious area attainment plan as part or all of their contingency days after receiving a state’s RFP submission. The EPA proposes that the measures. The EPA could potentially demonstration, and within 6 months criteria for identifying and selecting consider such measures as meeting the after the attainment date for an area, contingency measures for a Serious area contingency measure requirement as whether the state has met their statutory attainment plan should be the same as long as they produce emissions obligations for demonstrating RFP or those for Moderate area plans. reductions in excess of those required to attaining the standard, as appropriate. Specifically, the EPA proposes that the meet other statutory provisions, such as As with Moderate areas, the EPA following requirements must be met in to meet BACM and BACT requirements, believes that contingency measures order for contingency measures to be and they can be relied on to achieve a should become effective for Serious approvable as part of a state’s Serious sufficient portion of the actual areas within 60 days of the EPA making area attainment plan submission: emissions reductions necessary to its determination that the area failed to 1. Contingency measures must be reduce emissions in the area while the meet RFP or attain the NAAQS and fully adopted rules or control measures state develops a new plan to bring the proposes to require this for purposes of 206 that are ready to be implemented area into attainment. As with PM2.5 NAAQS implementation in quickly upon a determination by the contingency measures for Moderate area Serious nonattainment areas. Administrator of the nonattainment attainment plans, the EPA proposes that Finally, while section 172(b) gives area’s failure to meet RFP or failure to the emissions reductions associated discretion to the Administrator to meet the standard by its attainment with contingency measures for Serious establish a deadline for submitting date. area plans must be equal to contingency measures up to 3 years 2. The SIP must contain trigger approximately 1 year’s worth of from designation of the area, it does not mechanisms for the contingency emissions reductions necessary to explicitly address the appropriate measures, specify a schedule for achieve RFP for the area, unless the submittal date for contingency measures implementation, and indicate that the state adequately demonstrates that some for areas reclassified to Serious. In the measures will be implemented without smaller amount of reductions is Addendum, the EPA indicated that significant further action by the state or appropriate while the state is revising ‘‘states must submit contingency by the EPA. its attainment plan for the area. The measures for serious areas or otherwise 3. Contingency measures must consist EPA seeks comment on this demonstrate that adequate measures are of control measures that are not requirement. in place within 3 years of otherwise included in the control The Addendum provided guidance reclassification.’’ 208 The EPA proposes strategy for the SIP, or must require related specifically to the selection and and seeks comment on applying this further implementation of partial implementation of contingency guidance to Serious nonattainment areas measures already included in the SIP as measures for Serious nonattainment for current and future PM2.5 NAAQS. BACM or BACT, additional feasible areas. First, the EPA guidance indicated In addition, as described in Section measures, or MSM. that ‘‘for those moderate areas VI.A, the EPA proposes an alternative 4. Contingency measures must reclassified as serious, if all or part of submission deadline for Serious area provide for emissions reductions the moderate area plan contingency contingency measures that would align equivalent to 1 year’s share of measures become part of the required the contingency measure due date with reductions needed to demonstrate serious area control measures (i.e., the Serious area attainment attainment (i.e., the overall needed BACM), then additional contingency demonstration due date. If an area is reductions divided by the number of measures must be submitted whether or reclassified under the EPA’s years from the base year to the not the previously submitted discretionary authority, the Serious area attainment year), or equivalent to 1 contingency measures had already been year’s worth of air quality improvement 207 Addendum to General Preamble, 59 FR 41988 or emissions reductions proportional to 206 See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. (August 16, 1994), at 42015. the overall amount of air quality 2004). 208 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

attainment demonstration is due 4 years practicable for a Serious area will as long as certain conditions are met, as from the date of reclassification; under depend upon the final approach described next in Section VI.J. this alternative proposed approach, selected for determining BACM and J. Attainment Date Extensions contingency measures would also be BACT for the area. Therefore the EPA is due 4 years from the date of proposing two approaches for 1. Statutory Requirements reclassification for such areas. If an area determining the appropriate attainment As with Moderate areas, the EPA may is reclassified under the EPA’s date for a Serious area. Under the first grant an extension of the attainment mandatory duty upon failure of the area approach, which would correspond to date for a Serious PM nonattainment to attain the NAAQS by the Moderate 2.5 the agency’s proposed Option 1 for area if certain statutory criteria are met. area attainment date, then the Serious determining BACM and BACT— Specifically, section 188(e) provides area attainment demonstration is due 18 independent of the attainment that the EPA may allow one attainment months from the date of reclassification; demonstration for the area—the state date extension of no more than 5 years accordingly, under this alternative would simply include the control ‘‘upon application by any state . . . if proposed approach, contingency measures determined to be BACM and attainment by the [original Serious area measures would also be due 18 months BACT for the area in its air quality attainment date] would be from the date of reclassification for such modeling, and would report the results impracticable, the state has complied an area. In either case, the BACM and of the modeling, including the earliest with all requirements and commitments BACT provisions for the Serious area projected attainment date. pertaining to that area in the would be due at or before the time Under the second proposed approach, implementation plan, and the state contingency measures would be due, which would correspond to the EPA’s demonstrates to the satisfaction of the which is appropriate given that the EPA proposed Option 2 for determining Administrator that the plan for that area expects a state to consider its BACM BACM and BACT—tied to the includes the most stringent measures and BACT measures as it develops its attainment needs of the particular that are included in the implementation contingency measures. The state may nonattainment area—the state would be plan of any state or are achieved in ascertain that measures not otherwise required to follow a two-step process for practice in any state, and can feasibly be required or necessary for BACM or determining the appropriate attainment implemented in the area.’’ In addition to BACT may nevertheless be suitable for date for the area. First, the state would the required preconditions for such an purposes of contingency measures. The be required to demonstrate through air extension, the statute also includes EPA seeks comment on this alternative quality modeling that the area can attain factors which the Administrator may approach to setting Serious area the relevant NAAQS by the latest use as she considers whether to grant contingency measure due dates. statutory attainment date and determine the extension and the length of the I. Attainment Dates which control measures and extension, including ‘‘the nature and technologies are needed for the area to As explained earlier, section 188 extent of nonattainment, the types and attain by that date. Second, the state numbers of sources or other emitting establishes the attainment dates for both would be required to determine whether Moderate and Serious areas. For a activities in the area (including the implementing any remaining BACM or influence of uncontrollable natural Serious area, section 188(c)(2) provides BACT controls (i.e., those not needed that ‘‘the attainment date shall be as sources and transboundary emissions for attainment by the latest date) or any from foreign countries), the population expeditiously as practicable but no later other additional controls can than the end of the tenth calendar year exposed to concentrations in excess of cumulatively advance the attainment the standard, the presence and beginning after the area’s designation as date for the area by at least 1 year. In 209 concentrations of potentially toxic nonattainment.’’ For example, for an the event that a state determines that the area initially designated as substances in the mix of particulate area can attain the relevant NAAQS emissions in the area, and the nonattainment effective in April 2015 earlier through the application of these that is reclassified to Serious at some technological and economic feasibility other measures, the state must propose of various control measures.’’ 210 future date, the Serious area attainment the earlier date as part of the attainment date, absent any approved Serious area plan submission for the area. This 2. Proposed Approach attainment date extension, would be no second approach is similar to the In the Addendum, the EPA generally later than December 31, 2025 (the end proposed approach for determining the of the tenth calendar year after described the statutory requirements most expeditious attainment date for a listed above and expressed an intent to designation). As discussed in Section Moderate area. IV.I, the EPA proposes to interpret the issue guidance on applying for an As with Moderate area attainment references to ‘‘designation’’ in CAA extension of the Serious area attainment dates, when the EPA takes action to section 188(c) as meaning ‘‘effective date, if appropriate. While ultimately approve the different elements of the date of designation,’’ consistent with the the EPA did not deem it necessary to attainment plan for the Serious area, one agency’s prior approach for issue such guidance, the EPA has of the elements that the agency will take implementing the previous PM interpreted these statutory requirements 2.5 action on will be the state’s proposed NAAQS under subpart 1 and other through actual exercise of its authority attainment date for the area. If the EPA NAAQS. under section 188(e) in past approves an attainment date for the area The process for a state to determine rulemakings for specific PM10 that is earlier than the latest date the most expeditious attainment date nonattainment areas. For example, the allowed by statute, then the applicable EPA interpreted section 188(e) in 209 The EPA believes that there is no real effect attainment date for the area will be the approving an extension of a Serious area on attainment date determinations due to the small approved date. If the state demonstrates difference in statutory language in section 188(c) that the Serious area cannot practicably 210 Notably, these statutory criteria do not include basing the Moderate area attainment date on the attain the NAAQS by the end of the specific ambient air quality criteria like the criteria ‘‘sixth calendar year after the area’s designation’’ that need to be met in the year prior to a Moderate and the Serious area attainment date on the ‘‘tenth tenth calendar year following area attainment date in order for the area to qualify calendar year beginning after the area’s designation, the state may request a for an attainment date extension under section designation,’’ (emphasis added). Serious area attainment date extension 188(d).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15419

attainment date for purposes of the PM10 Moderate areas. The agency proposes to situation in which the state cannot NAAQS for the Maricopa area (AZ).211 base this reading on the plain language qualify for a Serious area attainment The EPA believes that the steps of section 188(e) which requires the date extension (due to its unapproved finalized in the Maricopa County PM10 state to comply with all requirements Moderate area plan) even if the area is Serious area SIP approval notice and commitments pertaining to that area reclassified to Serious and cannot provide an appropriate starting point for in the implementation plan but does not practicably attain by the statutory a proposed regulatory approach, with require that the state comply with all attainment date for a Serious area. The some potential modification, for states requirements pertaining to the area in EPA seeks comment on this alternate to meet the statutory requirements that the CAA.213 For the same reason, the proposed interpretation of the could apply nationally. The EPA is thus EPA also proposes to read this provision applicable implementation plan proposing to require that states adhere not to bar an extension if all or part of compliance criterion under section to the following steps when preparing an area’s Moderate area plan is 188(e). Recognizing that a situation such and submitting a request for a Serious disapproved or has been promulgated as as that described above may be rare, the area attainment date extension: a FIP, provided the area has complied agency also seeks comment on what Step 1: Demonstrate that attainment with all of the requirements in the remedy might be available under the by the statutory Serious area attainment applicable FIP, or in the applicable SIP statute if such a situation comes to pass date is impracticable. In order to and FIP. if the EPA were to finalize this demonstrate impracticability, the state However, for a Serious area alternative proposed interpretation of would have to show that the attainment date extension request being the applicable implementation plan implementation of all BACM and BACT submitted sometime after submission of criterion. and all additional feasible measures an ‘‘original’’ Serious area attainment Step 3: Demonstrate the inclusion of required under section 172(c)(6) will not plan that contained an attainment MSM. To qualify for any extension of a bring the area into attainment by the demonstration meeting the requirements Serious area attainment date, section statutory Serious area attainment date of section 189(b)(1)(A)(i), the EPA 188(e) requires a state to ‘‘demonstrate proposes to read section 188(e) not to (i.e., by no later than the end of the to the satisfaction of the Administrator 212 require the area to have a fully approved tenth calendar year after designation). that the plan for the area includes the attainment plan that meets the CAA’s The statutory provision for most stringent measures that are requirements for Serious areas, but to demonstrating impracticability requires included in the implementation plan of have a fully approved Moderate area that the demonstration be based on air any state, or are achieved in practice in attainment plan. The rationale for this quality modeling (see section any state, and can feasibly be distinction is due to the timing of the 189(b)(1)(A)). Additional guidance on implemented in the area.’’ In its prior Serious area attainment date extension this demonstration is provided in guidance in the Addendum, the EPA request under these circumstances, Section VI.E of this preamble. interpreted the term ‘‘most stringent Step 2: Comply with all requirements which is discussed in greater detail later in this section. The EPA believes that measure’’ (MSM) to mean the maximum and commitments in the applicable degree of emission reduction that has implementation plan. Similar to the this proposed interpretation of this criterion would apply whether the area been required or achieved from a source proposed approach described in Section or source category in any other IV.J of this preamble for Moderate area was reclassified to Serious under the EPA’s discretionary authority (section attainment plans or in practice in any attainment date extensions, the EPA other states and that can feasibly be proposes to interpret the criterion under 188(b)(1)) or by operation of law upon failing to attain by the Moderate area implemented in the area seeking the section 188(e) that requires a state to extension, such as what LAER have ‘‘complied with all requirements attainment date (section 188(b)(2)). The EPA also seeks comment on an represents for new or modified sources and commitments pertaining to that area under the NNSR permit program.214 in the implementation plan’’ simply to alternative interpretation of the mean that the state has implemented the implementation plan compliance The agency proposes that a state control measures in the SIP revisions it criterion that would require a state to would need to follow a process for has submitted to address the applicable have a Moderate area attainment plan determining MSM for a Serious requirements in sections 172 and 189. fully approved by the EPA, not just fully nonattainment area that is generally For a Serious area attainment date implemented by the state, at the time of similar to proposed Option 2 for BACM extension request being submitted the Serious area attainment date and BACT described in Section VI.D of contemporaneously with the ‘‘original’’ extension request, regardless of when this preamble, which would include Serious area attainment plan for the such a request is submitted to the EPA. exemptions from MSM for sources in de area, the EPA proposes to read section The EPA believes that one may minimis source categories if such 188(e) not to require the area to have a reasonably argue that a state seeking an measures did not collectively advance fully approved attainment plan that extension of the Serious area attainment the attainment date for the area by at meets the CAA’s requirements for date should have fully implemented all least 1 year. The EPA is also proposing elements of an approved Moderate area an alternative approach for determining

211 attainment plan. The EPA believes that MSM for a Serious nonattainment area Maricopa County PM10 Serious area attainment date extension, proposal: 65 FR 19964 while such a condition may be that would provide for de minimis (April 13, 2000); and final: 67 FR 48718 (July 25, reasonable, generally speaking, there source category exemptions for MSM 2002). may be circumstances in which a state only for those source categories that do 212 This proposed approach parallels the EPA’s submits a Moderate area attainment not contribute significantly to ambient proposed approach, described earlier in this preamble, for the impracticability option for plan that the EPA is unable to approve PM2.5 concentrations in the Serious Moderate areas under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) in in a timely way, potentially creating a nonattainment area, an approach more which all measures that qualify as RACM and closely aligned with proposed Option 1 RACT and all additional reasonable measures are 213 This interpretation as applied to section 188(e) for determining BACM and BACT. required before a Moderate area plan could show for Serious area attainment date extensions was impracticability of attainment by the statutory upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Moderate area attainment date (the end of the sixth Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F.3d 214 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR calendar year after designation). 826 (9th Cir. 2004). 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42010.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Under proposed approach #1 for plan and attainment date extension were not determined to be de minimis. MSM, the EPA would prescribe a five- request, the agency finalized an For each measure, the state would be step process for states to follow when approach for judging what constitutes a required to determine its technological selecting and implementing MSM. This de minimis source category for MSM by and economic feasibility for sources in proposed approach is similar to that applying a test of whether MSM the area. The EPA proposes generally to used in practice for approving the PM10 controls on the allegedly de minimis apply more stringent criteria for Serious area attainment plan and sources would result in more determining the feasibility of potential Serious area attainment date extension expeditious attainment, rather than MSM than that described for BACM and request submitted for Maricopa County applying a test of whether or not BACT in Section VI.D. In some (AZ) in 2000.215 requiring the application of controls for situations, MSM could involve The first step of this proposed such sources would make the difference increasing the coverage of measures that approach would be for the state to between attainment and nonattainment were already adopted and implemented update as needed the emissions by the statutory Serious area deadline, as BACM and BACT (for example, inventory of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 as the latter test implicitly would be met changing out an even greater percentage precursor sources and source categories through the controls chosen for of woodstoves in an area, or paving even in the Serious nonattainment area demonstrating attainment by the more roads, if such source categories required under section 172(c)(3) for any alternate attainment date for the area. In were major contributors to the air attainment plan submission. The EPA the agency’s explanation of the quality problem in the nonattainment expects that the state would meet this proposed approach, the EPA explained area). inventory requirement as part of its that ‘‘Our responsibility under section However, because BACM and BACT Serious area attainment plan submittal 188(e) . . . is to grant the shortest represent the ‘‘best’’ level of control without any additional work if the state practicable extension of the attainment feasible for an area, it would be possible submits the Serious area attainment date date by assuring the plan provides for for the MSM requirement to result in no extension request simultaneously with attainment as expeditiously as more controls and no more emissions the plan itself. However, in the event practicable. Thus, one means of reductions in an area than result from the attainment date extension request is determining an appropriate de minimis the implementation of BACM and submitted after the ‘‘original’’ Serious level is to determine if applying MSM BACT. Stated another way, there may be area attainment plan for the area (i.e., to the proposed de minimis source sources or categories for which no other toward the end of the Serious area categories would meaningfully expedite feasible controls exist beyond what a attainment period), then the EPA attainment. If it did, then the de state has already adopted as BACM or proposes to require that the state must minimis level is too high, and if it did BACT. Given the strategy in the submit a more recent, complete and not, then the de minimis level is nonattainment provisions of the CAA to accurate emissions inventory that meets appropriate.’’ 216 The EPA thus proposes offset longer attainment timeframes with the same emissions inventory to determine whether any source more stringent control requirements, the requirements for Moderate and Serious categories should be eliminated from EPA therefore proposes to interpret the PM2.5 nonattainment areas pursuant to MSM controls through a de minimis MSM provision in order to increase the section 172(c)(3), as well as an exemption based on a demonstration potential that it will result in additional attainment projected inventory as part that collectively applying MSM controls controls beyond the set of measures of the new Serious area attainment plan to such source categories would not adopted as BACM and BACT by for the area. The inventories submitted advance attainment of the NAAQS in requiring a state to reanalyze any to support a Serious area attainment the area by at least 1 year. This test measures that were rejected during the plan must also include point sources would presumably result in a more state’s BACM and BACT analysis for the meeting the lower major stationary stringent threshold for what is area to see if they are now feasible for source threshold in 40 CFR part 51, considered a de minimis source category the area given the potentially longer subpart A. for MSM as compared to the threshold attainment date (up to 5 years after the The second step in this proposed for de minimis source categories for statutory Serious area attainment date) MSM determination process would BACM and BACT as described in the or given the changes that have occurred require the state to perform air quality EPA’s proposed Option 1 for BACM and in the interim that improve the modeling in order to evaluate, for each BACT determination criteria (see feasibility of previously rejected of the various source categories Section VI.D of this preamble). The EPA measures. included in the emissions inventory for proposes and seeks comment on this The fourth step of this first proposed approach would require the state to the area, the impact on PM2.5 test for determining whether any source concentrations in excess of the categories could be found to be de compare the potential MSM for each applicable NAAQS in order to minimis and thus not subject to MSM non-de minimis source category against determine which categories are controls. the measures, if any, already adopted for significant for the purposes of adopting The third step in the EPA’s first that source category in the Serious MSM. Those source categories for which proposed approach to determining MSM nonattainment area to determine if such such modeling indicates potential for a Serious nonattainment area would MSM would provide any additional control measures collectively would involve identifying the potentially most reductions. The fifth step would then require that have only a de minimis effect on stringent measures in other the plan provide for the adoption and advancing the attainment date for the implementation plans for PM2.5 or other expeditious implementation of any area could be eliminated from further NAAQS, or used in practice in other MSM that is more stringent than consideration. In the context of the states for controlling emissions from existing measures or, in lieu of EPA’s action to approve the Maricopa each of the remaining source categories adoption, provide a reasoned County PM Serious area attainment listed in the emissions inventory that 10 justification for rejecting the potential

215 216 MSM, i.e., provide an explanation as to Maricopa County PM10 Serious area Maricopa County PM10 Serious area attainment date extension, 67 FR 48718 (July 25, attainment date extension proposal, 65 FR 19964 why such measures cannot be feasibly 2002). (April 13, 2000), at page 19969. implemented in the area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15421

As noted earlier, the EPA expects that further consideration, but de minimis processes, the EPA is proposing that a this first proposed approach to source categories would be identified by state identify potential measures for determining MSM would be most virtue of their lack of significant consideration as RACM or RACT or compatible with the agency’s proposed contribution to PM2.5 levels in the area, additional reasonable measures (or Option 2 for determining BACM and not by virtue of whether controlling BACM or BACT or additional feasible BACT, described in Section VI.D. Under such sources categories collectively measures) by looking at measures proposed Option 2 for BACM and BACT could expedite attainment of the implemented by other states to meet determinations, a state would be relevant NAAQS. In this way, de PM2.5 NAAQS or other NAAQS. Thus, a required to implement only those ‘‘best’’ minimis source categories for MSM state seeking to identify MSM should be control measures necessary to bring a would be defined in a similar way, or able to start its process using with the Serious nonattainment area into subject to a similar ‘‘significant work already undertaken for the attainment expeditiously. Such an contribution’’ test, as de minimis source nonattainment area’s RACM and BACM approach to BACM and BACT categories for BACM and BACT determinations and to make updates to determinations would not incorporate determinations under proposed Option the list of potential control measures an explicit step in the process for a state 1. Thus under proposed approach #2 for accordingly. to exempt de minimis source categories MSM, the steps described for The EPA notes that section 188(e) from consideration for potential control determining MSM would generally be does not identify a deadline for a state measures. However, it would allow a the same as under proposed approach to implement MSM, while elsewhere state to eliminate any potential BACM #1, with the exception of step 2. Rather, the statute establishes a deadline for or BACT or additional feasible measures the EPA proposes an alternative step 2 implementing RACM and RACT and that are not needed to bring a Serious in the MSM determination process in BACM and BACT (see CAA sections area into attainment by the statutory which a state could identify de minimis 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(A), attainment date and that cannot, source categories to exempt from further respectively). However, because the collectively, advance the attainment control based on an analysis of the clear intent of section 188(e) is to date for the area by at least 1 year. particular contribution made by a given minimize the length of a Serious area Proposed Option 2 for determining source category to ambient PM2.5 levels attainment date extension, the EPA BACM and BACT for an area is thus in the nonattainment area. The EPA proposes that the implementation of similar to the proposed approach to believes that defining de minimis source MSM must be as expeditious as MSM described above, in which a state categories and ‘‘significant practicable but no later than 1 year prior could eliminate from further contribution’’ for determining de to the alternative Serious area consideration those source categories for minimis source categories would be attainment date identified by the state in which potential control measures equally challenging in the context of its extension request. collectively would have only a de MSM determinations as in the context The EPA seeks comment on whether minimis effect on advancing the of BACM and BACT determinations.217 the two proposed approaches to attainment date for the area (see However, in the event the agency determine MSM are sufficiently proposed step 2). finalizes proposed Option 1 for BACM consistent with the agency’s respective The EPA’s proposed Option 1 for and BACT determinations, the EPA proposed approaches to BACM and BACM and BACT determinations would believes it would be appropriate to BACT determination. The agency also include an explicit step in the process finalize proposed approach #2 for MSM, seeks comment on whether for exempting de minimis source and would require that a state seeking considerations regarding its MSM categories from further consideration for to exempt from MSM sources in a given approach should influence the final potential control measures. However, source category apply more stringent under such approach, a state would criteria for evaluating whether a certain selection of a BACM and BACT need to assess whether emissions of a source category’s contributions to the approach. Step 4: Demonstrate attainment by the particular pollutant from a given source area’s PM2.5 concentrations are indeed category contributed significantly to de minimis. most expeditious alternative date PM2.5 concentrations in the The EPA believes that either of these practicable. Section 189(b)(1)(A) nonattainment area. If the state proposed approaches for determining requires that a Serious area plan determined that the source category MSM for a Serious nonattainment area demonstrate attainment, using air contributed only a de minimis amount would be consistent with the EPA’s quality modeling, by the most of emissions, then the state could guidance in the Addendum to define expeditious date practicable after the exempt the source category from further MSM as those measures that can statutory Serious area attainment date. consideration for potential control ‘‘feasibly be implemented in the This demonstration is the final criterion measures. Thus, while it incorporates a relevant area from among those which that must be met before the EPA may step to identify de minimis source are either included in any other SIP or consider granting an extension. The categories, the EPA’s proposed Option 1 have been achieved in practice by any agency’s determination of whether the for BACM and BACT determinations is other state.’’ One of the key features of plan provides for attainment by the not wholly consistent with the agency’s this guidance relates to identifying most expeditious date practicable would proposed approach #1 for determining control measures implemented depend on whether the plan provides MSM. elsewhere, which is also a key feature of for implementation of BACM and BACT Therefore, the EPA is also proposing the EPA’s proposed process for by the statutory implementation an alternative approach for determining identifying RACM and RACT and deadline and MSM as expeditiously as MSM for a Serious nonattainment area additional reasonable measures (and practicable. In no case would a state be that would be more compatible with the BACM and BACT and additional able to seek an extension of a Serious EPA’s proposed approach #1 for feasible measures, if necessary) for a area attainment date to a date more than determining BACM and BACT. Under PM2.5 nonattainment area. For these 5 years past the statutory attainment this alternative proposed approach for date for Serious areas. Section VI.E of determining MSM, a state could exempt 217 See the discussion of de minimis source this preamble describes the EPA’s de minimis source categories from categories in Section VI.D in this preamble. proposed requirements for attainment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

demonstration modeling for Serious area attainment plan but prior to the preferable if the EPA finalizes its area attainment plans. area failing to attain, as long as the area proposal that interprets the SIP Step 5: Apply for an attainment date had not already been granted a prior compliance requirement for areas extension. The state would have to Serious area attainment date extension seeking an attainment date extension apply to the EPA for any extension of under section 188(e). In such a case, the simultaneous with their Serious area a Serious area attainment date. The EPA believes that it would be acceptable attainment plan submittal to mean that request would have to accompany an for a state to submit a Serious area the state need only have implemented attainment plan submission containing attainment date extension request the control measures in the SIP an attainment demonstration showing similar to that described above (for revisions it has submitted to the EPA to attainment by the most expeditious submissions made simultaneous with address the CAA requirements in alternative date practicable, and the initial Serious area attainment plans) section 189 (i.e., to mean that the area state would need to submit modeling as together with a new Serious area need not have a fully approved part of the attainment demonstration in attainment plan meeting all of the attainment plan that meets the CAA’s accordance with Section VI.E. statutory requirements that apply to requirements for Serious areas). Furthermore, the state would have to such plans. In this case, the complete The EPA seeks comment on these provide the public reasonable notice submission would have to be made in proposed options for interpreting and and a public hearing on the attainment a timely way such that the EPA could implementing the statutory language at date extension request before submitting fully review the new attainment plan for section 188(e) for Serious area it to the EPA, as the EPA would the area and the accompanying attainment date extensions. consider it an integral part of the attainment date extension request, VII. What are the EPA’s proposed attainment demonstration and part of including the status of compliance with requirements for attainment plans the revised SIP submission which is all requirements and commitments in under CAA section 189(d) for Serious subject to the requirements of the CAA the Moderate area attainment plan for areas that fail to attain the NAAQS by and federal regulations for public notice the area, the justification for the the applicable attainment date? and hearing on SIP revisions. selection of the alternate attainment In the event that a Serious area fails date, and provisions for the 3. Timing of Extension Request to attain the PM NAAQS by the implementation of MSM, prior to 2.5 Submittal applicable attainment date, section making its determination of failure of The EPA believes that a state may 189(d) requires that ‘‘the state in which the area to timely attain the relevant submit a request for an extension of the such area is located shall, after notice NAAQS. Serious area attainment date either at and opportunity for public comment, the time the original Serious area The EPA seeks comment on this submit within 12 months after the attainment plan is submitted following option, particularly with respect to applicable attainment date, plan reclassification of the area or at a point whether the criteria proposed above are revisions which provide for attainment in time closer to the Serious area appropriate in a situation in which a of the . . . standard and, from the date attainment date. In the first case, when state seeks a Serious area attainment of such submission until attainment, for taken together with language under date extension after submitting a an annual reduction in PM10 or PM10 section 189(b)(1)(A)(ii) which describes Serious area attainment plan that precursor emissions within the area of the possibility of including an initially demonstrated attainment by the not less than 5 percent of the amount of impracticability demonstration in a statutory Serious area attainment date. such emissions as reported in the most Serious area attainment plan that For example, the EPA seeks comment in recent inventory prepared for such parallels the impracticability particular on whether it would be area.’’ demonstration for a Moderate area appropriate to interpret the section A state with a Serious nonattainment attainment plan, section 188(e) appears 188(e) requirement for a state to have area subject to section 189(d) must to set an expectation that a state may ‘‘complied with all requirements and submit to the EPA its plan to meet the request an extension of the attainment commitments pertaining to that area in requirements of section 189(d) in the date for a Serious area when the state the implementation plan’’ as referencing form of a complete attainment plan initially submits its Serious area plan. those requirements and commitments submission that contains the following Therefore, the EPA would deem such a contained in the area’s Moderate area elements: (i) An attainment request as timely and appropriate. plan (as proposed above for areas demonstration and provisions for the On the other hand, the EPA also seeking a Serious area attainment date implementation of measures that will recognizes that a state may prepare and extension simultaneous with submittal achieve annual emissions reductions of fully implement a timely Serious area of their Serious area plan) or whether, not less than 5 percent from the most plan that includes modeling for areas that already submitted Serious recent emissions inventory for the area demonstrating attainment no later than area plans demonstrating attainment, it for each year until attainment (section the statutory Serious area attainment is more appropriate that the state must 189(d)); (ii) quantitative milestones that date (the end of the tenth calendar year have complied with all requirements will be used to measure compliance following designation), and yet may see and commitments pertaining to the area with the RFP requirement (section as the attainment date nears that the in the area’s original Serious area 189(c)); and, (iii) regulation of PM2.5 Serious area will in fact fail to attain by attainment plan. The EPA believes this precursors (in general to meet its projected attainment date. While the second interpretation is the more attainment and control strategy statute provides a remedy to be appropriate interpretation as it pertains requirements and as specifically instituted immediately upon failure of a to Serious areas seeking an extension of required for major stationary sources by Serious area to attain the standard their attainment date as they approach section 189(e)). Subpart 1 requirements (through contingency measures and their statutory Serious area attainment that apply to Serious PM2.5 other measures stipulated in section date, and therefore the agency is nonattainment areas also subject to the 189(d)), the EPA also believes that the proposing and seeking comment on this requirements of section 189(d) include criteria of section 188(e) could be approach. The EPA believes that this the following: (i) A description of the applied after a state submits a Serious second interpretation is especially expected annual incremental reductions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15423

in emissions that will demonstrate RFP PM2.5 precursors necessary to satisfy the the inventory for the alternative year (section 172(c)(2)); (ii) emissions 5 percent annual reduction criteria of adequately incorporates emissions inventories (section 172(c)(3)); and, (iii) section 189(d). For this reason, the EPA reductions projected to be achieved contingency measures (section proposes that the ‘‘most recent through the implementation of BACM 172(c)(9)). A state with a Serious PM2.5 inventory’’ for the area must not only and BACT and additional feasible nonattainment area that fails to attain meet the criteria as that described for a control measures submitted with the the NAAQS by the applicable Serious base year inventory submitted pursuant original Serious area attainment plan for area attainment date must also address to section 172(c)(3) and in Section VI.B the area. The EPA proposes that any statutory requirements relevant to of this preamble, but also must fully modification of an older inventory to Moderate nonattainment areas and account for emissions reductions incorporate those emissions reductions Serious nonattainment areas under achieved to date through the would be an acceptable way to meet this sections 172 and 189 of the CAA that implementation of all RACM and RACT, requirement. In considering use of this have not already been satisfied. In BACM and BACT and additional option, states could be obligated to addition, the EPA must approve a new reasonable and feasible measures achieve a larger annual reduction than attainment date for the area under submitted with the Moderate and 5 percent if the older inventory has sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3). original Serious area attainment plans higher emissions levels than the ‘‘most The remainder of this section presents for the area. In this way, the state will recent inventory’’ for the area. the EPA’s proposed requirements for calculate the additional reductions that The EPA seeks comment on these attainment plan submissions under the nonattainment area will need proposed criteria and options for section 189(d). beyond those already required in order emissions inventories to be submitted as part of the attainment plan due for a A. Plan Due Dates to fulfill the requirements of section 189(d) and bring the area into Serious area under section 189(d). Section 189(d) requires a state with a attainment as expeditiously as C. Pollutants To Be Addressed in the Serious PM10 nonattainment area that practicable. Plan failed to attain the NAAQS by the In order to ensure that the ‘‘most applicable Serious area attainment date recent inventory’’ is representative of Section 189(d) requires states to to submit a new attainment plan the nonattainment problem in the area develop a new attainment plan for an submission for the area within 12 current at the time of the section 189(d) area that failed to attain by the months after the missed attainment submission, the EPA proposes that the applicable Serious area attainment date date. Therefore a state with a inventory year must be one of the 3 that provides for ‘‘an annual reduction nonattainment area subject to section years from which monitored data was in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions 189(d) must submit a new attainment used to determine that the area failed to within the area of not less than 5 plan for the area—with all required attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the percent of the amount of such elements of the attainment plan—within applicable Serious area attainment date. emissions’’ reported in the latest 12 months after the missed attainment The EPA believes that associating the emissions inventory for the area. In date. inventory with one of these 3 years is Section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several options on how a B. Emissions Inventory Requirements reasonable in light of the fact that some BACM and BACT controls and state may evaluate which PM2.5 As with all other attainment plan additional feasible controls (required precursors to control for purposes of submissions required for Moderate and under section 172(c)(6)) for sources in attaining the NAAQS in a particular Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, a the area may not be implemented until nonattainment area. The EPA interprets state must develop its submission to the beginning of the attainment year. the requirements of the CAA generally meet section 189(d) based on ‘‘the most Thus, requiring that a state use an to allow an air agency to provide a recent emissions inventory prepared for emissions inventory for one of those 3 ‘‘precursor demonstration’’ that can such [nonattainment] area.’’ This years will help ensure that the inventory support a determination that one or inventory must meet the same adequately captures the emissions more precursors need not be subject to requirements that would apply to any reductions already achieved through the control requirements in a given other emissions inventory submitted for prior implementation of BACM and nonattainment area, even if the area has a PM2.5 nonattainment area to meet the BACT and additional feasible measures. failed to attain the relevant NAAQS by requirements of section 172(c)(3), which The EPA recognizes the additional the applicable Serious area attainment requires ‘‘a comprehensive, accurate, level of effort that may be needed to date. and current inventory of actual produce an up-to-date emissions Section III presents three options emissions of the relevant pollutants’’ in inventory for a nonattainment area, and describing different proposed the nonattainment area. Therefore the therefore is proposing and seeking approaches to such precursor EPA proposes that the inventory comment on an alternative approach demonstrations, and requests comment submitted with an attainment plan to that would allow a state to select an on each. The discussion for each option meet section 189(d) requirements must inventory year earlier than one of the 3 describes how states and the EPA also meet the EPA’s proposed regulatory years from which monitored data were should address precursors for Moderate requirements for such emissions used to determine that the area failed to areas and for Serious areas, including inventories as described earlier in this attain the NAAQS by the applicable Serious areas that fail to attain the PM2.5 preamble under Section IV.B (for attainment date. Under this alternative NAAQS by the applicable attainment Moderate area attainment plans) and proposed approach, another inventory date. This section describes, for each of Section VI.B (for Serious area year may be included in the plan under the three options, how the given attainment plans). specific circumstances with the precursor approach would apply to One important aspect of the emissions submission of a written justification for plans required to be submitted where inventory required to be submitted with selecting the earlier year and in the area has failed to attain by the an attainment plan under section 189(d) consultation with the appropriate EPA Serious area attainment date. is its role as the basis for calculating the Regional Office. At a minimum, the • Option 1: Two independent emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and state would need to demonstrate that analyses: (a) An attainment planning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

analysis demonstrating that control approach, for an area subject to the will achieve at least 5 percent measures for a particular precursor are requirements of section 189(d), the state reductions from the latest emissions not needed for expeditious attainment, would need to evaluate control inventory of each such pollutant on an meaning that the precursor can be measures to identify those needed to annual basis until the area attains the excluded from measures needed to achieve a minimum 5 percent reduction relevant PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA attain as expeditiously as practicable for in emissions of direct PM2.5 or believes this is an appropriate all types of sources; and (b) a section precursors on an annual basis, and interpretation of the 5 percent 189(e) technical demonstration showing identify those control measures for requirement of section 189(d) and seeks that major stationary sources of a direct PM2.5 and all precursors that comment on this proposed approach. particular precursor do not contribute would bring the area into attainment as The EPA also proposes and seeks significantly to levels that exceed the expeditiously as practicable. comment on an alternative reading of PM2.5 standard, meaning that the The EPA will finalize its approach to the statute that would require a state to precursor can be excluded from control PM2.5 precursors and clarify the achieve 5 percent reductions of requirements for major sources and from implications for states conducting inventoried emissions of either direct NNSR permitting. Consistent with this analyses to identify measures to satisfy PM2.5 or of any relevant PM2.5 approach, for an area subject to the the requirements of section 189(d) after precursors. This approach, while requirements of section 189(d), the state considering public comment received consistent with past guidance on how to would need to evaluate control on this proposal. interpret section 189(d) requirements for PM NAAQS implementation, could measures to identify those needed to D. Attainment Plan Control Strategy 10 achieve a minimum 5 percent reduction potentially allow a state to delay the in emissions of direct PM2.5 or The control strategy to be developed implementation of measures to control precursors on an annual basis, and for the attainment plan submission for the relevant pollutants. However, paired identify those control measures for a Serious area subject to section 189(d) with the requirement for the area to direct PM2.5 and all precursors that should place particular emphasis on reach attainment of the NAAQS as would bring the area into attainment as control measures that can be expeditiously as practicable, the EPA expeditiously as practicable. implemented quickly, in order to ensure believes that such an interpretation may • Option 2: Single analysis that the area attains the PM2.5 NAAQS be reasonable and seeks comment on demonstrating that all emissions of a as expeditiously as practicable. The this approach. particular precursor from within the control strategy would need to include It is important to note that under area do not significantly contribute to any additional measures that are beyond implementation of either of the options PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard, those already adopted for the area as presented above, and as described more meaning that control requirements for RACM and RACT and additional fully in Section III of this preamble, the emissions of the precursor from major reasonable measures, or BACM and EPA is proposing that in the event that stationary and area sources, as well as BACT and additional feasible measures, a state has demonstrated and can mobile sources, would not be required and that are necessary to achieve annual continue to demonstrate that emissions for expeditious attainment, control reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 of a given precursor from all sources in requirements for major sources, or for and PM2.5 precursors from sources in a nonattainment area do not contribute NNSR permitting. For an area subject to the area of at least 5 percent of the significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in section 189(d) requirements for which a amount of such emissions reported in the area, then the state would not need precursor had previously been the most recent emissions inventory for to achieve 5 percent reductions in demonstrated not to significantly the area. The EPA is proposing to emissions of that precursor even if the contribute to PM2.5 levels that exceed interpret section 189(d) in this way to nonattainment area becomes subject to the standard, the air agency would be address the ambiguity of how the the requirements of section 189(d). required to update the precursor statutory language should apply to the The statute requires that the requisite demonstration taking into account any PM2.5 NAAQS, as section 189(d) minimum 5 percent emissions relevant information or technical tools requires ‘‘an annual reduction in PM10 reductions must be calculated from the that had been developed since the or PM10 precursor emissions . . . as total emissions for each precursor and demonstration was approved. reported in the most recent inventory for direct PM2.5 contained in the most Consistent with this approach, if, upon prepared for such area.’’ recent inventory for the area, as described earlier in this section. In failure to attain, the state continued to 1. Proposed Approach demonstrate that the precursor did not addition, the EPA proposes that these contribute significantly to PM2.5 The EPA believes that in light of the required reductions must then be concentrations in the area, then the state important role that PM2.5 precursors achieved every year between the section would not need to identify or play in the formation of PM2.5, it is 189(d) plan submission date and the implement any measures to control that appropriate to require a state to new projected attainment date for the precursor’s emissions. implement control measures for all area. For example, assume it is 2025, • Option 3: An attainment planning types of sources in a Serious and a Serious area has failed to attain analysis demonstrating that control nonattainment area subject to section the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS within 10 years measures for all types of sources of a 189(d) to achieve the requisite 5 percent of designation. Assume also that the particular precursor are not needed for annual reduction in emissions of both most recent inventory available for an expeditious attainment also would be direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from area subject to section 189(d) is for the deemed to meet the section 189(e) sources in that area. Accordingly, the year 2023. This inventory would serve technical demonstration requirement, EPA is proposing that, for direct PM2.5 as the base inventory for determining meaning that the state would not need and for PM2.5 precursors that the state the emissions reduction requirement to regulate emissions of the particular and the EPA have determined are under section 189(d). If the most recent precursor from major stationary sources necessary to be controlled for purposes inventory indicates that emissions of under the NNSR permitting program or of attainment in the area, the attainment direct PM2.5 from all sources in the area other control requirements for major plan required by section 189(d) would are 100 tons/day, then the area would stationary sources. Consistent with this have to include control measures that need to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15425

by 5 percent of the base inventory (in from the past due date for the section revise and submit their SIP revisions (12 this example, 5 percent of the 2023 base 189(d) plan submission. Because months from the missed attainment inventory, or 5 tons/day) each year until attainment dates for PM2.5 date) and the fact that the contingency the area attains the NAAQS. Thus, in nonattainment areas established under measures included in the prior the first year following submission of subpart 4 occur at the end of the attainment plan for the area under the section 189(d) plan for the area, calendar year, any section 189(d) plan, section 172(c)(9) must be activated once emissions of direct PM2.5 could not which is required within 12 months of the EPA publishes its finding of the exceed 95 tons/day; in the second year, the missed attainment date for the area, area’s failure to attain the NAAQS by emissions could not exceed 90 tons/day; would also be due by the end of the the applicable attainment date. If and so forth. calendar year. contingency measures from the Serious Although section 189(d) requires that area attainment plan are relied on in the a state develop measures that will 2. Additional Guidance on Section 189(d) Control Measures new attainment demonstration as part of obtain annual emissions reductions of the control strategy, the state will need ‘‘not less than 5 percent’’ from the most The EPA believes that an appropriate to submit additional contingency recent inventory, the EPA interprets this starting point for a state to identify measures for the section 189(d) language to authorize states to elect to measures to achieve the requisite attainment plan submission. front-load emissions reductions in minimum 5 percent annual emissions earlier years and still meet the 5 percent reductions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 3. Control Strategy Submission per year requirement. The EPA notes precursors is the list of potential control Requirements that interpreting the statute in this way measures initially required as part of the To ensure that attainment plan will encourage states to implement RACM and RACT determination for the submissions contain the necessary measures earlier, where possible, rather area, then updated as part of the supporting information for the EPA to than delay implementation of measures required BACM and BACT review and approve the state’s new merely to assure that the 5 percent determination for the area. The EPA control strategy to achieve at least 5 requirement can be met in later years. anticipates that a state should be able to percent reductions in emissions of Thus, using the example described rely on much of the work it previously direct PM2.5 and significant PM2.5 above, the annual reduction undertook to develop this list of precursors, the EPA proposes to require requirement for the area would be 5 potential control measures and analyze under the authority of section 301(a) tons/day from a base year emissions their technological and economic that a state must submit the following level of 100 tons/day. The required level feasibility, and the time required to information as part of its section 189(d) after year 1 would be 95 tons/day, after implement them. However, for purposes plan submission: year 2 the level would be 90 tons/day, of meeting the requirements of section • A list of all emissions source and so on. If the area reached a level of 189(d), the EPA recommends that the categories, sources and activities in the 81 tons/day by the end of year 3, then state first identify any additional nonattainment area (for multi-state by the end of year 4 it would only need potential measures not previously nonattainment areas, this would include to reduce emissions by 1 ton/day to identified for the area, and then analyze source categories, sources and activities yield an emissions level of 80 tons/day. any new or additional measures that the from all states which make up the area); Consistent with its past action to state has not already adopted in a • For each source category, source or approve a Serious area attainment plan previous attainment plan for the area. activity in the nonattainment area, an for the San Joaquin Valley (CA) PM10 The EPA expects that such an analysis inventory of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 nonattainment area under section to identify new control measures would precursor emissions; 189(d), the EPA therefore proposes and necessarily take into account recent • For each source category, source or seeks comment on an approach to allow technological advances in control activity in the nonattainment area, a states to carry forward any emissions technologies, the possibility of a greater comprehensive list of potential control reductions beyond the required availability of funding to expand measures considered by the state for minimum 5 percent in a given year to implementation of control measures for those sources in the nonattainment the next year as a means to encourage area sources, and the additional time the area; 219 states to achieve emissions reductions area will have to attain the PM2.5 • For each potential control measure as quickly as possible.218 NAAQS under sections 189(d) and considered by the state but eliminated The EPA also proposes to clarify its 179(d)(3). from further consideration due to a interpretation of the statutory language In addition, a state may include in the determination by the state that the under section 189(d) that requires a section 189(d) plan control strategy for control measure or technology was not state to submit a new attainment plan to the area any control measures triggered technologically feasible, a narrative achieve annual reductions ‘‘from the as contingency measures upon the explanation and quantitative or date of such submission until EPA’s determination that area failed to qualitative supporting documentation to attainment,’’ to mean annual reductions attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the justify the state’s conclusion; beginning from the due date of such applicable attainment date. In order to • For each technologically feasible submission until the new projected be included as control measures that emission control measure or technology, attainment date for the area based on the will help the area meet its requisite the state must provide the following new or additional control measures minimum 5 percent reductions in direct information relevant to economic identified to achieve at least 5 percent PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, feasibility: (i) the control efficiency by emissions reductions annually. This such measures would have to meet the pollutant; (ii) the possible emission proposed clarification is intended to same requirements as all other reductions by pollutant; (iii) the make clear that even if a state is late in approvable control measures for being estimated cost per ton of pollutant submitting its section 189(d) plan, the quantifiable, enforceable, replicable and reduced; and, (iv) a determination of area must still achieve its annual 5 accountable. The EPA believes that whether the measure is economically percent emissions reductions beginning reliance on such measures is appropriate given the short timeline 219 Menu of Control Measures document available 218 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004). provided for in the statute for states to at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

feasible, with narrative explanation and 189(b) should also apply to section establish a new attainment date for a quantitative supporting documentation 189(d) attainment plans. However, the PM2.5 nonattainment area subject to to justify the state’s conclusion; EPA is proposing additional section 189(d) and must do so according • For each technologically and requirements specific to plans states to the provisions of sections 179(d)(3) economically feasible emission control submitted pursuant to section 189(d) as and 172(a)(2), which require that the measure or technology, the date by described below. new attainment date must be as which the technology or measure could expeditious as practicable, but no later 1. Attainment Demonstrations for be implemented. than 5 years from the date of publication Serious Areas That Fail To Attain the As with other PM2.5 attainment plan in the Federal Register of the EPA’s NAAQS by the Applicable Attainment submissions, the EPA believes that it is determination that the area failed to Date incumbent on the state to ensure that attain the relevant NAAQS. The EPA the information needed for the EPA to The EPA is proposing that the may extend the attainment date by up evaluate the state’s analysis of new attainment demonstration for Serious to 5 additional years (thus to 10 years control measures needed to achieve areas subject to section 189(d) from the date of publication of the annual 5 percent reductions is requirements must consist of: (i) notice of finding of failure to attain by presented separately as part of the technical analyses such as base year and the applicable attainment date for the control strategy analysis and in a format future year modeling of emissions area) if the agency deems it appropriate that provides transparency, consistency which identify sources and quantify ‘‘considering the severity of and the ability for another party to their emissions that are contributing to nonattainment and the availability and evaluate the state’s analysis effectively violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS; and, (ii) feasibility of pollution control and to duplicate the state’s results. For analyses of future year projected measures.’’ this reason, the EPA is including the emissions reductions and air quality For purposes of determining the section 189(d) plan base year emissions improvement resulting from national, attainment date that is as expeditious as inventory information as a necessary regional and local programs already practicable, the state must conduct part of the control strategy submittal implemented as part of previous future year modeling which takes into and as one element of the state’s section Moderate and/or Serious area account emissions growth, known 189(d) plan due 12 months after the attainment plans for the area (including controls (including any controls that missed attainment date for the area. In reasonable control measures, BACM and were previously determined to be addition, the EPA proposes that the BACT and additional feasible RACM or RACT or additional state must provide information as part measures), and additional measures reasonable measures, or BACM or BACT of any attainment plan submitted to needed for expeditious attainment, or additional feasible measures for the meet the requirements of section 189(d) including measures needed to achieve 5 area), the 5 percent per year emissions consistent with the criteria described in percent emissions reductions on an reductions required by section 189(d), Section VI.D.5 of this preamble to annual basis. Each state with a plus any other emissions controls that ensure that a state adopts effective nonattainment area subject to the are needed for expeditious attainment of regulations to implement the control requirements of section 189(d) must the NAAQS. A state performing a measures identified as being needed to submit an attainment plan with an modeling analysis for a plan submitted meet those requirements. Specifically, attainment demonstration that includes under section 189(d) must select a all control measures must be analyses supporting the state’s future modeling year such that all quantifiable, enforceable, replicable and determination of its proposed new emissions control measures relied on for accountable. attainment date. In all cases, the state attainment will have been implemented The section 189(d) requirement to must show that the area will attain the by the beginning of that year. To reduce emissions by 5 percent per year NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. demonstrate attainment, the modeling is in effect a fixed level of RFP to be results for the nonattainment area must 2. What modeling is required? achieved annually. Accordingly, just as predict that emissions reductions quantitative milestones are used to track The EPA proposes that states are implemented by the beginning of the progress with RFP requirements, the required to submit air quality modeling last calendar year preceding the EPA proposes that the state would be in support of an attainment attainment date will result in PM2.5 required to submit quantitative demonstration for a nonattainment area concentrations that meet the level of the milestone reports to describe the area’s subject to the requirements of section standard.220 progress in meeting the 5 percent 189(d). The modeling demonstration For a PM2.5 nonattainment area annual emissions reduction requirement must show how and when the area will subject to section 189(d), the EPA under section 189(d). See Section VII.G attain the NAAQS. Other than the expects that the state will adopt any of this preamble for more details. timing of plan submissions and control measures necessary to requirement to achieve 5 percent E. Modeling for Attainment demonstrate expeditious attainment emissions reductions in direct PM and Demonstrations 2.5 within 5 years of the area failing to PM2.5 precursors, the relevant air quality attain the NAAQS by the applicable Section 189(d) requires a state with a modeling procedures and guidance for Serious area attainment date. Serious nonattainment area that failed all PM nonattainment area plans are 2.5 4. Attainment Year Motor Vehicle to attain the relevant NAAQS by the the same. See Sections IV.E. and VI.E of Emissions Budgets applicable Serious area attainment date this preamble for more details on to submit a new attainment plan for proposed modeling requirements and As with all other PM2.5 NAAQS such area within 12 months after the guidance for Moderate and Serious attainment plans, the transportation missed attainment date. The EPA is PM2.5 nonattainment areas, respectively. 220 proposing that the same general Note that for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, requirements for attainment 3. What future year(s) should be a determination of attainment (or failure to attain), modeled in attainment demonstrations? which the EPA is required to make after the demonstrations and modeling that apply attainment date has passed, is based on an average to Moderate area plans and Serious area As discussed more fully in Section of the most recent 3 years of ambient data prior to plans due under sections 189(a) and VII.I of this preamble, the EPA must the area’s attainment date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15427

conformity rule requires that attainment PM2.5 precursors from the most recent event a state is developing a revised plans for areas subject to section 189(d) emissions inventory on an annual basis attainment plan pursuant to section establish motor vehicle emissions until the area attains. Therefore, the 189(d) that will be due sometime after budgets for the area’s attainment year. EPA proposes to determine that a state 13.5 years following designation of the Therefore, for such an area, the state has satisfied the RFP requirement if the area, the EPA proposes to allow the state would first determine the new state submits an approvable control to submit quantitative milestones attainment date as described in Section strategy under section 189(d) that beginning for the year 16.5 from VII.I of this preamble. Once an area’s demonstrates that the state will achieve designation and every 3 years thereafter attainment date has been established, at least 5 percent reductions in direct until the area’s projected attainment the state would establish motor vehicle PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions date. emissions budgets for direct PM2.5 and from sources in the area annually until The EPA believes that its proposed any relevant PM2.5 precursor for the attainment. requirements for quantitative attainment year.221 A motor vehicle The EPA proposes that motor vehicle milestones, described in Sections IV.G emissions budget for the purposes of a emissions budgets must also be and VI.G of this preamble, should also PM2.5 attainment plan is that portion of established as part of any RFP plan for apply to quantitative milestones the total allowable emissions within the direct PM2.5 and for any relevant PM2.5 submitted with any revised attainment nonattainment area allocated to on-road precursor using the latest planning plan pursuant to section 189(d), and sources as defined in the submitted assumptions and the latest approved thus proposes and seeks comment on attainment plan.222 Such motor vehicle motor vehicle emissions model the agency’s proposed milestone emissions budgets would be calculated available at the time that the plan is requirements for application to using the latest planning assumptions developed for a Serious area subject to attainment plans due under section and the latest approved motor vehicle 189(d).224 189(d). The EPA seeks comment on this emissions model available at the time H. Contingency Measures that the attainment plan is proposed approach related to RFP developed.223 requirements for new attainment plans All PM2.5 attainment plans, including The EPA seeks comment on these due under section 189(d). plans for areas subject to section 189(d), must contain contingency measures that proposed attainment demonstration and G. Quantitative Milestones modeling requirements for new are consistent with section 172(c)(9). attainment plans due for Serious areas The revised attainment plan for any Section VI.H of this preamble describes subject to section 189(d). Serious nonattainment area that fails to the EPA’s proposed criteria for attain the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS by the contingency measures for a Serious area F. RFP Requirements applicable attainment date must include attainment plan, and the agency As with other PM2.5 attainment plans, quantitative milestones pursuant to proposes that contingency measures for a plan submitted to meet the section 189(c). These quantitative a section 189(d) plan must meet the requirements of section 189(d) must milestones would be additional to those same criteria. The EPA proposes that the provide for RFP as required under previously identified in the Moderate emissions reductions associated with sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1). Section area and original Serious area contingency measures for section 189(d) 171(1) defines RFP as ‘‘such annual attainment plans, and would need to plans must be at least 5 percent of direct incremental reductions in emissions of reflect the projected emissions PM2.5 and significant PM2.5 precursor the relevant air pollution as are required reductions or air quality improvements emissions as reported in the most recent by this part or may reasonably be expected through the implementation of inventory for the area. The EPA believes required by the Administrator for the specific control measures identified to this requirement would appropriately purpose of ensuring attainment of the achieve the minimum 5 percent annual align the proposed requirement for applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable reductions required under section selecting contingency measures with the attainment date.’’ The purpose of RFP 189(d). Such milestones would need to agency’s proposed approach to RFP for requirements is to assure that a state is be achieved every 3 years until the area these areas. In other words, if RFP for making progress towards attainment on attains the relevant NAAQS, such that an area is equivalent to about 1 year’s an annual basis through the attainment the EPA proposes that, at a minimum, worth of emissions reductions, or 5 plan, rather than deferring emissions quantitative milestones selected for an percent emissions reductions in direct reductions until just before the attainment plan submitted under PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, then the attainment date for the area. This section 189(d) would need to adopted contingency measures should requirement is similar to, though less demonstrate a reduction of at least 15 likewise achieve about 1 year’s worth of prescriptive than, the requirement percent in emissions of direct PM2.5 and emissions reductions, or 5 percent under section 189(d) for 5 percent significant precursors below those emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 and emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 or emissions reported in the most recent PM2.5 precursors. inventory for the area. The EPA recognizes that identifying 221 For more information on PM2.5 precursor The section 189(d) plan for an area contingency measures for a Serious requirements, see section 93.102(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of that failed to attain the standard by the PM2.5 nonattainment area that failed to the transportation conformity rule. See also the May applicable Serious area attainment date 6, 2005, final transportation conformity rule that attain the relevant NAAQS by the addressed requirements for PM2.5 precursors. (70 FR would have to contain quantitative applicable attainment date may be 24280). milestones to be achieved by 13.5 years challenging for a state that should 222 A state would also establish motor vehicle from the area’s date of designation and already have fully implemented all emissions budgets for an area’s attainment year. every 3 years thereafter until the area’s Those budgets would be the motor vehicle control measures identified as emissions that the SIP establishes as being new projected attainment date. In the ‘‘reasonable’’ and ‘‘best,’’ and necessary to attain the NAAQS. potentially ‘‘most stringent,’’ in addition 223 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in 224 If an area includes re-entrained road dust in to identifying new control measures to the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest the motor vehicle emissions budget, the latest achieve the requisite minimum 5 approved version of AP–42 should be used unless approved version of AP–42 should be used unless the EPA has approved an alternative model for the the EPA has approved an alternative model for the percent reductions in direct PM2.5 and area. area. significant PM2.5 precursor emissions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15428 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

necessary for expeditious attainment. within 5 years of the area failing to 52.21 (the federal PSD program, Nonetheless, given the statutory attain the NAAQS by the applicable applicable in areas where the state does language of section 172(c)(9), the EPA Serious area attainment date. not have an EPA-approved PSD program seeks comment on applying the same As discussed earlier in this section, in its SIP). The EPA last amended the proposed requirements for contingency the EPA will consider the state’s PSD regulations for PM2.5 on January 15, measures for section 189(d) plans, and attainment demonstration and proposed 2013, in the final rule revising the PM2.5 on the agency’s proposed approach for attainment date for the area, in addition NAAQS.226 This proposal does not calculating the emissions reductions to the state’s revised control strategy relate to the PSD program, nor does it that such measures must be able to and the relevant facts and propose further changes to the PSD achieve. circumstances, in order to identify the regulations. Any future revisions to the most expeditious attainment date I. Attainment Dates PSD regulations for PM2.5 would be practicable for the area. done through a separate notice-and- As previously discussed, section The EPA seeks comment on this comment rulemaking. 189(d) requires a minimum 5 percent proposal for interpreting the statutory annual reduction in emissions of direct requirements under section 189(d) for a 2. NNSR PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors until the Serious area that fails to attain the PM2.5 area attains the relevant NAAQS. NAAQS by the applicable attainment Part D of title I of the CAA (hereafter However, neither section 189(d) nor date. referred to as part D) contains other sections in subpart 4 explicitly implementation plan requirements for establish or provide the authority to VIII. What are the EPA’s proposed nonattainment areas, which include the establish a new attainment date for the NNSR permitting requirements? requirements for permitting new major area; other subpart 4 attainment date A. Statutory Requirements for NSR stationary sources and major provisions for Moderate or Serious areas modifications in designated are likewise not applicable to areas in Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA nonattainment areas, referred to as the this situation. Therefore, once an area is requires states to include in their SIPs NNSR program. As noted earlier, part D beyond the attainment dates that a preconstruction review permitting contains several subparts that include Congress specified in subpart 4 for the program that regulates the construction various requirements for addressing and modification of stationary sources PM10 NAAQS, the EPA must look to the nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 existing provisions of the CAA to as necessary to ensure that NAAQS are addresses plan requirements for achieved. To address the regulation of provide authority for a new attainment nonattainment areas generally, the larger pollutant-emitting sources date. Sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2) including section 172(c)(5) which (defined as major stationary sources), provide generally applicable attainment requires preconstruction and operating Congress provided specific permitting dates that fill the gap in the statute left permits for new major stationary requirements in the CAA in parts C and for areas subject to the requirements of sources and major modifications in D of title I. The requirements for section 189(d). Thus, for a PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Section 173 preconstruction permits under parts C nonattainment area subject to section outlines the minimum statutory and D of the CAA are commonly known 189(d) requirements, the EPA must requirements for a state’s NNSR permit collectively as the major NSR program establish a new attainment date, and program and serves as the basis for the because they apply specifically to the must do so according to the provisions EPA’s NNSR regulations for PM preconstruction review and permitting 2.5 as of section 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2). The promulgated in the 2008 PM NSR EPA has followed this same approach in of new major stationary sources, and 2.5 Rule. Subpart 4 was added to part D as the past for PM nonattainment areas major modifications at existing sources. 10 part of the 1990 CAA Amendments and governed by subpart 4 nonattainment As explained in Sections VIII.A.1 and 2 includes additional plan provisions for requirements.225 of this preamble, the preconstruction The new attainment date must be as review of each new and modified major designated PM10 nonattainment areas. expeditious as practicable, but no later stationary source generally is carried out Relevant here, section 189(a)(1)(A) of than 5 years from the date of publication on a pollutant-specific basis and the subpart 4 requires states to include in in the Federal Register of the EPA’s requirements with regard to each their implementation plan a permit determination that the area failed to pollutant apply based on whether the program addressing major stationary attain the relevant NAAQS. The EPA area in which the proposed major sources of PM10 that meets the may extend the attainment date by up source or major modification would requirements under section 173 of to 5 additional years (thus to 10 years locate is designated attainment (or subpart 1. Subpart 4 also includes some from the date of publication of the unclassifiable) or nonattainment for that additional preconstruction review notice of finding of failure to attain by pollutant at the time the permit is requirements for which, to date, the the applicable attainment date for the issued. EPA has promulgated NSR regulations area) if the agency deems it appropriate applying only to major stationary 1. PSD ‘‘considering the severity of sources of PM10 in PM10 nonattainment nonattainment and the availability and Part C of title I of the CAA (hereafter areas. The specific NNSR requirements feasibility of pollution control referred to simply as part C) contains contained in both subparts 1 and 4 are measures.’’ For a PM2.5 nonattainment implementation plan requirements that described below including the changes area subject to section 189(d), the EPA apply to new major stationary sources to the NNSR regulations needed to expects that the state will adopt any and major modifications in areas address PM2.5 specifically that the EPA control measures necessary to designated attainment or unclassifiable is proposing in this notice. demonstrate expeditious attainment for any NAAQS. These requirements constitute the PSD program. Pursuant to 226 More information on the PSD requirements for 225 For example, see the Federal Register notice part C, the EPA has adopted PSD PM2.5 as well as the public comments and the EPA’s from June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31183) in which the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 (minimum responses to those comments and the related issues found that the Phoenix PM10 Serious nonattainment for which comments were received is contained in area failed to attain the standard by the 2006 requirements for an approvable state the January 15, 2013 Federal Register document (78 attainment date. PSD program in the SIP) and 40 CFR FR 3086, beginning at page 3251).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15429

B. Federal NNSR Regulations Accordingly, states with newly requirements must be satisfied by a Federal regulations pertaining to the designated nonattainment areas for the major new source or major modification preconstruction permitting of new major revised primary PM2.5 NAAQS have two as a prerequisite for receipt of a stationary sources and major possible means by which they can construction permit and apply as of the modifications in areas designated implement NNSR requirements for effective date of designation of an area nonattainment are contained at 40 CFR PM2.5 following the effective date of as nonattainment for the pollutant. designations and until the EPA 51.165; part 51, appendix S; and, 2. Historical Overview of NNSR for approves a SIP submission meeting the § 52.24. An approved NNSR program in PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS a state’s implementation plan must, at a NNSR requirements for PM2.5 Following the adoption of new PM minimum, meet the program promulgated in this rule under subpart NAAQS based on the PM indicator in requirements set forth in the federal 4. First, any state that has an approved 10 1987 (replacing the original Total NNSR requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, NNSR program for PM2.5 can continue to Suspended Particulate indicator), the which for PM are currently based on apply those permitting requirements in 2.5 EPA announced that it did not intend to changes made under the 2008 PM the interim. Second, states that lack any 2.5 designate areas as nonattainment for NSR Rule. States are required to adopt approved NNSR program for PM2.5 may PM . As a result, the EPA initially regulations consistent with those plan rely upon the NNSR provisions in 10 determined that part D, which at that requirements and submit them to the Appendix S until the EPA approves a point consisted only of generally EPA for approval as part of their SIP SIP submission from the state to address applicable requirements, did not apply within a period of time consistent with PM2.5 in order to ensure that proposed to the PM NAAQS.232 Thus, the schedule prescribed by the CAA. new major stationary sources and major 10 nonattainment area requirements, The EPA interprets the requirement modifications for PM2.5 in newly including the NNSR program, did not established under section 110(a)(2)(C) of designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas the CAA for states to regulate the undergo the appropriate type of initially apply with respect to PM10. construction and modification of preconstruction review in the interim. Consequently, all new major stationary sources and major modifications of sources to apply in nonattainment areas 1. General Applicability as of the effective date of a new PM10 were required to undergo PSD nonattainment area designation.227 New major stationary sources are review as a prerequisite for construction Although section 110(a)(2)(C) does not subject to the NNSR requirements when or modification. The approach for implementing the contain specific requirements a state they are major for the pollutant for NNSR program for PM changed when in must follow for issuing major source which an area is designated 1990 Congress established a new permits during the interim period nonattainment. See 40 CFR subpart 4 specifically to address between effective date of designation 51.165(a)(2)(i). With regard to major implementation plan requirements for and the date when a state has an EPA- modifications, NNSR applies to PM nonattainment areas, including approved NNSR program, the EPA proposed physical changes or changes 10 new preconstruction permit regulation at 40 CFR 52.24(k) authorizes in the method of operation of an requirements for major stationary states to apply 40 CFR part 51, existing stationary source that (1) is sources and major modifications with Appendix S, known as the Emission major for the nonattainment pollutant respect to PM and PM precursors. Offset Interpretative Ruling, during the (or a precursor for that pollutant) and (2) 10 10 Moreover, Congress created new PM interim period. 228 229 results in both a significant emissions 10 increase and a significant net emissions nonattainment areas through designations that became effective upon 227 See the Federal Register published on increase of that nonattainment pollutant 230 November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612, 71677 and (or a precursor for that pollutant). enactment of the 1990 Amendments on 71678). For each proposed major new source November 15, 1990.233 In section 228 States with designated PM2.5 nonattainment and major modification, the general 189(a)(2)(A), Congress also required areas were required to submit SIPs satisfying the NNSR requirements that are required to states to submit the necessary NNSR requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule by May 16, 2011, 3 years from be included in a state’s SIP include: (i) permit program SIP revisions for these the date of publication of that rule. See 73 FR 28321 the installation and continuous areas to the EPA by June 30, 1992. (May 16, 2008), at page 28342. Such approved state operation of pollution control In a letter to its Regional Offices dated programs can continue to be implemented to issue technology that complies with the March 11, 1991,234 the EPA initially permits to new major stationary sources and major LAER; (ii) the acquisition of creditable indicated that states should implement modifications until the state’s revised program containing the subpart 4 NNSR provisions emissions reductions to adequately such new requirements by operation of promulgated in this rulemaking is approved under offset the proposed emissions increase law, without the need for formal the applicable SIP. of the nonattainment pollutant; and, (iii) rulemaking by the EPA to establish the 229 Appendix S was originally promulgated in a demonstration of compliance with necessary requirements for states to 1976 to address whether, and to what extent, new adopt. In the General Preamble, the EPA and modified sources would be allowed to other analyses as required under section 231 construct in nonattainment areas whose attainment 173 of the CAA. These NNSR offered states additional guidance and deadlines had already passed, in light of the described the EPA’s preliminary views regulatory requirement that new or modified 230 As will be explained in ensuing discussions, on how the states and the EPA should sources be disapproved where the source would the nonattainment pollutant and any applicable interpret various provisions of the 1990 interfere with attainment of the NAAQS (41 FR precursors for that pollutant are considered 55524 (December 21 1976)). When Congress added separately for NNSR applicability purposes. See 40 the part D provisions in the 1977 CAA CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(A), (a)(2)(ii)A). 232 At the time the EPA promulgated the new Amendments, it also added the requirement that 231 The basic NNSR requirements are set forth in PM10 NAAQS, part D of the CAA did not include SIPs contain NNSR provisions as set forth in Part section 173 of subpart 1. Subpart 4 adds a more subpart 4. See 52 FR 24672 (July 1, 1987). 233 D. Additionally, Congress provided that Appendix stringent definition of ‘‘major source’’ for PM10 See section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA. The EPA S would govern preconstruction permitting in sources in PM10 nonattainment areas classified as subsequently published a list of the statutorily nonattainment areas lacking approved part D SIPs Serious and sets forth provisions for the regulation created PM10 areas in a Federal Register document before a construction ban went into effect. When and potential exemption of major sources of PM10 at 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990). 234 Congress removed the construction ban via the 1990 precursors in PM10 nonattainment areas. Until the The EPA memorandum titled ‘‘New Source CAA Amendments (except as provided for in decision in NRDC v. EPA was issued, the additional Review (NSR) Program Transition Guidance,’’ section 110(n)(3)) it left in place the use of the subpart 4 requirements had not been directly signed by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air interim NNSR program under Appendix S. applied with regard to PM2.5. Quality Planning & Standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15430 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Amendments, primarily those NOX, VOC or ammonia on an area-by- sources of PM10 precursor emissions if provisions concerning planning and area basis with a demonstration such emissions do not contribute control measure requirements for the approved by the Administrator and thus significantly to ambient PM10 attainment of the NAAQS in reverse any of those presumptions in the concentrations that exceed the standard nonattainment areas. In a 2005 final state’s implementation plan for that in the PM10 nonattainment area. Section rule, the EPA formally amended the area.240 189(e) requires that the EPA must make NNSR regulations to incorporate the As described above in Section II.C of this determination, and thus the EPA requirements contained in subpart 4 of this preamble, in January 2013 the court must approve the decisions of a state part D of the 1990 CAA Amendments in NRDC v. EPA held that the EPA erred that elects to use this provision to concerning PM10 nonattainment in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS exempt any major stationary sources of 235 areas. pursuant only to the general PM2.5 precursors from controls in its The EPA revised the PM NAAQS in implementation requirements in subpart attainment plan or NNSR program. 1997, establishing new annual and 24- 1, rather than also to the The court’s observation that the EPA’s hour NAAQS using PM2.5 particles as a implementation requirements specific to prior presumptions regarding precursors new indicator, while retaining the particulate matter in subpart 4. were inconsistent with the explicit 236 NAAQS for PM10. In 2006, the EPA Accordingly, the court directed the EPA requirements of section 189(e) that again revised the suite of PM NAAQS by to comply with the requirements of major sources of all PM2.5 precursors are tightening the 24-hour PM2.5 standards subpart 4 when developing subject to control requirements thus and retaining the level of the annual implementing regulations for PM2.5 necessitates that the agency revise the 237 PM2.5 standards. In 2008, the EPA nonattainment areas. NNSR regulations governing precursors issued the PM2.5 NSR Rule that The court decision, requiring that the for PM2.5. As explained in greater detail established various provisions ensuring EPA implement the PM2.5 NAAQS later in this section, the EPA is that proposed new major stationary consistent with the requirements of proposing different potential options to sources or major modifications of subpart 4, clearly has specific make the necessary changes to the sources of direct PM2.5 emissions or implications for implementing the NNSR regulations in order to address emissions of applicable PM2.5 NNSR program for PM2.5. Two the precursor requirements contained in precursors would be required to provisions of subpart 4 impose subpart 4. 238 undergo preconstruction review. The additional requirements on the existing C. What are the changes the EPA is EPA included specific provisions in the NNSR program requirements for PM2.5. proposing for NNSR for PM2.5 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule to apply when The first relates to the definition of nonattainment areas? such sources are located in a designated ‘‘major stationary source.’’ Section PM2.5 nonattainment area. Unlike the 188(b) provides that some areas initially In this section, the EPA presents for comment certain proposed revisions to NNSR requirements for PM10 developed designated as Moderate areas for PM10 under subpart 4, the EPA determined subsequently may be reclassified as the NNSR regulations as well as alternative approaches for incorporating that the applicable implementation Serious areas. For any PM10 the subpart 4 requirements into the requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS were nonattainment area reclassified as a contained in the general nonattainment Serious area, section 189(b)(3) provides NNSR regulations for PM2.5. The proposed changes would affect the provisions under subpart 1. that a major stationary source of PM10 be With regard to NSR applicability for defined to include any stationary source existing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 PM2.5 precursors in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR or group of stationary sources located and part 51 Appendix S. The agency Rule, the EPA recognized NOX, SO2, within a contiguous area and under does not intend to propose any changes VOC and ammonia as precursors of common control that emits or has the to the regulations at 40 CFR 52.24, which provide the authorization for PM2.5 in the scientific sense (because potential to emit at least 70 tpy of PM10. those pollutants under the appropriate In accordance with the statute, the EPA states to issue NNSR permits to major conditions can contribute to the is proposing to establish a major source new sources and major modifications ‘‘during the period between the date of formation of PM2.5 in the ambient air) emissions threshold for stationary designation as nonattainment and the but did not require that states subject all sources of PM2.5 that satisfies the intent of these precursors to control as part of of section 189(b)(3). date the NSR permit program meeting the attainment plan or NSR permitting The second relevant subpart 4 the requirements of part D is approved.’’ requirements applicable to a given provision governs the treatment of major 1. What are the changes the EPA is 239 nonattainment area. Instead, based on sources of PM10 precursors. As proposing for the NNSR requirements the authority in section 302(g) of the previously explained in Section III.A of for PM2.5 at 40 CFR 51.165? CAA, the EPA established the initial this preamble, the court specifically presumptions for nonattainment areas criticized the EPA’s prior establishment As explained above, the existing

that SO and NO should be regulated of the rebuttable presumptions for NNSR regulations applicable to PM2.5 2 X are based solely on the permit precursors for PM , but VOC and addressing PM precursors, 2.5 2.5 requirements contained in section 173 ammonia need not be regulated specifically citing the requirement of of subpart 1. In subpart 4, section precursors. The EPA or the states could section 189(e). Section 189(e) requires 189(a)(1)(A) requires states to include in rebut the initial presumptions regarding that the control requirements in the plan their SIPs for PM applicable to major stationary sources of 10 nonattainment areas 235 a permit program meeting the See ‘‘Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects PM10 must also apply to major of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source requirements of section 173; however, stationary sources of PM10 precursors. Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration other provisions in subpart 4 add Section 189(e) also provides that states as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate additional requirements for the NNSR may elect not to impose control Matter and Ozone NAAQS.’’ 70 FR 71611 permit program. Those additional (November 29, 2005). requirements on major stationary 236 See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). provisions concern (i) the definition of 237 240 ‘‘major stationary source’’ in See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). In the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, the EPA 238 See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). concluded that SO2 should be regulated as a nonattainment areas classified as 239 See 72 FR 20589. precursor for PM2.5 in all areas. See 73 FR 28327. Serious areas, and (ii) control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15431

requirements for applicable major significant drawbacks. Nevertheless, the that apply to major stationary sources of stationary sources of PM10 precursors. EPA is proposing and requesting PM10 if the state can demonstrate (based While those particular requirements in comments on other possible thresholds on guidance provided by the EPA) that subpart 4 refer specifically to PM10, the for Serious areas. the precursor emissions from those EPA is proposing to add similar A possible alternative approach sources do not contribute significantly requirements for PM2.5 in accordance would be to promulgate a PM2.5 major to ambient PM10 concentrations that with the court’s holding in NRDC v. source threshold lower than 70 tpy of exceed the standard in the EPA that subpart 4 also governs PM2.5 emissions, recognizing that PM2.5 nonattainment area. implementation of the PM NAAQS. is a subset of PM10. Generally, any 2.5 The specific ‘‘control requirements’’ a. Definition of ‘‘major stationary source’s PM2.5 emissions will be a for new or modified major stationary source’’ in Serious PM2.5 nonattainment fraction of that source’s PM10 emissions. areas. In Section III.A of this preamble, However, determining the appropriate sources of PM2.5 are contained in section the EPA indicated its intention to major source emissions threshold for 173 of the CAA (outlining requirements propose new provisions based on the PM2.5 that would be equivalent to 70 tpy for the state permit program required to requirements in subpart 4 for of PM10 on a national basis is be submitted in a state plan under reclassifying certain PM2.5 problematic because, while PM2.5 is section 189(a)(1)(A)) and 189(b)(3) nonattainment areas as Serious areas. generally a subset of PM10, there is not (establishing a major source threshold Because the NNSR regulations for PM2.5 a consistent ratio of PM2.5 to PM10 for sources in Serious areas). Consistent set forth in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule emissions for all stationary sources. with these requirements, the EPA is were developed pursuant to subpart 1, Combustion sources, such as industrial proposing a series of revisions to which does not provide for the and commercial boilers that burn fossil address PM2.5 precursors in the NNSR classification of designated fuels, and selected industrial processes regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, including: nonattainment areas, the EPA has not emit primarily finer particles within the Revision of the definition of ‘‘regulated yet developed regulations to address PM2.5 size range, while other industrial NSR pollutant’’ to require regulation subpart 4 requirements concerning processes—typically involving crushing under the permitting program of all nonattainment areas classified as and grinding operations—tend to emit PM2.5 precursors; the establishment of Serious. With respect to NNSR, section more coarse particles in the PM10 size major stationary source thresholds (for 189(b)(3) provides that, for any PM10 range. While the PM10: PM2.5 ratio for both Moderate areas and Serious areas) nonattainment area classified as most sources decreases when the overall for all PM2.5 precursors; and, a provision Serious, the major source threshold with emissions of PM are controlled, the for an exemption from the NNSR regard to the terms ‘‘major source’’ and quantitative difference between PM2.5 requirements, pursuant to section 189(e) ‘‘major stationary source’’ shall be 70 emissions and PM10 emissions from of the CAA, for major stationary sources tpy of PM10. Accordingly, the EPA is specific sources can still be significant, of any PM2.5 precursor where such proposing to amend the NNSR thus making a national PM2.5 major sources do not contribute significantly regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 consistent source threshold based on a single ratio to ambient concentrations of PM2.5 that with this provision to establish a major difficult to define. The EPA seeks exceed the standard in a particular source threshold for new major comments on possible ways in which a nonattainment area. As described in stationary sources and major PM2.5 emissions rate different from the greater detail below, the EPA is not at modifications in PM2.5 nonattainment statutory 70 tpy rate for PM10 emissions this time proposing any new significant areas classified as Serious consistent can be established, taking into account emissions rates for the PM2.5 precursors. with subpart 4. The EPA is proposing to variations in the PM10: PM2.5 ratio for set the major source threshold for direct different source categories and As described in Section VIII.A.2.b of PM2.5 emissions at 70 tpy. See proposed activities. this preamble, the NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(vii). Accordingly, while the EPA seeks 40 CFR 51.165 currently require states While the court decision did not comment on this alternative approach, to regulate new major stationary sources mandate that the EPA define ‘‘major because of the associated limitations and major modifications of SO2 and source’’ and ‘‘major stationary source’’ just described, the first option (i.e., a NOX as precursors under the NNSR 241 for PM2.5 at a threshold of 70 tpy of major source threshold of 70 tpy of requirements for PM2.5. Optionally, a PM2.5 emissions for areas reclassified as PM2.5 emissions for stationary sources state may avoid regulating new major Serious, the most straightforward and proposing to construct or modify in stationary sources and major consistent application of section PM2.5 nonattainment areas reclassified modifications of NOX under the NNSR 189(b)(3) to PM2.5 nonattainment areas as Serious) represents the agency’s requirements for PM2.5 if that state is to establish the same numerical preferred approach. demonstrates to the satisfaction of the threshold for Serious PM2.5 b. Control requirements for new major EPA that NOX is not a significant nonattainment areas as that which stationary sources and major contributor to PM2.5 concentrations in a applies to Serious PM10 nonattainment modifications of PM2.5 precursors. The particular PM2.5 nonattainment area. areas. Moderate nonattainment areas for second key provision contained in Similarly, the existing regulations both PM10 and PM2.5 are already subject subpart 4 that is not contained in provide that a state may opt to regulate to the same major source thresholds by subpart 1 relates to the control of major new major stationary sources and major statute, so the EPA believes that it is stationary sources and major modifications of VOC or ammonia also reasonable to establish the modifications of precursor pollutants. under the NNSR requirements for PM2.5 threshold for PM2.5 in Serious areas at Section 189(e) provides that, with if that state demonstrates to the the same level as the threshold that respect to NNSR, the control satisfaction of the EPA that VOC or requirements applicable to major applies to PM10 in Serious areas. For the ammonia are precursors for PM2.5 that reasons explained below, the EPA stationary sources of PM10 also apply to need to be controlled in a particular believes that potential alternative major stationary sources of PM10 approaches to setting the major source precursors, except that major stationary 241 See the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR threshold for Serious PM2.5 sources of a particular precursor may be pollutant’’ at existing 40 CFR nonattainment areas could have exempt from the control requirements 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2) and (3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15432 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

242 PM2.5 nonattainment area. In several proposed options to enable ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ to clarify that accordance with the court’s statement states to exempt a precursor from the four precursors are being regulated for that section 189(e) requires all PM2.5 attainment plan control requirements PM2.5 in nonattainment areas for PM2.5. precursors to be addressed, the EPA is (including NNSR) for a particular PM2.5 The EPA is proposing to set the major proposing to revise the NNSR nonattainment area with the appropriate source threshold for each PM2.5 regulations to require that new major factual and analytical basis. In precursor (SO2, NOX, VOC and stationary sources and major summary, the options included: (i) ammonia) at 100 tpy of each precursor modifications of SO2, NOX, VOC and Separate analyses to determine which for sources locating in Moderate areas, ammonia meet the NNSR requirements precursors are subject to the control and 70 tpy of any precursor for sources for PM2.5 in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. requirements for attainment plans and locating in Serious areas. See proposed In doing so, the EPA believes that it is which precursors are subject to the 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) and necessary to propose several revisions to control requirements for NNSR for (a)(1)(viii), respectively. For example, in 40 CFR 51.165 to ensure that the NNSR PM2.5; (ii) a technical demonstration order to be a major source for purposes requirements for PM2.5 adequately showing that all sources of a particular of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the source would address the regulated precursors precursor do not significantly contribute need to emit at least 100 tpy of PM2.5 consistent with the requirements of to the PM2.5 levels that exceed the emissions or at least 100 tpy of any subpart 4. standard in an area, thus exempting the individual PM2.5 precursor that is a First, the EPA is proposing to revise precursor from control under both the regulated precursor in a Moderate PM2.5 the regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 to attainment plan and NNSR programs; nonattainment area. The individual ensure that new major stationary and, (iii) one analysis to determine treatment of pollutants and precursors sources and major modifications of the whether control measures for a for applicability purposes is consistent four scientific precursors for PM2.5 are precursor are not needed for expeditious with the EPA’s policy as explained in subject to the same requirements under attainment for purposes of the previous rulemakings.243 the NNSR regulations that apply to new attainment plan, which would also In proposing to set the major source major stationary sources and major define the precursors that should be threshold for each PM2.5 precursor at modifications of direct PM2.5 emissions. 100 tpy for Moderate areas, the EPA is addressed for NNSR for PM2.5. As explained earlier in this preamble, Accompanying the description of each following the precedent established in the court decision in NRDC vs. EPA of the above options, Section III.C of this the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule in which the concluded that section 189(e) preamble discusses the potential agency set the same 100 tpy major ‘‘expressly governs precursor analytical requirements for any source threshold for PM2.5 and each of presumptions’’ and thus necessitates proposed demonstration that any its precursors (at that time SO2 and 244 that the EPA revise its existing particular precursor should be NOX). As the EPA stated in that 2008 provisions in the NNSR rules that exempted from the control requirements notice, sections 169 and 302(j) of the indicate that VOC and ammonia are not CAA contain definitions of ‘‘major for PM2.5 in a given nonattainment area. regulated PM2.5 precursors. The EPA is The EPA is requesting comments on the emitting facility’’ and ‘‘major stationary thus proposing to revise the NNSR three precursor options and the source’’ that apply to programs definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ technical approaches for requesting a implemented under subpart 1, which to ensure that the NNSR regulations are contain the PSD and NNSR program precursor exemption. Any comments 245 consistent in establishing that SO2, NOX, received will be considered in requirements, respectively. Those VOC and ammonia are all regulated definitions also apply to programs developing the agency’s final policy for PM precursors for purposes of NNSR implemented under subpart 4 to the 2.5 addressing PM precursors under the requirements, except under certain 2.5 extent that they regulate areas classified NNSR program for PM2.5. conditions explained below. See as Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, proposed 40 CFR The second proposed change with as subpart 4 does not establish a 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2). regard to the nonattainment area control different threshold for such areas. This While section 189(e) generally requirements for PM2.5 precursors proposal to set the same 100 tpy major requires that major stationary sources of involves the definition of ‘‘major source thresholds for sources of PM2.5 PM2.5 precursors must apply the control stationary source’’ as it relates emissions and applicable PM2.5 requirements (including those for specifically to precursors. The EPA is precursor emissions is also consistent NNSR) for major stationary sources of proposing to revise the definition of with the requirements of section 189(e), direct PM2.5 emissions, the section also ‘‘major stationary source’’ contained in which make the control requirements provides for an exemption from such the NNSR regulations to ensure that applicable to major stationary sources of requirements for any precursor for new sources that emit major amounts of PM10 also applicable to major stationary which ‘‘the Administrator determines any PM2.5 precursor that the state is sources of applicable PM10 that such sources do not contribute regulating in the attainment plan for the precursors.246 significantly’’ to the levels of PM2.5 that area are appropriately considered major As noted above, section 189(b)(3) sets exceed the standard in the stationary sources subject to the NNSR a lower major source threshold of 70 tpy nonattainment area. Section 189(e) requirements for PM2.5. See proposed 40 of PM10 emissions for sources locating further authorizes the EPA to issue CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1). The in PM10 nonattainment areas reclassified guidelines concerning the application of proposed change concerning the as Serious. Because subpart 4 NNSR the exemption process. regulation of precursors for PM2.5 is requirements must be applied to PM2.5, In Section III of this preamble, the being accomplished by adding to the the EPA must set a lower major source EPA described the agency’s proposed term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ the approaches for interpreting phrase ‘‘(as defined in paragraph 243 ‘‘Different pollutants, including precursors, are not summed to determine applicability.’’ See 73 requirements for states to control PM2.5 (a)(1)(xxxvii) of this section).’’ It should be noted that the definition of ‘‘major FR 28231 (May 16, 2008), at page 28331. precursors in their attainment plans for 244 Ibid. the PM2.5 NAAQS, which includes modification’’ already contains this 245 Ibid. phrase. As described above, the EPA is 246 See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 242 Ibid at (a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(3) and (4). also proposing to revise the definition of 13538.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15433

threshold for PM2.5, pursuant to section precursor when considering the effects illustrates that the threshold for defining 189(b)(3), in PM2.5 nonattainment areas that such precursor sources could have ‘‘major’’ for either SO2 or NOX as that are reclassified as Serious areas. on ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The precursors for PM2.5 could reasonably be Thus, the EPA’s preferred approach EPA previously analyzed the set at an emissions rate considerably proposed above is to set a major source relationship between emissions of SO2 higher than 70 tpy of that particular threshold of 70 tpy of PM2.5 emissions and NOX and the formation of precursor and be equally protective of for sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air air quality as the 70 tpy threshold reclassified as Serious. expressly for purposes of determining applied to PM2.5 emissions. Consistent with this proposal, the an appropriate ratio for allowing Although the statutory definition at EPA is also proposing to set the major interprecursor offsets for PM2.5. Those section 189(b)(3) applicable to PM10 source threshold for Serious areas for studies resulted in the EPA providing in does not explicitly apply to other each precursor at 70 tpy of that the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule ‘‘preferred’’ pollutants, the EPA is considering the particular precursor. As noted above, ratios for both SO2 and NOX, whereby possibility that it may not have the legal section 189(e) makes the control a source could obtain reductions of a authority to set a higher major source requirements for major stationary PM2.5 precursor to offset an increase of threshold for PM2.5 precursors, even if it sources of PM10 also applicable to major direct PM2.5 emissions or another PM2.5 were technically justified. As previously stationary sources of PM10 precursors; precursor based on the ‘‘preferred’’ noted, section 189(e), as interpreted in thus, in accordance with the provision offset ratios.248 In brief, the preferred light of the court decision in NRDC v. of the statute, the control requirements ratios were as follows: For NOX-to- EPA, requires that the same control applicable to major stationary sources of primary PM2.5: 200 to 1 (NOX tons to requirements applicable to major PM2.5 emissions are also applicable to PM2.5 tons) for areas in the eastern U.S, stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 and 100 to 1 for areas in the western major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors. Accordingly, the EPA must U.S.; and for SO2-to-primary PM2.5: 40 to precursors. Courts have determined in develop a major source threshold for 1 (SO2 tons for PM2.5 tons). In each case, other contexts that the term ‘‘controls’’ PM2.5 precursors that is consistent with the ratio illustrates that it requires under the CAA includes NSR the threshold for direct PM2.5 that will considerably more precursor emissions requirements, and in particular includes apply in PM2.5 nonattainment areas than direct PM2.5 emissions to result in major source thresholds as specified in reclassified as Serious. See proposed 40 a particular ambient concentration of the statute.251 Thus, if the holding of CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(1)(viii). PM2.5. It should be noted that at that South Coast directs the EPA’s actions, The EPA’s proposal to set a major time the EPA did not consider using the section 189(e) must be read to require source threshold of 70 tpy for Serious preferred ratios for the purpose of the same major source threshold be areas for each PM2.5 precursor is also adjusting the major source thresholds or applied to PM2.5 precursors as applies to consistent with the approach the EPA significant emissions rates for SO2 and direct emissions of PM2.5. has taken for establishing a major source NOX when regulating them as PM2.5 This conclusion is also consistent threshold for each PM10 precursor under precursors. with the limited legislative history on subpart 4. In the Addendum to the The preferred ratios as presented in this issue. A House (of Representatives) General Preamble offering guidance as the 2008 notice were later challenged in Report accompanying the 1990 to how to apply the new subpart 4 a petition for reconsideration and the amendments to the CAA described the requirements in Serious areas, the EPA EPA withdrew them via an EPA effects of adding section 189(b)(3) to indicated that it interpreted the statute memorandum issued in 2011.249 In include the requirement that ‘‘new or as applying the 70 tpy threshold to withdrawing the preferred ratios, the modified sources emitting 70 tons or 247 sources of PM10 precursors. EPA cited several concerns. First, it was more per year of VOC will be subject to The EPA also solicits comments on determined that the preferred ratios new source review requirements.’’ 252 the appropriateness of setting the were not sufficiently conservative to be Thus, Congress seems to have precursor major source thresholds at a representative of conditions in all areas contemplated that the same major different rate, particularly if, as of the country. Second, the EPA source threshold would apply to sources alternatively proposed above, the determined that the preferred ratios of PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors agency defines ‘‘major stationary were not adequate for addressing the in Serious areas. source’’ for sources of direct PM2.5 in precursor relationship to ambient PM2.5 The EPA does not believe that a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas at a concentrations for the short-term (daily) sufficient technical basis exists at this rate lower than 70 tpy of PM2.5 averaging period.250 In addition, the time to enable the agency to propose emissions. For example, if the agency EPA believes that the overall analysis specific higher major source thresholds sets the major source threshold at 60 tpy conducted for the 2008 notice generally for any of the four PM2.5 precursors of PM2.5 emissions in Serious PM2.5 presumptively regulated in PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the agency would 248 The technical assessment, with details on data nonattainment areas. The EPA intends also consider setting the major source and modeling inputs, was fully described in a to continue its analysis of the technical memo titled ‘‘Details on Technical threshold for each PM2.5 precursor at 60 relationship between each precursor Assessment to Develop Interpollutant Trading tpy of that particular precursor. Ratios for PM2.5 Offsets,’’ which was placed in the and ambient PM2.5 concentrations with Moreover, the EPA believes that a docket to the 2008 final rule. See also 73 FR 28321 the possibility that higher major source reasonable argument can be made that (May 16, 2008), at page 28339. thresholds for specific precursors could 249 whatever threshold is set for PM2.5 Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, then EPA be established in the future. In the emissions, the same level would be too Assistant Administrator, dated July 21, 2011, titled ‘‘Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of meantime, the agency solicits comments low to be regarded as ‘‘major’’ for each Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles 251 (PM2.5)’’ and sent to Regional Air Division Directors. See South Coast Air Quality Management 247 See Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 250 Nevertheless, while the ratios are no longer District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 900–902 (D.C. Cir. FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42012 (defining considered appropriate to use presumptively to 2006) (holding that ‘‘controls’’ in section 172(e) major point sources in Serious areas as ‘‘sources meet the NNSR requirements for emissions offsets, anti-backsliding provision include NSR with the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year a state may still conduct its own analysis and requirements such as LAER, offset ratios, and major of PM10 (or PM10 precursors) as required in sections propose area-specific ratios for EPA approval on a source thresholds). 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the Act’’). case-by-case basis for interpollutant offset trading. 252 H.R. Rep. 101–490.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15434 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

on the general appropriateness of setting ammonia significantly contributes to significant emissions rates accordingly higher major source thresholds for one PM2.5 concentrations in a given PM2.5 for SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors. or more PM2.5 precursors in PM2.5 nonattainment area to set the significant The EPA also intends to propose nonattainment areas, as well as legal emissions rate for ammonia based on individual significant emissions rates and technical considerations that information developed for each for VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 should be made as part the EPA’s future individual attainment plan.255 precursors at that time. Thus, the EPA analysis of NNSR requirements with As explained in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR is not proposing any changes to the respect to PM2.5 precursors. Rule, the EPA set the significant existing significant emissions rates for c. Significant emissions rates for PM2.5 emissions rates for the presumed PM2.5 SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors in this precursors. As explained above, a precursors at the levels for those document. modification to an existing major pollutants already included in NSR It is the EPA’s expectation that any stationary source of a nonattainment programs. The EPA explained that the new or revised significant emissions pollutant such as PM2.5 is a major use of the existing rates where the PM2.5 rates for the individual PM2.5 precursors modification and subject to the NNSR precursor is also regulated as a separate will become effective in that separate requirements for that pollutant when criteria pollutant harmonizes the NSR rulemaking not long after the date of the source proposes to make a physical program for PM2.5 with the NSR that final rule, allowing states to adopt or operational change that results in programs for those other criteria and use them in their own NNSR both a significant emissions increase pollutants. The agency further regulations once the EPA approves their and a significant net emissions increase explained that this approach for setting individual SIPs. However, in the event of that nonattainment pollutant. With the significant emissions rates for PM2.5 that the timing of that rule does not regard to PM2.5 precursors, a precursors follows the precedent for allow ample time for states to rely on it modification to a major stationary setting the significant emissions rate for to adopt any new or revised significant source of any such precursor is likewise NOX as a precursor to ozone, where the emissions rates in their rules, it was a major modification subject to the same 40 tpy threshold was used for NOX explained earlier that individual emissions as both a criteria pollutant NNSR requirements for PM2.5 when the significant emissions rates already exist (NO ) and a precursor for ozone.256 source proposes a physical or 2 for SO2 and NOX at 40 tpy. operational change resulting in a Nevertheless, the EPA gave some Additionally, the significant emissions significant net emissions increase of that consideration in the development of the rate for VOC was identified as 40 tpy in 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule to setting the precursor. The EPA defined the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule notice (though significant emissions rates for the ‘‘significant’’ for SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 not in the final regulations), but the EPA individual PM2.5 precursors at different precursors in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule. is proposing to add that precursor and levels based on the effect of each For both precursors, the EPA set the emissions rate to the list of PM2.5 significant emissions rate for each precursor on ambient PM2.5 precursors. See proposed 40 CFR pollutant when it is regulated as a concentrations. The EPA concluded that 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A). Hence, only the it did not have adequate data on the precursor to PM2.5 at 40 tpy, the same ammonia significant emissions rate level as the existing significant impacts of precursor emissions from would remain to be defined by each emissions rate for the pollutant as individual sources to override the state that needs to control major independently regulated as a criteria administrative advantages of setting the stationary sources of ammonia as part of significant emissions rates for SO2, NOX pollutant for purposes of the SO2 and their NNSR program. 253 and VOC for purposes of the PM2.5 NSR NO2 NAAQS. Also, in the preamble d. Transition provisions for PM2.5. The program at the same levels that are to the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, the EPA CAA requires proposed major stationary indicated that it would consider 40 tpy already used for other purposes in the sources and major modifications to meet major NSR program for other NAAQS. for VOC as a PM2.5 precursor; however, major NSR permitting requirements that that rate was not codified in any of the The EPA continues to believe, however, apply on the basis of the area’s NSR regulations because the regulations that when more data are available, these attainment designation.257 Accordingly, provided that VOC was generally data could provide a reasonable basis the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of for considering subsequent changes to presumed not to be a precursor to PM2.5. the CAA is that a proposed new major Instead, the agency explained that any the significant emissions rates for each stationary source or major modification state making a demonstration that VOC PM2.5 precursor for purposes of must satisfy the appropriate major NSR implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, should be treated as a PM2.5 precursor requirements (PSD vs. NNSR) for a in a particular nonattainment area whereby the significant emissions rates particular pollutant that are in effect on ‘‘would be required to adopt the 40-tpy for the individual PM2.5 precursors the date that a permit is issued to the significant emissions rate unless it could more realistically reflect the effect source, rather than the requirements demonstrated that a more stringent that each precursor has on ambient that may have been applicable when the significant emissions rate (lower rate) is PM2.5 concentrations. permit application was submitted.258 The EPA is currently undertaking a more appropriate.’’ 254 In the final 2012 PM NAAQS rule, the separate rulemaking for both NNSR and The 2008 PM NSR Rule codified the EPA established a grandfathering 2.5 PSD in which it intends to include a presumption that ammonia, like VOC, provision that would enable some technical analysis of each PM2.5 need not be regulated as a PM2.5 proposed new and modified sources precursor and the EPA did not set a precursor to better understand the relationship of emissions of each significant emissions rate for ammonia. 257 Compare CAA section 165(a) (permitting

Instead, the agency indicated that it was precursor to ambient PM2.5 requirements for sources locating in attainment and unclassifiable areas) with sections 172(c)(5) and 173 allowing states that determine that concentrations. The agency intends to consider the results of that analysis and (permitting requirements for sources locating in other factors and may propose new nonattainment areas). 253 See the Federal Register published on May 16, 258 See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, 2008 (73 FR 28321, 28333 and 28334); and existing EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A). 255 Ibid. on March 11, 1991, titled ‘‘New Source Review 254 See the Federal Register published on May 16, 256 See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), at page (NSR) Transitional Guidance,’’ Attachment p. 6, 2008 (73 FR 28321 and 28333). 28334. sent to Regional Air Division Directors.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15435

that had already submitted a PSD would propose such provision, if area that applies Appendix S once these application prior to the effective date of appropriate, as part of a subsequent NSR revisions become effective. Section the revised primary annual PM2.5 implementation rulemaking with VIII.C.2 that follows discusses the NAAQS to continue being reviewed additional opportunity for public possible changes to the NNSR under the pre-existing PSD comment.261 requirements in Appendix S that the requirements for PM2.5. This provision After further considering the issue agency is proposing in this action. applies where the PSD program during the development of this The EPA is not proposing to add any continues to be the applicable set of proposal, the EPA has decided not to grandfathering provisions that would major NSR requirements for the area of propose a grandfathering provision that apply to changes in NNSR permitting concern. In response to the EPA’s would apply to pending PSD permit requirements in areas that the EPA may proposal to add this grandfathering applications that were submitted but not already have designated nonattainment provision for certain PSD permit approved prior to the effective date of for PM2.5 at the time the source applications pending upon the effective the new nonattainment designations for submitted a permit application. For date of the new NAAQS, the EPA the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. reasons similar to those identified above received comments concerning the need The EPA does not believe it would be in cases where an area designation for a transition period for implementing acceptable for the EPA or a state to issue changes, the EPA generally believes that the NNSR requirements in newly a PSD permit, instead of a NNSR permit, major sources that would contribute to designated PM2.5 nonattainment areas as with regard to a particular pollutant for the air quality in an area that is not a result of the tightening of the primary which an area is designated meeting the NAAQS for a particular 259 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The nonattainment on the date the permit is pollutant should be expected to address commenters recommended that the EPA to be issued. Instead, if the PSD permit the most current requirements that establish a grandfathering provision to has not been issued by the effective date apply in the nonattainment area. The enable pending permit applications to of the new nonattainment designation, agency acknowledges it is possible that continue under review for the pre- then the applicant should be required to a proposed new or modified source may existing requirements. A subset of the withdraw that part of the permit need to address additional precursor commenters recommended that application that addresses the control requirements that did not apply grandfathering be accomplished by nonattainment pollutant and submit an when a permit application was establishing an effective date for application that satisfies the applicable submitted once the EPA’s final rule is designations 1 year after initial NNSR or minor NSR requirements in promulgated and the appropriate publication in the Federal Register. effect in the implementation plan on the revisions are approved into a state’s Presumably, these commenters believed date the permit will be issued. Given NNSR SIP. However, based on the terms that by delaying the effective date of any adverse conditions that already exist in of section 189(e) of the CAA, the EPA new nonattainment designations for the a nonattainment area and the generally believes that those congressional directive to reach requirements should be addressed in primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, sources with pending PSD permit applications attainment as expeditiously as pending permit applications unless the could continue to be reviewed under the practicable, construction at a major air agency has determined, and the EPA PSD permitting requirements rather stationary source that significantly has approved such demonstration, that increases emissions in such an area major stationary sources of that than the NNSR requirements for PM2.5. In the final 2012 PM NAAQS rule, the should be expected to address NNSR precursor do not contribute significantly requirements, even if this could cause to PM levels in the nonattainment EPA expressed its disagreement with 2.5 delay to the permit applicant. area. Nevertheless, the agency those commenters, explaining that the As explained in Section VIII.D of this recognizes that there may be certain obligation to adopt new provisions preamble, states will have 18 months circumstances where proposed under a state’s NNSR program will not from the date of the new nonattainment construction might be delayed and an apply with regard to the revised NAAQS designations to revise their existing applicant may feel fundamental fairness until such time as an area is designated NNSR programs or establish new would support exempting a particular nonattainment, and beginning on the programs in accordance with the pending permit from newly established effective date of the new area applicable requirements under subpart requirements; therefore, the EPA seeks designations for PM proposed new 2.5 4. Where the area was already comment on what circumstances, if any, and modified major sources would be designated nonattainment for any prior would justify a grandfathering provision required to meet the applicable NNSR PM2.5 NAAQS before the effective date 260 for pending nonattainment NSR permits requirements for PM2.5. However, the of designations for the 2012 NAAQS, similar to the grandfathering provision EPA further indicated that it would the state should continue to apply the promulgated in the final 2012 PM continue to consider the need to NNSR requirements contained in the NAAQS Rule for PSD permitting establish a grandfathering provision approved SIP to issue the final permit purposes. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(10) under the NNSR program for PM2.5, and addressing all PM2.5 NAAQS until the 52.21(i)(11). In addition, the EPA new SIP revisions required by this rule requests comment on how such a 259 See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013), at page 3263. are approved. In areas already grandfathering provision would be 260 The applicable NNSR requirements would be designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 consistent with the relevant provisions either the NNSR requirements for PM2.5 in the NAAQS but lacking an approved NNSR of the CAA. The EPA does not believe state’s existing SIP or the requirements found at 40 program that applies to PM2.5, the the statutory deadline in section 165(c) CFR part 51 Appendix S, where a state’s SIP does requirements of Appendix S may that forms part of the EPA’s basis for not currently include NNSR requirements for PM2.5. States will be required to submit to the EPA for continue to be applied for issuing grandfathering in the PSD context is approval SIP revisions containing the amended permits in that area. However, any applicable to NNSR permit decisions. NNSR program requirements for PM2.5 contained in changes to the Appendix S requirements the final PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule being that the EPA may make via this 2. What are the changes the EPA is proposed in this notice, but those additional proposing in Appendix S? requirements will not apply in states with SIPs that rulemaking must be implemented in any include NNSR requirements for PM2.5 until the EPA As described above, 40 CFR 52.24(k) approves the SIP revision. See ibid. 261 Ibid. provides that the Emission Offset

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15436 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Interpretative Ruling, 50 CFR part 51, Rule in 40 CFR 51.165, the EPA made on a case-by-case basis for Appendix S, shall govern permits to similarly did not require sources individual PM2.5 nonattainment areas. construct and operate for which a NNSR seeking permits pursuant to the On the other hand, the EPA expects permit application is submitted between Appendix S requirements to address that the cases where NOX does not the effective date of designation as those precursors. contribute significantly to PM2.5 nonattainment and the date a state’s As an interim measure to facilitate concentrations in the affected PM2.5 NSR permit program meeting the permitting while states develop NNSR nonattainment area will be few in requirements of part D is approved and rules for PM2.5, the EPA believes that the number. Accordingly, given this effective. The EPA is considering a NNSR requirements under Appendix S likelihood, the EPA believes that it is range of options concerning how and need not be identical to those governing reasonable to require the regulation of whether to address the proposed states’ development of approvable SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors during subpart 4 requirements in the interim programs pursuant to subpart 4, which the interim period when states are NNSR program requirements contained requires regulation of all PM2.5 developing their PM2.5 attainment plans in Appendix S. precursors unless a state provides, and for newly designated areas (including Permitting requirements for new the EPA approves, a demonstration that the necessary revisions to the NNSR major stationary sources and major such control is not necessary for major programs based on subpart 4). An added modifications in PM2.5 nonattainment stationary sources in the area under benefit of this proposed approach is that areas were originally added to section 189(e). This is reasonable it will also ensure that states using the Appendix S in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR because the EPA anticipates that many permitting requirements contained in Rule. The amendments generally states may be able to demonstrate to the Appendix S will regulate the same followed the NNSR requirement EPA that there is not a need to regulate precursors that are required to be contained in subpart 1 of part D. one or more PM2.5 precursors from regulated in states that have already However, in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, major stationary sources in a given adopted NNSR for PM2.5 based on the the EPA determined that, in light of the nonattainment area, as described in 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule. The EPA seeks transitional function of Appendix S, it Section III of this preamble. comment on this approach as part of would be appropriate to regulate PM2.5 Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to this proposal. precursors under Appendix S in a revise the definition of regulated NSR As one alternative approach that the manner that differed slightly from the pollutant as contained in Appendix S to EPA is presenting for public comment, regulatory approach taken in 40 CFR provide for the regulation of some the agency is proposing to amend 51.165. precursors during the transition period, Appendix S to regulate not only SO2 As explained in Section VIII.B.2 of but not others. Specifically, for reasons and NOX, but also VOC and ammonia, this preamble, under the existing explained below, the EPA is proposing as PM2.5 precursors that must be requirements for NNSR plans at 40 CFR to require that both SO2 and NOX be controlled during this interim period. 51.165, SO2 is regulated as a PM2.5 considered regulated PM2.5 precursors This alternative would more closely precursor, NOX is presumed to be a in Appendix S and is proposing a match the basic NNSR program regulated PM2.5 precursor, and VOC and significant emissions rate of 40 tpy for requirements of subpart 4, which ammonia are presumed not to be NOX as a PM2.5 precursor. See proposed indicate that states should regulate regulated precursors (with either states Sections II.A.31(iii)(b) and II.A.10(i) of precursors from major stationary or the EPA having authority to rebut any Appendix S, respectively. However, this sources in the nonattainment area such presumption for a particular proposal would not provide states the unless the EPA has determined that nonattainment area). However, in option of submitting a demonstration such emissions do not significantly developing Appendix S, the EPA that could relieve them of the obligation contribute to violations of the NAAQS determined that it would be premature to regulate SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 in the area. However, it would require to presume that NOX is a regulated precursors during the transition period. states to control new major stationary PM2.5 precursor in all PM2.5 The EPA believes that it is not necessary sources and major modifications of each nonattainment areas that proposed new or efficient to expend effort on such a PM2.5 precursor during the interim major sources and major modifications demonstration for the transitional period prior to submission of the in those areas should be required to program, when states are developing the required SIP revisions without the address as a prerequisite to obtaining a demonstration for submittal with the benefit of first allowing states to NNSR permit, while at the same time NNSR SIP submission that, when determine whether the control of each the states were in the process of approved, would replace the Appendix precursor is warranted. The EPA does determining whether in fact NOX S transitional program for that area. not prefer this option for amending emissions contribute significantly to The EPA is proposing to include SO2 Appendix S as an interim NNSR ambient PM2.5 concentrations in those and NOX in Appendix S based on the program; however, the EPA is seeking areas. Accordingly, the EPA decided to principle that the national application comment on the approach to address the delay implementing any control of a transition program should policy and legal implications associated requirements for NOX as a PM2.5 correspond to the general expectation of with it. This alternative, while being precursor until the states completed the what the prevailing regulation of proposed for comment, is not shown in necessary analyses to determine the precursors will ultimately be when SIPs the proposed regulatory text. need for NOX controls as part of their are submitted. Although such Another alternative that the agency is SIP revisions addressing the revised expectations are uncertain at this time, proposing for comment is for the EPA to PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, the existing NNSR it is nonetheless appropriate to base the establish a phased-in process for requirements for PM2.5 under Appendix transition program on them. The EPA regulating PM2.5 precursors in the NNSR S do not contain a requirement for believes it is likely in many cases that program whereby states would initially proposed sources to consider the control states will determine that emissions of require sources issued a permit to of NOX emissions as a PM2.5 precursor. VOC and/or ammonia do not contribute control only SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 Moreover, as states presumptively did significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in precursors (as under the preferred not need to regulate VOC and ammonia the affected PM2.5 nonattainment area, option), with a second requirement to in accordance with the 2008 PM2.5 NSR although such determinations should be later require sources issued a permit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15437

after the prescribed date (e.g., the date nonattainment areas reclassified as time for submittal of Moderate area plan on which SIP revisions based on subpart Serious. revisions. We also request comment on 4 requirements are due) to control The EPA is not proposing any a 12-month timeframe for submittal of emissions of VOC and ammonia as well. Appendix S provisions for the NNSR revisions for Serious areas. For each precursor, the requirement to grandfathering proposed new and An approach that requires the NNSR control would apply to major stationary modified sources from newly revisions to be submitted on the same sources of that particular precursor. The established permit requirements 18-month schedule as other Serious area EPA believes that by phasing in the applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. plan elements is expected to be more requirement to address all precursors, The EPA generally believes that it administratively efficient than one that states that are ultimately able to would not be appropriate to grandfather would require the NNSR revisions on a demonstrate to the EPA’s satisfaction sources from requirements that apply in different schedule. On the other hand, that VOC and/or ammonia do not need areas that are not meeting the NAAQS. this type of revision to the NNSR to be subject to control under the NNSR Nevertheless, the EPA seeks comment regulations may be relatively on possible circumstances where requirements for PM , but that have straightforward and potentially could be 2.5 grandfathering, similar to the not yet submitted such demonstration, completed within 12 months of the grandfathering provision established for reclassification date, thereby assuring will have ample time to make the pending PSD permits under the final that new major sources or modified necessary demonstration and will not 2012 p.m. NAAQS Rule, may be major sources in the area will be subject have to control such precursors even appropriate with respect to changes to the lower statutory major source temporarily. At the same time, the made to Appendix S. thresholds expeditiously. The EPA phase-in provision could address D. Plan Due Dates requests comment on both the proposed concerns about delays in SIP submittal 18-month timeframe for submission of

or approval in states with PM2.5 For Moderate areas, section the NNSR SIP revisions for Serious nonattainment areas in which VOC and 189(a)(2)(B) requires that states make an areas and the alternative 12-month ammonia need to be regulated. Such attainment plan submission satisfying option. delays could result in prolonged the requirements contained therein, exclusion of these precursors from including applicable NNSR programs E. Avoidance of Dual Review for PSD control requirements beyond the time for PM10 (and PM2.5), to the EPA for and NNSR for PM2.5 when an EPA-approved state NNSR approval within 18 months of an area Because the EPA designates program is expected to be in place. This being designated nonattainment. The nonattainment areas for the primary alternative, while being proposed for agency recognizes that this submittal annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS comment, is not shown in the proposed date represents a considerably earlier independently, some areas ultimately regulatory text. date than anticipated when it issued the may be designated nonattainment for 262 Separately, the EPA is proposing to final 2012 p.m. NAAQS rule. one of these standards and amend Appendix S by revising the However as the CAA requires, the EPA unclassifiable/attainment or attainment will apply the 18 month deadline from definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ for another. This may raise concerns the effective date of designation of a to include a separate PM major source that the sources locating in such an area 2.5 Moderate PM nonattainment area for threshold applicable to new major 2.5 may be subject to both PSD and NSSR the submission of any applicable NNSR stationary sources and major for the same pollutant. In the preamble program revisions for PM2.5 as included modifications in PM2.5 nonattainment to the final 2012 p.m. NAAQS rule, the in any final implementation rule. EPA explained that the existing PSD areas reclassified as Serious areas. See In the event a Moderate area is proposed section II.A.4(i)(a)(7). regulations resolved this issue.263 reclassified as a Serious PM2.5 Specifically, the PSD regulations at 40 Inclusion of the new definition is not an nonattainment area, it will be required immediate concern for the revised 2012 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) provide to implement the NNSR program with a that the PSD requirements do not apply primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS or any ‘‘major stationary source’’ threshold of to a major stationary source or major future revision to the PM2.5 NAAQS 70 tons per year (per CAA section because the possible reclassification of modification with respect to a pollutant 189(b)(3)). However, the CAA does not when ‘‘as to that pollutant, the source any Moderate area to a Serious area will specify a deadline for the state’s not occur for several years and states are or modification is located in an area submittal of any NNSR program designated as nonattainment ....’’264 required to submit their SIP revisions revisions (e.g., to lower the major addressing NNSR requirements prior to [emphasis added]. This policy was stationary source threshold from 100 tpy explained in the preamble to the final such time. There is a possibility, to 70 tpy) that would be needed to however, that existing PM rule promulgating the revised primary 2.5 implement the program in a Serious annual PM NAAQS.265 The EPA is nonattainment areas (for the 1997 and/ area. Pursuant to the EPA’s gap-filling 2.5 or 2006 PM NAAQS) could be simply reiterating in this action the 2.5 authority in CAA section 301(a), and to agency’s policy for addressing NSR reclassified as Serious areas sooner. effectuate the statutory control States that still do not have approved applicability for areas that may be requirements in section 189 of the CAA, designated nonattainment for one NNSR programs addressing PM would 2.5 the EPA proposes to require the state to averaging period and attainment or be without the appropriate NNSR submit these NNSR SIP revisions no unclassifiable for another averaging provisions to address new major later than 18 months from the effective stationary sources and major date of final reclassification of the area 263 See ibid. modifications in those Serious areas as a Serious nonattainment area. This 264 The policy for applying the PSD exemption is until they submit revisions to their timeframe is consistent with the 18 clear with regard to the federal PSD program at 40 existing programs and the EPA approves month timeframe required for submittal CFR 52.21; however, the requirements for a SIP- those revisions. The EPA solicits of certain Serious area plan elements, approved PSD program state that ‘‘[t]he plan may provide . . .’’ Accordingly, a state may choose to comments on this proposal to and it is consistent with the 18 month apply a different applicability strategy if it so incorporate a definition of ‘‘major wishes. stationary source’’ for PM2.5 262 Ibid. 265 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15438 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

period. Thus, for PM2.5 only the NNSR decisions air quality monitoring data events. Air quality monitoring data that requirements would apply with regard determined by the EPA to have been the EPA determines to have been 268 to major stationary sources of PM2.5 affected by exceptional events. The influenced by an exceptional event locating in that nonattainment area. Exceptional Events Rule applies to all under the procedural steps, substantive NAAQS pollutants, including PM . criteria, and schedule specified in the IX. What other proposed requirements 2.5 Section 188(f) and the Exceptional Exceptional Events Rule may be would apply in PM nonattainment 2.5 Events Rule provide separate excluded from regulatory decisions such areas? mechanisms by which states and/or as initial area designations decisions A. Waivers Under Section 188(f) other air agencies can seek to have and decisions associated with implementing the PM NAAQS such as 1. Statutory Requirements and Existing event-influenced monitoring data 2.5 clean data determinations, evaluation of Guidance excluded from certain regulatory requirements or decisions associated attainment demonstrations, and Section 188(f) of the CAA provides a with the PM NAAQS implementation discretionary or mandatory means for the EPA to waive a specific process, under appropriate reclassifications of nonattainment areas date for attainment and certain control circumstances. This section explains the from Moderate to Serious. While the and planning requirements for PM2.5 EPA’s views on how these two EPA may agree with an air agency’s nonattainment areas if certain mechanisms can operate. request to exclude event-influenced air conditions are met in the nonattainment The Exceptional Events Rule quality monitoring data from regulatory area. Specifically, the statute provides addresses elevated emissions from decisions, these regulatory actions that: ‘‘The Administrator may, on a specific events that influence monitored require the EPA to provide an case-by-case basis, waive any air quality concentrations. The EPA’s opportunity for public comment on the requirement applicable to any Serious regulations at 40 CFR 50.1(j) define an claimed exceptional event and all Area . . . where the Administrator ‘‘exceptional event’’ as one that ‘‘affects supporting data prior to the EPA taking determines that anthropogenic sources air quality, is not reasonably final agency action. of PM10 do not contribute significantly controllable or preventable, is an event If wildfire is a potential contributor to to the violation of the PM10 standard in caused by human activity that is exceedances of the NAAQS and the area.’’ In addition, ‘‘the unlikely to recur at a particular location exceptional events, the EPA urges state Administrator may also waive a specific or a natural event, and is determined by and local agencies to coordinate with date for attainment of the [PM10] the Administrator in accordance with 40 the land management agencies, as standard where the Administrator CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event.’’ appropriate, in developing plans and determines that nonanthropogenic Further, 40 CFR 50.1(j) explicitly appropriate public communications sources of PM10 contribute significantly provides that exceptional events do regarding public safety and reducing to the violation of the PM10 standard in ‘‘. . . not include stagnation of air exposure. This action can directly help the area.’’ In the Addendum, the EPA masses or meteorological inversions, a states meet their Exceptional Events provided extensive guidance on how the meteorological event involving high Rule obligation whereby ‘‘states must agency interpreted section 188(f) and temperatures or lack of precipitation, or provide public notice, public education, how it intended to apply the statutory air pollution relating to source and must provide for implementation of waiver provisions for purposes of noncompliance.’’ At 40 CFR 50.1(k), the reasonable measures to protect public 266 implementing the PM10 NAAQS. At EPA’s regulations define a ‘‘natural health when an event occurs.’’ When this time, the EPA is not proposing to event’’ as an event in which human wildfire impacts are significant in a revise the guidance presented in the activity plays little or no direct causal particular area, air agencies and Addendum with respect to section role to the event in question.269 The communities may be able to lessen the 188(f), but the agency requests comment Exceptional Events Rule allows the EPA impacts of wildfires by working on whether the existing guidance in the to exclude from regulatory decisions air collaboratively with land managers and Addendum is appropriate when quality monitoring data that it land owners to employ various implementing the current and any determines to have been influenced by mitigation measures including taking future PM2.5 NAAQS. emissions that result from exceptional steps to minimize fuel loading in areas vulnerable to fire.270 2. Relationship Between the CAA 268 The EPA notes that there could be Section 188(f) Waiver Provisions and References to ‘‘air agencies’’ are meant to include state, local and tribal air agencies some potential overlap between the the EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule responsible for implementing the Exceptional application of the Exceptional Events On March 22, 2007, the EPA Events Rule. Rule and section 188(f). The EPA promulgated the ‘‘Treatment of Data 269 The EPA will generally consider human activity to have played little or no direct role in believes that this potential for overlap Influenced by Exceptional Events; Final causing emissions of the dust generated by high can best be addressed by considering Rule’’ (72 FR 13560), known as the wind for purposes of the regulatory definition of the applicability of the Exceptional Exceptional Events Rule, pursuant to ‘‘natural event’’ if contributing anthropogenic Events Rule and section 188(f) in the 2005 amendment of CAA section sources of the dust are reasonably controlled at the time of the event, regardless of the amount of dust sequence. Thus, the EPA recommends 267 319. The Exceptional Events Rule coming from these reasonably controlled provides a mechanism by which the anthropogenic sources, and thus the event could be 270 Because of previously expressed stakeholder EPA can concur with an air agency’s considered a natural event. In such cases, the EPA feedback regarding implementation of the request to exclude from regulatory believes that it would generally be a reasonable Exceptional Events Rule and specific stakeholder interpretation of its regulations to find that the concerns regarding the analyses that can be used to anthropogenic source had ‘‘little’’ direct causal role. support wildfire-related exceptional event 266 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42004. If anthropogenic sources of windblown dust that are demonstrations, the EPA intends to propose 267 Section 319 of the CAA, as amended by reasonably controllable but that did not have those revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule in a future section 6013 of the Safe Accountable Flexible reasonable controls applied at the time of the high notice-and-comment rulemaking and will solicit Efficient-Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for wind event have contributed significantly to a public comment at that time. Depending on the Users (SAFE–TEA–LU) of 2005, required the EPA measured concentration, then the event would not nature and scope of any interstate emissions events to propose and promulgate regulations governing be considered a natural event. See preamble to the affecting downwind air quality, the EPA may be the review and handling of air quality monitoring Exceptional Events Rule at 72 FR 13560 (March 22, able to assist states in developing approvable data influenced by exceptional events. 2007), footnote 11 on page 13566. exceptional events demonstrations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15439

that air agencies first consider whether PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, the EPA and air quality agencies, metropolitan the monitored air quality data on published a final rule on March 14, planning organizations (MPOs), and specific days were influenced by an 2012 (77 FR 14979) that restructured federal agencies including the U.S. exceptional event. If the air agency portions of the transportation Department of Transportation (DOT), requests and the EPA agrees with this conformity rule so that they would the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. request and determines that the clearly apply to nonattainment and Department of Interior and the U.S. monitored air quality data should be maintenance areas for new and revised Department of Agriculture. excluded from consideration in NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 c. When would transportation and regulatory decisions, then using the NAAQS. All of these rules apply to the general conformity apply to areas provisions in the Exceptional Events current PM2.5 NAAQS including the designated nonattainment for the 2012 Rule could address the situation 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS? adequately. Thereafter, if the air agency PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 primary Transportation and general conformity determines that the waiver provisions of annual PM2.5 NAAQS and will apply to apply 1 year after the effective date of section 188(f) may also be applicable, future PM2.5 NAAQS. For further nonattainment designations for a new or then the EPA can evaluate that question information on conformity rulemakings, revised PM2.5 NAAQS including the based on the remaining data that are policy guidance and outreach materials, 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. representative for the area in question. see the EPA’s Web site at http:// This is because CAA section 176(c)(6) www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ provides a 1-year grace period from the B. Conformity Requirements transconf/index.htm. The EPA may effective date of initial designations for 1. What requirements apply to both issue future transportation conformity any new NAAQS before transportation transportation and general conformity? guidance as needed to implement the and general conformity apply in areas a. What are transportation and 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. newly designated nonattainment for a general conformity? Conformity is With regard to general conformity, the specific pollutant and NAAQS. With required under CAA section 176(c) to EPA first promulgated general regard to general conformity, the EPA’s ensure that federal actions are conformity regulations in November April 2010 revisions to its general consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 1993 (40 CFR part 51, subpart W, 40 conformity regulations (see 75 FR purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the CFR part 93, subpart B). Subsequently 17277; April 5, 2010) apply the same 1- purpose of the SIP means that federal the EPA finalized revisions to the year grace period for purposes of general activities will not cause new air quality general conformity regulations on April conformity. With regard to transportation violations, worsen existing violations, or 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254). Besides ensuring conformity, the conformity grace period delay timely attainment of the relevant that federal actions not covered by the applies to all areas designated NAAQS or interim reductions and transportation conformity rule will not nonattainment for a new or revised milestones. Conformity applies to areas interfere with the SIP, the general PM NAAQS including the 2012 that are designated nonattainment, and conformity program also fosters 2.5 primary annual PM NAAQS. The those nonattainment areas redesignated communications between federal 2.5 requirements differ depending on to attainment with a CAA section 175A agencies and state/local air quality whether the nonattainment area is maintenance plan after 1990 agencies, provides for public within or adjacent to a MPO designated (‘‘maintenance areas’’). notification of and access to federal The EPA’s Transportation Conformity agency conformity determinations and under 23 U.S.C. 134. Within 1 year after Rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, allows for air quality review of the effective date of the initial subpart A) establishes the criteria and individual federal actions. More nonattainment designation for a given procedures for determining whether information on the general conformity pollutant and NAAQS, the MPOs and transportation activities conform to the program is available at http:// DOT must make a conformity SIP. These activities include adopting, www.epa.gov/air/genconform/. determination with regard to that funding or approving transportation b. Why is the EPA discussing pollutant and standard for all of the plans, transportation improvement transportation and general conformity transportation plans and TIPs in the programs (TIPs) and federally supported in this proposed rulemaking? The EPA nonattainment area. The conformity is discussing transportation and general requirements for surrounding ‘‘donut highway and transit projects. The EPA conformity in this proposed rulemaking areas,’’ including the application of the first promulgated the Transportation in order to provide affected parties with 1-year conformity grace period, are Conformity Rule on November 24, 1993 information on when conformity must generally the same as those for (58 FR 62188), and subsequently be implemented after nonattainment metropolitan areas.272 For the purposes published several amendments. For areas are designated for a new or revised of the implementation of the 2012 PM example, the EPA published a final rule 2.5 PM NAAQS. At this time the EPA is NAAQS, MPOs and any adjacent donut on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004) that 2.5 using the 2012 PM NAAQS as an areas in a 2012 PM NAAQS provided conformity procedures for 2.5 2.5 example. The agency is also discussing nonattainment area must continue to state and local agencies under the 1997 how it plans to make the transition from meet conformity requirements during PM2.5 NAAQS, among other things. On demonstrating conformity for the 1997 the grace period for any other applicable May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24280) the EPA annual PM2.5 NAAQS to the 2012 NAAQS, including the 1997 annual published a final rule that addressed primary annual PM NAAQS because PM NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour transportation conformity requirements 2.5 2.5 271 this transition is unique in that the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If, at the end of the grace for PM2.5 precursors. The EPA annual PM2.5 NAAQS was retained as a period for the 2012 annual PM2.5 published another final rule on March secondary NAAQS. The information NAAQS, the MPO and DOT have not 24, 2010 (75 FR 14260) that addressed presented here is consistent with made a transportation plan and TIP additional requirements for the 2006 existing conformity regulations and statutory provisions that are not 272 For the purposes of transportation conformity, 271 This final rule was not challenged or affected addressed by this PM implementation a ‘‘donut’’ area is the geographic area outside a in any way by the January 2013 D.C. Circuit Court 2.5 metropolitan planning area boundary, but inside a decision requiring the EPA to implement the PM2.5 rulemaking. Affected parties would designated nonattainment or maintenance area NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4 of the CAA. include state and local transportation boundary that includes an MPO (40 CFR 93.101).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15440 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

conformity determination for that made below. Similarly, for any 1997 the 1997 secondary annual NAAQS. NAAQS, the area would be in a PM2.5 nonattainment areas that have Any area that is designated as conformity ‘‘lapse.’’ During a conformity approved redesignation requests for nonattainment for the 1997 secondary lapse, only certain projects can receive attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, annual NAAQS would have to continue additional federal funding or approvals the redesignation applies to both the to make transportation and general to proceed. The practical impact of a primary and secondary standards of the conformity determinations for that conformity lapse will vary from area to 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. A discussion of NAAQS as conformity applies in area. Finally, the 1-year conformity how transportation and general nonattainment areas for secondary grace period also applies to project level conformity apply in this situation NAAQS. conformity determinations. follows. However, for any area that has been Isolated rural nonattainment and CAA section 176(c)(5) establishes that redesignated to attainment for the 1997 maintenance areas are areas that do not conformity applies to: a nonattainment secondary NAAQS and is not contain or are not part of an MPO (40 area and each pollutant for which the designated nonattainment for the 2012 CFR 93.101). Conformity requirements area is designated as a nonattainment primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the for isolated rural nonattainment and area; and an area that was designated as relevant planning organization will not maintenance areas can be found at 40 a nonattainment area but that was later have to make conformity determinations CFR 93.109(g). One year after the redesignated by the Administrator as an for any annual PM2.5 NAAQS after the effective date of the initial attainment area and that is required to effective date of the revocation of the nonattainment designation for a given develop a maintenance plan under CAA 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS pollutant and NAAQS, conformity section 7505a with respect to the because, as discussed above, the CAA requirements with regard to that specific pollutant for which the area does not require maintenance areas for pollutant and standard would apply in was designated nonattainment. Section secondary NAAQS to make conformity any nonattainment areas that are 176(c)(5) is clear that transportation and determinations. This means that if the isolated rural areas. Per the general conformity apply in EPA finalizes any of the options for transportation conformity rule, an nonattainment areas and in areas that revoking the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 isolated rural area would be required to have been redesignated to attainment NAAQS, after the effective date of the make a transportation conformity and are required to develop a revocation, areas redesignated to determination only at the point when a maintenance plan under section 175A. attainment for the 1997 secondary transportation project needs funding or Section 175A(a) establishes the annual PM NAAQS will no longer be approval. This project level conformity requirements for areas that are required 2.5 required to make transportation plan, determination may occur significantly to submit a maintenance plan as one of TIP, or project-level transportation after the 1-year grace period has ended. the requirements that must be fulfilled conformity determinations for that See the EPA’s July 1, 2004 final rule for in order for an area to be redesignated NAAQS. In addition, federal agencies further background on how the EPA has to attainment. will no longer be required to make implemented this conformity grace Section 175A(a) requires general conformity determinations for period in metropolitan, donut and nonattainment areas for primary that NAAQS. Areas that remain isolated rural areas (69 FR 40008; July NAAQS to submit maintenance plans in designated nonattainment for the 1997 1, 2014; see also 69 FR 40009, 40010, order to be redesignated, and such plans secondary annual PM 40011, 40012, 40013 and 40014). must ensure maintenance of the 2.5 NAAQS will d. How will transportation and standard for at least 10 years after continue to make transportation plan, general conformity apply with regard to redesignation. Section 175A(a) does not TIP, and project-level conformity determinations for that NAAQS and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which require nonattainment areas for was retained as a secondary NAAQS? In secondary NAAQS to submit federal agencies will be required to the final 2012 p.m. NAAQS rule the maintenance plans in order to be continue to make general conformity EPA established a new health-based designated to attainment. Therefore, the determinations for that NAAQS in these areas until such time as they attain that primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 EPA concludes that transportation and mg/m3. In that same action the EPA general conformity do not apply in areas NAAQS and are redesignated to attainment. retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that have been redesignated for any of 15.0 mg/m3 as a secondary NAAQS to secondary NAAQS, such as the 1997 e. What impact will the protect against certain welfare effects. In secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, since implementation of a new or revised the 1997 PM2.5 designations rule (70 FR conformity does not apply in areas that PM2.5 NAAQS such as the 2012 PM2.5 944; January 5, 2005), the EPA have been redesignated without NAAQS have on a state’s transportation designated areas nonattainment for both maintenance plans. and/or general conformity SIP? As long the 1997 primary and secondary annual Elsewhere in this notice, the EPA is as the EPA does not make specific PM2.5 NAAQS (which have identical proposing options for revoking the 1997 changes to its transportation or general levels of 15.0 mg/m3). Designations for primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which conformity regulations states should not the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been replaced by the more health need to revise their transportation and/ were made in January 2015 (80 FR 2205; protective 2012 primary annual PM2.5 or general conformity SIPs. The EPA is January 15, 2015). This action did not NAAQS. If the EPA finalizes an option not proposing any changes to its make any changes to the designations that results in the revocation of the 1997 transportation conformity regulations. that apply for the 1997 secondary primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, The EPA is proposing to change the de annual PM2.5 standard. Therefore, at this nonattainment and maintenance areas minimis levels in its general conformity time, all areas designated nonattainment would not be required to make regulations as discussed in Section in 2005 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 transportation or general conformity IX.B.2.b. of this preamble. States with a standard are considered as having been determinations for the 1997 primary general conformity SIP should evaluate designated nonattainment for both the annual PM2.5 NAAQS after the effective the need to revise those SIPs if this 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and date of the revocation of the 1997 change is finalized. States with new for the 1997 secondary annual PM2.5 primary annual NAAQS. The revocation nonattainment areas may also need to NAAQS where such distinctions are would leave designations in place for revise conformity SIPs in order to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15441

ensure the state regulations apply in any Federal actions estimated to have an the agency’s revised precursor newly designated areas. annual net emissions increase less than requirements. Specifically, the current However, if this is the first time that the de minimis levels established in the definition of precursors for PM2.5 in the transportation conformity will apply in general conformity regulations are not general conformity regulations reflects a state, such a state is required by the required to demonstrate conformity the rebuttable presumptions for VOC statute and EPA regulations to submit a under those regulations. For direct PM2.5 and ammonia finalized in the 2007 SIP revision that addresses three and its precursors (SO2, NOX, VOC and PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR specific transportation conformity ammonia), the existing de minimis 20583; April 25, 2007). It also does not requirements that address consultation emissions levels are set forth in the reflect the subpart 4 definitions for procedures and written commitments to EPA’s general conformity regulations at ‘‘major source’’ and ‘‘major stationary control or mitigation measures 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1). Those levels were source’’ that apply for Serious PM based on the definition of a major 2.5 associated with conformity nonattainment areas. Therefore, through determinations for transportation plans, stationary source for nonattainment this proposal the EPA proposes to TIPs or projects (40 CFR 51.390). NSR programs as established by sections change the PM precursor de minimis Additional information and guidance 182, 183 and 302 of the CAA. The EPA 2.5 levels currently in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) can be found in the EPA’s ‘‘Guidance for believes it is appropriate to continue Developing Transportation Conformity this practice for implementing the to be consistent with the statutory requirements for major stationary source State Implementation Plans’’ (http:// current and any future PM2.5 NAAQS. www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ However, because the definition of thresholds under subpart 4 and any transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf). precursors currently in the general relevant changes being proposed in conformity regulations at 40 CFR Section III of this preamble. The EPA 2. What additional requirements apply 93.152(b)(1) does not reflect the proposes to set the de minimis levels to general conformity? elimination of rebuttable presumptions that apply to direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 a. What de minimis emissions levels for certain PM2.5 precursors, the EPA is precursors for PM2.5 nonattainment will apply for direct PM2.5 and its proposing changes to these conformity areas for purposes of general conformity precursors? provisions to make them consistent with as identified in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3—GENERAL CONFORMITY De Minimis EMISSION LEVELS FOR PM2.5 PRECURSORS

Tons/year in moderate PM2.5 Type of nonattainment areas and all Tons/year in Serious PM2.5 emission maintenance areas nonattainment areas

Direct emissions ...... 100 70 SO2 ...... 100 70 NOX ...... 100 70 VOC ...... 100 70 Ammonia ...... 100 70

b. Are there any other impacts related such areas the EPA encourages states to consequences of an EPA determination, to general conformity based on consider in any baseline, modeling and made after notice and comment implementation of the 2012 PM2.5 SIP attainment inventory used and/or rulemaking, that an area designated NAAQS? The EPA is not proposing any submitted to include emissions nonattainment for a PM2.5 standard has other revisions to the general conformity expected from projects subject to air quality attaining that standard. Upon regulations at this time. However, as general conformity, including emissions such a determination by the EPA, the states develop SIP revisions for the 2012 from wildland fire that may be state’s requirement for the area to and future PM2.5 NAAQS, the agency reasonably expected in the area. Where submit the separate required elements of recommends that state and local air appropriate, states may consider an attainment plan (including an quality agencies work with federal developing plans for addressing attainment demonstration, but not the agencies with large facilities (e.g., wildland fuels in collaboration with emissions inventory requirement), shall commercial airports, ports and large land managers and owners. Information be suspended until such time as the area military bases) that are subject to the is available from DOI and USDA Forest is redesignated to attainment, at which general conformity regulations to Service on the ecological role of fire and time the requirements no longer apply. establish an emissions budget for those on smoke management programs and If the EPA determines that the area, after facilities in order to facilitate future basic smoke management practices.273 reaching attainment, has again violated conformity determinations under the C. Clean Data Policy that PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements are conformity regulations. Such a budget again applicable. The following could be used by federal agencies in This section describes the ongoing discussion of this interpretation, known determining conformity or identifying status of the EPA’s Clean Data Policy as the EPA’s Clean Data Policy, explains mitigation measures if the budget level and proposes provisions applicable to the basis for the EPA’s interpretation is included and identified in the SIP. any determinations of attainment under and is relevant to all PM2.5 NAAQS Significant tracts of land under current and future PM2.5 NAAQS. This under subpart 4. section also sets forth the regulatory federal management may also be 1. What is a clean data determination? included in nonattainment area boundaries. The role of fire in these 273 USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources The EPA’s interpretation of the CAA Conservation Service, Basic Smoke Management areas should be assessed and emissions Practices Tech Note, October 2011, http:// applies when the agency, after notice- budgets developed in concert with those www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/ and-comment rulemaking, issues a federal land management agencies. In stelprdb1046311.pdf. ‘‘clean data determination’’ (CDD), in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15442 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

which it determines that a specific attainment of the NAAQS, and an area Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8, nonattainment area has attained the with a CDD is still designated 2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR relevant standard. For such areas, the nonattainment. NNSR permitting is 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin EPA interprets the CAA as suspending required in each nonattainment area Valley, California area) 72 FR 14422 the state requirements to submit to the until the area is redesignated to (March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona area). EPA the planning elements of an attainment.’’ For the past two decades, In the EPA’s proposed and final attainment plan related to attaining the and for many NAAQS, the EPA has rulemakings determining that the San NAAQS for as long as the area continues consistently applied its Clean Data Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 274 to attain the standard. These Policy interpretation to attainment- attained the PM10 standard, the EPA set planning elements generally include related provisions of subparts 1, 2 and forth at length its rationale for applying reasonable further progress (RFP) 4 of Part D, Title I of the CAA. The the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under requirements, attainment Clean Data Policy is the subject of subpart 4. 71 FR at 63643–45. The Ninth demonstrations, RACM and RACT, several EPA memoranda and regulations Circuit upheld the EPA’s final nonattainment area contingency and numerous individual rulemakings rulemaking, and specifically the EPA’s measures, and other state planning published in the Federal Register. Clean Data Policy, in the context of requirements related to the attainment These rulemakings have applied the subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, of the NAAQS.275 The suspension of the interpretation to a broad spectrum of supra. Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 obligation to submit applies regardless NAAQS, including the 1-hour and 1997 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009) (memorandum of when the plan submissions are due. ozone standards, PM10, 1997 and 2006 opinion). In rejecting the petitioner’s The CDD does not suspend CAA PM2.5 standards and the carbon challenge to the Clean Data Policy under requirements that are independent of monoxide (CO) and lead standards. The subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit helping the area achieve attainment, D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data stated, ‘‘As the EPA explained, if an area such as the requirements to submit an Policy interpretation as embodied in the is in compliance with PM10 standards, emissions inventory and nonattainment EPA’s 8-hour ozone Implementation then further progress for the purpose of new source review requirements. Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.276 NRDC v. EPA, ensuring attainment is not necessary.’’ The emissions inventory is a basic 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other Thus the EPA has previously compilation of information used to U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have established its interpretation that, under characterize the sources of emissions of considered and reviewed the EPA’s subpart 4, a clean data determination the nonattainment area. Section Clean Data Policy interpretation have suspends the obligations to submit an 172(c)(3), the statutory provision upheld it and the rulemakings applying attainment demonstration, RACM/ requiring submission of an emissions the EPA’s interpretation. Sierra Club v. RACT, RFP and quantitative milestones, inventory, is not tied to attainment of EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); contingency measures, and other the NAAQS, unlike the attainment Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th measures related to attainment. The planning provisions which are Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth EPA is proposing to codify this suspended by a CDD. A base year Foundation v. EPA, N. 04–73032 (9th interpretation in this implementation inventory continues to be relevant to a Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS. nonattainment area that is attaining the opinion); Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, NAAQS and has obtained a CDD As with its Clean Data Policy Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th Cir. interpretation for 8-hour ozone, which because, for example, the inventory is a March 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion). necessary component to an approvable the EPA embodied in a regulation that The EPA incorporated its Clean Data was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in NRDC redesignation request. In addition, in Policy interpretation in both its 1997 8- the event the air quality in the area v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), hour ozone implementation rule and in the EPA intends to embody its exceeds the standard in a subsequent its remanded 2007 PM year, the state would be obligated to 2.5 interpretation for the Clean Data Policy Implementation Rule in 40 CFR submit an attainment demonstration for current and future PM2.5 NAAQS in 51.1004(c). See the Federal Register and other planning elements for the a regulation as part of this proposed published on April 25, 2007 (72 FR area, and a base year inventory would rulemaking. This interpretation 20583, 20585 and 20665. The D.C. need to be available immediately in complies with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision order for the state to submit an (NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. remanding the PM implementation approvable attainment plan 2.5 2013)) that both subparts 1 and subpart rule, did not address the merits of that expeditiously. Similarly, the new source 4 apply to implementation, and reflects regulation or the EPA’s existing review requirement is not suspended the interpretation upheld by the Latino interpretation of the statutory provisions because section 172(c)(5) is not tied to Issues Forum Court. Latino Issues as they pertained to the EPA’s Clean Forum v. EPA, supra. Nos. 06–75831 Data Policy. 274 In the context of CDDs, the EPA distinguishes and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009) between attainment planning requirements of the The EPA has previously articulated its (memorandum opinion). Under this CAA, which relate to the attainment demonstration Clean Data Policy interpretation under proposed regulation, if the EPA for an area and related control measures for subpart 4 in implementing the PM10 determines, after notice-and-comment bringing an area into attainment for a given NAAQS standard. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May as expeditiously as practicable, and other types of rulemaking, that an area has attained the requirements, such as permitting requirements 19, 2010) (determination of attainment applicable PM2.5 NAAQS based on the under the NNSR program, and any specific control of the PM10 standard in Coso Junction, most recent 3 years of complete, quality- requirements independent of those strictly needed California); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, assured data meeting the requirements to ensure timely attainment of a given NAAQS. 2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 275 See December 14, 2004 memorandum from of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, the Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West area’s obligation to submit the following Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, Moderate or Serious area attainment- EPA Regions I–X, entitled ‘‘Clean Data Policy for 276 ‘‘The EPA’s Final Rule to implement the 8- related planning requirements is the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ Standard—Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).’’ See the suspended for so long as the area airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/pm25_clean_ Federal Register published on November 29, 2005 continues to attain the PM2.5 standard: data_policy_14dec2004.pdf. (70 FR 71612, 71645 and 71646). (i) the part D, subpart 4 and subpart 1

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15443

obligation to provide an attainment b. RFP and quantitative milestones. In the General Preamble, the EPA demonstration pursuant to section The EPA has long interpreted the noted with respect to section 189(c) that 189(a)(1)(B); (ii) the RACM and RACT provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the the purpose of the milestone provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C); (iii) CAA (sections 171 and 172) as not requirement is ‘‘to provide for emission the RFP and quantitative milestones requiring the submission of RFP for an reductions adequate to achieve the provisions of section 189(c); and, (iv) area already attaining the PM10 NAAQS. standards by the applicable attainment related attainment demonstration, For an area that is attaining, showing date (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d RACM and RACT, RFP and contingency that the state will make RFP towards Sess. 267 (1990)).’’ 57 FR 13498 (April measure provisions requirements of attainment ‘‘will, therefore, have no 16, 1992), at page 13539. If an area has subpart 1, section 172. meaning at that point.’’ 279 Section in fact attained the standard, the stated A final determination of attainment, 189(c)(1) states that: ‘‘Plan revisions purpose of the RFP requirement will also known as a clean data demonstrating attainment submitted to have already been fulfilled.280 Similarly, determination, would not constitute a the Administrator for approval under the requirements of section 189(c)(2) redesignation to attainment under CAA this subpart shall contain quantitative with respect to milestones no longer section 107(d)(3). The state would still milestones which are to be achieved apply so long as an area has attained the have to meet the statutory requirements every 3 years until the area is standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in for redesignation in order to be redesignated attainment and which relevant part that: Not later than 90 days redesignated to attainment. A demonstrate reasonable further progress, after the date on which a milestone determination of attainment for as defined in section [171(1)] of this applicable to the area occurs, each State purposes of the Clean Data Policy is also title, toward attainment by the in which all or part of such area is not linked to any particular attainment applicable date.’’ located shall submit to the deadline, and is not necessarily With respect to RFP, section 171(1) Administrator a demonstration . . . that equivalent to a determination that an states that, for purposes of part D, RFP the milestone has been met. area has attained the standard by its ‘‘means such annual incremental Where the area has attained the applicable attainment deadline, e.g., reductions in emissions of the relevant standard and there are no further under section 189(c). air pollutant as are required by this part milestones, there is no further or may reasonably be required by the requirement to make a submission 2. Planning Requirements Suspended Administrator for the purpose of showing that such milestones have been With a CDD ensuring attainment of the applicable met. This is consistent with the position a. Control measure requirements for NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ 42 that the EPA took with respect to the Moderate areas. Both sections 172(c)(1) U.S.C. 7501(1). Thus, whether dealing general RFP requirement of section with the general RFP requirement of 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble and in and 189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to 281 assure that reasonably available control section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), with respect to the requirements of implemented in a nonattainment area. or the specific RFP requirements for sections 182(b) and (c). In the Seitz memorandum, the EPA also noted that Reasonably available control technology PM10 areas of part D, subpart 4, section (i.e., RACT) is a subset of RACM. The 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is section 182(g), the milestone General Preamble states that the EPA to ensure attainment by the applicable requirement of subpart 2, which is interprets section 172(c)(1) so that attainment date. Although section analogous to provisions in section RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ 189(c) states that revisions shall contain 189(c), is suspended upon a of an area’s attainment milestones which are to be achieved determination that an area has attained. demonstration.277 Thus, for the same until the area is redesignated to The memorandum, citing additional reason the obligation to submit an attainment, such milestones are provisions related to attainment attainment demonstration is suspended, designed to show reasonable further 280 Thus, the EPA believes that it is a distinction the requirement for a state to submit progress ‘‘toward attainment by the without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of RACM is suspended if the applicable attainment date,’’ as defined the RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an nonattainment area reaches attainment. by section 171. Thus, it is clear that area is ‘‘redesignated attainment,’’ as opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to For PM2.5, the EPA has consistently once the area has attained the standard, which the requirement pertains, or the ozone interpreted this provision to require no further milestones are necessary or nonattainment area RFP requirements in sections only implementation of potential RACM meaningful. This interpretation is 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP that could contribute to RFP or to timely supported by language in section requirements as applying until the ‘‘attainment attainment (General Preamble, 57 FR 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state date,’’ since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the CAA. Reference 13498). Thus, where an area is already that fails to achieve a milestone must to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general attaining the standard, no additional submit a plan that assures that the state RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the RACM are required, but all measures will achieve the next milestone or attain ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) adopted into the SIP prior to attainment the NAAQS if there is no next and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements may 278 only be required ‘‘for the purpose of ensuring would remain. The EPA is milestone. Thus, section 189(c)(3) itself attainment of the applicable national ambient air interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) assumes that the requirement to submit quality standard by the applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C. consistent with its interpretation of and achieve milestones does not 7501(1). As discussed in the text of this proposed section 172(c)(1). continue after attainment of the rulemaking, the EPA interprets the subpart 4 RFP requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in NAAQS. section 171(1), and its incorporation into section 277 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13560. 189(c)(1), to no longer apply once the EPA makes 278 The EPA’s interpretation that the statute 279 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), at page 13564. a determination that the standard has been attained. requires implementation only of RACM that would See 71 FR 40952 (July 19, 2006) and 71 FR 63642 281 Memorandum from John S. Seitz, titled advance attainment was upheld by the Fifth Circuit (October 30, 2006) (proposed and final ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Court (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 determination of attainment for San Joaquin Demonstration, and Related Requirements for (5th Cir. 2002), and by the D.C. Circuit Court (Sierra Valley); 75 FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162–163 (D.C. Cir. 27944 (May 19, 2010) (proposed and final National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ (Seitz 2002)). determination of attainment for Coso Junction). Memo). May 10, 1995.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15444 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

demonstration and RFP requirements, attainment by the applicable attainment 3. Planning Requirements Not stated: date . . . .’’ Where the area has attained Suspended With a CDD Inasmuch as each of these requirements is the standard, such a demonstration no linked with the attainment demonstration or longer serves a purpose. This For Moderate nonattainment areas, RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or interpretation is consistent with the the planning elements that are not 182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the interpretation of the section 172(c) suspended with a clean data requirement to submit the underlying requirements provided by the EPA in determination are: Emissions attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it the General Preamble, the Page memo, inventories, nonattainment new source need not submit the related SIP submission review including 189(e) control either. (Seitz memo, page 4). and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz requirements for major stationary source c. Contingency measures. Other SIP memo.282 As the EPA stated in the precursors, and conformity. For Serious submission requirements are linked General Preamble, no other measures to nonattainment areas, the planning with these attainment demonstration provide for attainment would be needed elements not suspended with a clean and RFP requirements, and similar by areas seeking redesignation to data determination are: Emissions reasoning applies to them. These attainment since ‘‘attainment will have inventories, nonattainment NSR requirements include the contingency including section 189(e) control been reached’’ (57 FR at 13564). See also measure requirements of sections requirements for major stationary Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06– 172(c)(9). The EPA has interpreted the sources of PM precursors, the Most 75831 and 08–71238 (9th Cir.), 2.5 obligation to submit contingency Stringent Measures (MSM) requirements Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. measure requirements of sections (if the area has elected to seek an 172(c)(9) as suspended when an area e. Control measure requirements for extension of the attainment date under has attained the standard because those Serious areas. Under proposed Option 1 section 188(e)), and conformity. In ‘‘contingency measures are directed at for BACM and BACT determinations, addition, for a Serious PM2.5 ensuring RFP and attainment by the described in Section VI.D of this nonattainment area, if the EPA finalizes applicable date.’’ 57 FR at 13564; see preamble, BACM and BACT for sources proposed Option 1 for BACM and BACT also Seitz memo at pgs. 5–6. in the nonattainment area would be determinations, in which BACM and Section 172(c)(9) provides that: ‘‘SIPs determined independent of the BACT would be determined in nonattainment areas shall provide for attainment needs of the area, and thus independent of the attainment needs for the implementation of specific measures the requirement for BACM and BACT the area, then the requirement for to be undertaken if the area fails to make would not be considered an attainment implementation of BACM and BACT reasonable further progress, or to attain planning requirement. Therefore, under would not be considered an attainment the [NAAQS] by the attainment date such an approach, a determination of planning requirement and would thus applicable under this part. Such attainment (i.e., a clean data not be suspended with a clean data measures shall be included in the plan determination) would not suspend the determination for the area. revision as contingency measures to obligation to submit any applicable take effect in any such case without 4. Violations of the NAAQS After a CDD further action by the state or the EPA.’’ outstanding BACM and BACT The contingency measure requirement requirements. Under proposed Option 2 The suspension of the state’s is inextricably tied to the RFP and for BACM and BACT determinations, obligations to submit attainment plan attainment demonstration requirements. BACM and BACT would be identified elements such as provisions for RACM Contingency measures are implemented based on the specific attainment needs and RACT, RFP and quantitative if RFP targets are not achieved, or if of the area, thus tying the BACM and milestones, contingency measures, an attainment is not realized by the BACT requirement directly to attainment demonstration and other attainment date. Where an area has attainment planning for the area. related attainment planning already achieved attainment and Consistent with this second proposed requirements exists only for as long as continues to do so it has no need to rely approach for determining BACM and the area continues to monitor on contingency measures to come into BACT, issuance of a CDD would attainment of the relevant NAAQS prior attainment or to make further progress therefore also suspend BACM and to redesignation. If the EPA determines, to attainment. As the EPA stated in the BACT requirements. after notice-and-comment rulemaking General Preamble: ‘‘The section In addition, for a Serious area that but prior to redesignation, that the area has monitored a violation of the relevant 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency failed to attain the relevant PM2.5 measures are directed at ensuring RFP NAAQS by the applicable attainment NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of and attainment by the applicable date.’’ date and that is therefore subject to the the requirements no longer exists. In See 57 FR 13564. annual 5 percent emissions reduction that case, the area would again be d. Attainment demonstrations. With requirement under section 189(d), but is subject to the requirement to submit the respect to the attainment demonstration nevertheless now attaining the relevant pertinent attainment plan elements or requirements of section 172(c) and NAAQS, the EPA believes that the Clean SIP revisions and would need to address section 189(a)(1)(B), the EPA proposes Data Policy may apply to the obligations those requirements. Thus, a final to find that, as with the RFP determination that the area need not of the state to make an attainment plan requirements, if an area is already currently submit one of the required submission to meet the requirements of monitoring attainment of the standard, attainment plan elements amounts to no section 189(d). Once such an area is there is no need for an area to make a more than a suspension of the obligation attaining the relevant NAAQS, a clean further submission containing to make the submission for so long as data determination would suspend the additional measures to achieve the area continues to attain the section 189(d) submission requirement. attainment. The plain language of standard. Only if and when the EPA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the redesignates the area to attainment 282 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled attainment plan provide for ‘‘a ‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National under section 107(d)(3) would the area demonstration (including air quality Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ are equally be permanently relieved of these modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for pertinent to all NAAQS. December 14, 2004. attainment plan submission obligations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15445

Upon the EPA’s determination that an crustal matter are found closer to the 179B. In it, the EPA clarified that area is currently attaining the applicable sources of these emissions. ‘‘RACM/RACT must be implemented to PM2.5 standard, the EPA proposes that Section 179B of the CAA, entitled the extent necessary to demonstrate the obligations to submit attainment ‘‘International Border Areas,’’ applies to attainment by the applicable attainment planning provisions to meet the areas that could attain the relevant date if emissions emanating from requirements for an attainment plan for NAAQS by the statutory attainment date outside the U.S. were not included in 283 the PM2.5 NAAQS, including RFP plans, ‘‘but for’’ emissions emanating from the analysis.’’ The EPA further RACM and RACT, quantitative outside the U.S. Specifically, section encouraged states ‘‘to reduce emissions milestones, contingency measures and 179B(a) provides that the EPA shall beyond the minimum necessary to an attainment demonstration are approve an attainment plan for such an satisfy the ‘but for’ test in order to suspended for as long as the area area if: (i) the attainment plan meets all reduce the PM concentrations to which continues to monitor attainment of the other applicable requirements of the their populations are exposed’’.284 applicable PM2.5 standards. If in the CAA, and (ii) the submitting state can However, the EPA acknowledged that future, prior to redesignation of the satisfactorily demonstrate that ‘‘but for ‘‘if . . . States . . . were also required, nonattainment area to attainment, the emissions emanating from outside of the because of contributions to PM10 EPA determines after notice-and- United States,’’ the area would attain violations caused by foreign emissions, comment rulemaking that the area again and maintain the relevant NAAQS. In to shoulder more of a regulatory and violates the applicable PM2.5 standard, addition, section 179B(d) applies economic burden than States not then the basis for suspending the specifically to PM10 NAAQS (which similarly affected . . . such a obligation of the state to make one or would include the PM2.5 NAAQS) and requirement would unfairly penalize more of these submissions would no provides that if a state demonstrates that States containing international border longer exist and these attainment plan an area would have timely attained the areas and effectively undermine the elements would again be due. Since all NAAQS but for emissions emanating purpose of section 179B. Indeed, to the attainment planning requirements had from outside the U.S., then the area is extent an affected State can been suspended for this area and the not subject to the mandatory satisfactorily demonstrate that area attained by its attainment date, the reclassification element of section implementation of such measures CAA attainment plan contingency 188(b)(2) for Moderate areas that fails to clearly would not advance the measures would not apply at the time of attain the PM10 NAAQS by the attainment date, EPA and the state the NAAQS violation. In addition, applicable attainment date. could conclude they are unreasonable because the area did not have a Under section 179B, areas affected by and hence do not constitute RACM.’’ 285 maintenance plan, the CAA section emissions from outside the U.S. The EPA has considered this past 175A maintenance plan contingency continue to have attainment plan interpretation of RACM and RACT obligations. First, even if the area is measures would also not apply. When requirements in the context of section impacted by emissions from outside the an area violates after a CDD, and the 179B attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS U.S., that fact does not affect the statutory submission date has passed, and no longer views it as appropriate or designation of the area. An area that is CAA section 110(k)(5) applies, requiring consistent with the agency’s guidance violating the relevant NAAQS, even if that if the EPA finds that the applicable that encourages states ‘‘to reduce emissions from outside the U.S. implementation plan is substantially emissions beyond the minimum contribute to that violation, will be inadequate to attain or maintain the necessary to satisfy the ‘but for’ test in designated nonattainment. Section 179B NAAQS, the Administrator shall order to reduce the PM10 concentrations does not affect designation. Second, as establish a reasonable deadline (not to to which their populations are a result of that designation, the state is exposed.’’ 286 That is, given that the exceed 18 months) for a state to submit required to meet the applicable a SIP plan revision. primary purpose of an attainment plan attainment plan requirements for the is to achieve emission reductions so that D. Section 179B/International Border relevant NAAQS. Section 179B does not people living in a nonattainment area Areas negate the attainment plan receive the public health protection requirements, it only eliminates the intended by the NAAQS, adopting an The EPA recognizes that some states obligation for an attainment are affected not only by local and interpretation that would allow those demonstration that demonstrates people to continue to be subjected to regional sources of PM and PM 2.5 2.5 attainment and maintenance of the levels of PM above the NAAQS that precursors, but also international NAAQS, and elimination of that 2.5 sources that can contribute to an area’s the state could reasonably reduce—in obligation is conditioned upon the state this case not to attainment level, but to PM NAAQS nonattainment status. As 2.5 meeting all other attainment plan a level below the current level—would discussed in Section II of this preamble, requirements. be antithetical to the objectives of the direct PM2.5 and more importantly PM2.5 Under section 179B, states remain CAA. In addition, as with all other precursors can be transported long obligated to meet the attainment plan Moderate PM nonattainment areas, distances and can be found in the air requirements other than the requirement 2.5 the EPA interprets the provisions of thousands of miles from where the to demonstrate timely attainment. The section 172(c)(6) to require that such emissions occurred and the particles applicable requirements for an areas must implement all additional were formed. Nitrates and sulfates attainment plan for PM include those 2.5 reasonable measures that it can formed from NO and SO emissions are requirements that apply to a Moderate X 2 implement through the sixth calendar generally transported over wide areas area attainment plan, including an year following designation of the area, leading to substantial background emissions inventory, RACM and RACT in addition to those measures meeting contributions to NAAQS violations in measures, RFP and quantitative urban areas. Organic carbon, which has milestones, and contingency measures. 283 Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR both a primary and secondary The Addendum includes a discussion of 41998 (August 16, 1994), at page 42001. component, can also be transported, but the applicable attainment plan 284 Ibid. to a far lesser degree. In general, higher requirements in the context of 285 Ibid. concentrations of elemental carbon and developing a SIP subject to section 286 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the definition of RACM and RACT, in levels in the area. The EPA seeks with respect to requirements for RFP order to make progress toward comment on this proposed approach for and quantitative milestones and attainment after the end of the fourth Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas contingency measures for areas seeking year following designation. potentially subject to an attainment Moderate area attainment plan approval Therefore, the EPA is proposing and demonstration waiver under section under section 179B. The General seeking comment on two proposed 179B, and seeks comment on an Preamble states that: approaches that would give greater alternative proposed approach that In international border areas, EPA will not clarity to the agency’s existing would not allow such an exception require the contingency measures for PM10 to interpretation of control strategy based on the collective effectiveness of be implemented after the area fails to attain requirements for Moderate area otherwise ‘‘reasonable’’ measures. This if EPA determines that the area would have attainment plans to be approved under alternative proposed option parallels a attained the NAAQS, but for emissions section 179B. The first proposed similar option described in Section IV.D emanating from outside the U.S. However, interpretation would clarify that the in this preamble for Moderate PM2.5 the EPA will require contingency measures to control strategy for an area that could nonattainment areas that cannot be implemented if it determines that the area attain by the Moderate area attainment practicably attain the NAAQS by the failed to make RFP in achieving the required date, ‘‘but for’’ foreign emissions of latest statutory attainment date for the reductions in PM10 emissions from sources direct PM or its precursors, must within the U.S., or if the area does not, in 2.5 area. fact, obtain the emission reductions that were include all control measures identified The EPA also seeks comment on a necessary to demonstrate timely attainment by the state to be technologically and distinct, second proposed approach for of the NAAQS, but for emissions emanating economically feasible and interpreting what would constitute an from outside the U.S.287 implementable on sources in the area by acceptable control strategy for sources the end of the sixth calendar year in an area for which a state is seeking The EPA is proposing that this following designation of the area, thus an attainment plan approval under interpretation of section 179B(a)(1) with satisfying requirements for RACM and section 179B. Under this second option, respect to contingency measures and RACT and additional reasonable a state would need to demonstrate that RFP requirements should apply to measures, with a possible exception for its selected control measures for a Moderate nonattainment areas for the any such measures that collectively Moderate nonattainment area would PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA proposes that as part of any Moderate would not be effective in reducing achieve reductions in PM2.5 levels that area attainment plan submitted under ambient PM2.5 levels in the area. This exceeded the applicable NAAQS in interpretation would closely align the proportion to their contribution to section 179B, a state must include an RFP plan developed consistent with EPA’s interpretation of what constitutes overall PM2.5 levels. For example, if a reasonable control strategy for a monitors in a Moderate nonattainment proposed Option 2 for RFP analyses for Moderate area attainment plan area reveal that the area is exceeding the Moderate nonattainment areas that 3 cannot practicably attain the relevant submitted pursuant to section 179B 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 mg/m by 2 mg/ with the EPA’s proposed interpretation m3, for a total of 14 mg/m3, and the state NAAQS by the statutory attainment of what constitutes a reasonable control concludes that foreign sources are date, described in Section IV.F of this strategy for a Moderate area attainment contributing 3 mg/m3, then the state preamble. Furthermore, the state must plan submitted pursuant to section would be responsible for the remaining include as part of any attainment plan 189(a)(1) for an area that cannot 11 mg/m3 and would need to implement submission made for such an area practicably attain by the statutory enough reasonable control measures to contingency measures that can be Moderate area attainment date. achieve reductions in monitored implemented without significant effort More specifically, under the first ambient PM2.5 concentrations equal to in the event the EPA finds that such proposed approach for identifying (11/14)*2 mg/m3 or 1.6 mg/m3. The EPA area failed to meet RFP requirements. appropriate control measures on sources recognizes that this approach could The contingency measures should in a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area require a high level of precision to be achieve approximately 1 year’s worth of that could attain the NAAQS ‘‘but for’’ able to quantify accurately contributions emissions reductions as calculated by foreign emissions, the EPA is proposing from sources inside and outside the the state for purposes of the RFP that the state would be required to nonattainment area as well as projected analysis. In addition, the EPA proposes implement all technologically and emission reductions to be achieved with that the state must identify quantitative economically feasible measures that can the implementation of each potential milestones for the area to be achieved be implemented on sources in the area control measure for sources inside the 4.5 years and 7.5 years from the date of by the end of the sixth calendar year area. However, the agency believes that designation of the area. The EPA following designation of the area in such precision may be justified to proposes to apply the same proposed order to ensure that the area makes support any ‘‘but for’’ demonstration requirements for establishing and reasonable progress toward attaining the submitted to the EPA and to support reporting on quantitative milestones for standard even if such measures are not any claims that a state should only be Moderate nonattainment areas seeking expected to yield attainment by the required to implement a subset of attainment date waivers under section statutory Moderate area attainment date. otherwise ‘‘reasonable’’ control 179B as for all other Moderate However, because the EPA recognizes measures on sources of direct PM2.5 nonattainment areas, described fully in that it may not be reasonable to require emissions or emissions of PM2.5 Section IV.G of this preamble. The that a state implement those precursors located in the nonattainment agency seeks comment on these technologically and economically area. proposed requirements for Moderate feasible control measures that The EPA seeks comment on these two area plans submitted pursuant to section collectively will not effectively reduce approaches to clarify what constitutes a 179B. ambient PM2.5 concentrations, the reasonable control strategy in the The EPA has historically evaluated agency is proposing to allow the state context of a SIP submitted pursuant to section 179B ‘‘but for’’ demonstrations not to implement such measures if it section 179B. The EPA is also proposing on a case-by-case basis, based on the can demonstrate that collectively they regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS will not be effective in reducing PM2.5 consistent with the existing guidance 287 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15447

individual circumstances and data implementation of the Exceptional the type of sources being regulated. The provided by the submitting state. These Events Rule and specific stakeholder recordkeeping and monitoring demonstrations have included concerns regarding the analyses that can requirements would have to be information such as ambient air quality be used to support wildfire-related sufficient to enable the state or the EPA monitoring data, modeling scenarios, exceptional event demonstrations, the to determine whether the source is emissions inventory data and EPA intends to propose revisions to the complying with the emission limit on a meteorological or satellite data.288 The Exceptional Events Rule in a future continuous basis. An enforceable Moderate area attainment demonstration notice-and-comment rulemaking and regulation would also contain test modeling and other elements of the will solicit public comment at that time. procedures in order to determine attainment demonstration must show The EPA has approved PM2.5 wildfire whether sources are in compliance. timely attainment of the NAAQS but for influenced exceptional events The EPA continues to believe that the emissions from outside of the U.S. demonstrations in the past, which are complete and effective regulations that Section 179B does not, however, posted on the agency’s Exceptional ensure compliance with an applicable provide authority to exclude monitoring Events Rule Web site.290 emissions limit would have to include data influenced by international Depending on the nature and scope of requirements for both performance transport from regulatory international emissions events affecting testing of emissions and ongoing determinations related to attainment air quality in the U.S., the EPA may be monitoring of the compliance and nonattainment. Thus, even if the able to assist states in developing performance of control measures, and EPA approves a section 179B ‘‘but for’’ approvable exceptional events the agency proposes to require that SIP demonstration for an area, the area demonstrations. More generally, the regulations that establish emission would continue to be designated as EPA believes that the best approach for limits include the following: nonattainment and subject to the evaluating the potential impacts of (a) Indicator(s) of compliance—the applicable requirements, including international transport on pollutant or pollutants of interest (e.g., nonattainment new source review, nonattainment is for states to work with filterable and condensable PM2.5) and conformity and other measures the EPA on a case-by-case basis to the applicable units of measurement for prescribed for nonattainment areas by determine the most appropriate expressing compliance (e.g., ng/J of heat the CAA. Section 179B requires states to information and analytical methods for input, lb/hr); continue to meet attainment plan each area’s unique situation. The EPA (b) Test method—reference to a requirements, notwithstanding the will work with states that are specific EPA or other published set of contribution of emissions from sources developing attainment plans for which sample collection and analytical outside the U.S., in order to provide the section 179B is relevant, and ensure the procedures, equipment design and public health protection intended by the states have the benefit of the EPA’s performance criteria, and the NAAQS. However, if the EPA approves understanding of international transport calculations providing data in units of the indicator of compliance (Section a ‘‘but for’’ demonstration for a of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Moderate nonattainment area, the area IX.K of this preamble presents a would not be subject to reclassification E. Enforcement and Compliance discussion of specific test methods for for failure to attain by the applicable Section 172(c)(6) in subpart 1 of the condensable PM2.5 emissions); attainment date as explained earlier. CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to (c) Averaging time—the minimum Although monitor data cannot be ‘‘include enforceable emission length of each required test run and the excluded for a determination of whether limitations, and such other control requirement to average the results of the an area has attained based solely on the measures, means or techniques . . . as test runs (e.g., three runs) representing fact the data are affected by emissions well as schedules and timetables for a specified period of time (e.g., 8 hours); from outside the U.S., such data may be compliance, as may be necessary or and, excluded from consideration if they appropriate to provide for attainment.’’ (d) Frequency—the maximum time between emissions or performance tests were significantly influenced by In the remanded 2007 PM2.5 exceptional events under section Implementation Rule, the EPA (e.g., within 30 days of facility start-up 319(b)(3) of the CAA. Where described the general elements that and once each successive quarter, every international transport of emissions characterize an enforceable SIP 6-month period, or yearly). contributes to an exceedance or regulation, recognizing that enforceable In order to be complete with regard to violation and comes from natural SIP regulations may address the compliance monitoring provisions, the sources such as wildfires, and otherwise elements in different ways depending EPA proposes that regulations adopted meets the criteria contained in the on the type of source category being into the SIP must include the following EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule, it can be regulated. The agency continues to critical elements: (a) Indicator(s) of performance—the addressed by that rule.289 Specifically, if believe and hereby proposes that in parameter or parameters measured or the EPA concurs with an air agency’s general, in order for a SIP regulation to observed for demonstrating proper request to exclude affected data, the be enforceable, it must clearly spell out operation of the pollution control event-influenced data are officially which sources or source types are measure or compliance with the noted and removed from the data set subject to its requirements and what its applicable emissions limitation or used to calculate official design values. requirements (e.g., emission limits or standard. Indicators of performance Because of previously expressed work practices) are. An enforceable could include direct or predicted stakeholder feedback regarding regulation would also specify the emissions measurements, process or timeframes within which these 288 control device (and capture system) Ibid. The Addendum includes further requirements must be met, and operational parametric values that examples of information a state may present for the definitively state the recordkeeping and EPA to consider as part of the ‘‘but for’’ correspond to compliance with monitoring requirements appropriate to demonstration, including additional monitors in efficiency or emissions limits, and international border areas, more detailed emissions inventories, and speciation data that identifies 290 The EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule Web site recorded findings of verification of work PM2.5 components from foreign sources. is located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/ practice activities, raw material or fuel 289 See 40 CFR 50.14. exevents.htm. pollutant content, or design

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

characteristics. Indicators could be compliance office. Electronic record Many VOC are also hazardous air expressed as a single maximum or retention and submission have been pollutants (HAP), so a control strategy minimum value, a function of process widely adopted, and the EPA believes for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that variables (e.g., within a range of that such readily accessible reduces VOC emissions may provide the pressure drops), a particular operational documentation could be used by state, additional benefit of reducing air toxics. or work practice status (e.g., a damper federal and other analysts to spot trends It is also widely known that many position, completion of a waste recovery and non-compliance more easily than if sources of PM2.5 also emit toxic metals task), raw material or fuel pollutant these entities conducted reviews of as particulates, so controlling directly content, or an interdependency between paper documents. The EPA also emitted PM2.5 emissions from these two or more variables; recommends that compliance reports be sources would also reduce the (b) Measurement technique—the made available online so that the emissions of toxic metals. In addition, means used to gather and record general public can readily access the due to expected changes in meteorology information of or about the indicators of information without the need to submit resulting from climate change, the EPA performance. The components of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) encourages states to assess climate measurement technique include the requests to the EPA. The EPA is in the change and air pollution together and detector type or analytical method, process of revising federal rules to make account for the potential effects of location and installation specifications, similar requirements apply. climate change in their multi-pollutant inspection procedures, and quality The EPA continues to believe that planning efforts. assurance and quality control measures. approval of regulations adopted into In June 2007, the EPA’s CAA Examples of measurement approaches SIPs would have to ensure that these Advisory Committee (CAAAC) include continuous emissions critical elements are present and clearly recommended that the agency allow monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous defined to be approvable. In particular, states to integrate SIP requirements and opacity monitoring systems (COMS), the compliance obligations, including other air quality goals into a continuous parametric monitoring emissions limits and other applicable comprehensive plan.293 The systems (CPMS), performance testing, requirements, would need to be recommended plan would demonstrate vendor or laboratory analytical data, and representative of and accountable to the attainment/maintenance of multiple manual inspections and data collection assumptions used in a state’s attainment NAAQS, accomplish sector-based that include making records of process demonstration. This accountability reductions, realize risk reductions of conditions, raw materials or fuel would include the ability to transfer the HAPs and make improvements in specifications, or work practices. applicable regulatory requirements to a visibility. It could also be structured to Directly enforceable emission title V operating permit subject to the integrate programs addressing land use, measurements, such as PM CEMs, are EPA and public review.291 transportation, energy and climate. preferred wherever feasible. Where The EPA seeks comment on the The EPA has encouraged states to take COMS are feasible, it should be clear elements proposed to be required to a multi-pollutant approach to managing that opacity is a directly enforceable ensure that regulations adopted into a air quality.294 Specifically, the agency standard, not merely an indicator of SIP are enforceable. has encouraged states to involve all compliance; stakeholders when planning to meet air (c) Averaging time—the period over F. Efforts To Encourage a Multi- quality standards and to provide a basic which to average data to verify Pollutant Approach When Developing outline for how local jurisdiction(s) compliance with the emissions PM2.5 Attainment Plans could address air pollutants in an limitation or standard or proper 1. General Guidance integrated manner. operation of the pollution control While the agency encourages states to measure. Examples of averaging time From a planning and resource develop multi-pollutant plans, it include a 3-hour average in units of the perspective, the EPA believes that it can recognizes that the requirement for the emissions limitation, a 30-day rolling be efficient for states to develop agency to review and, as necessary, average emissions value, a daily average integrated control strategies that address revise NAAQS every 5 years, which can of a control device operational multiple pollutants rather than separate trigger new statutory attainment plan parametric range, periodic (e.g., strategies for each pollutant or NAAQS submission and attainment dates, as monthly, annual) average of raw individually. An integrated air quality well as the ever-evolving understanding materials or fuel pollutant content, and control strategy that reduces multiple of pollutants and many control an instantaneous alarm; pollutants can help ensure that programs that may be available to (d) Monitoring frequency—the reductions are efficiently achieved and reduce emissions, can sometimes make number of monitoring data values produce the greatest overall air quality such efforts challenging. For example, recorded over a specified time interval. benefits. For example, it is widely under the current law, the 2007 Examples of monitoring frequencies known that certain control measures submission date for Regional Haze SIPs include at least one data value every 15 that reduce emissions of NOX and VOC, has already passed while RACT SIPs for minutes for CEMS or CPMS, at least and thus reduce ambient PM2.5 levels, nonattainment areas classified as every 10 seconds for COMS, upon can also result in reduced ambient 292 Moderate or higher for the 2008 ozone receipt or application of raw materials concentrations of ground-level ozone. NAAQS were due more than 2 years or fuel to the process, or at least once before the due date for Moderate area per operating day (or week, month, etc.) 291 Under the title V regulations, sources have an for performance testing, work practice obligation to include in their title V permit applications, among other components, all www.epa.gov/air/pdfs/ verification, or equipment design emissions of pollutants for which the source is MenuOfControlMeasures.pdf. inspections; and, major, and all emissions of regulated air pollutants. 293 Recommendations to the Clean Air Act (e) Reporting and record retention See, e.g., 40 CFR 70.5(c)(3). The definition of Advisory Committee: Phase II, June 2007, http:// requirements—criteria for retaining regulated air pollutant in 40 CFR 70.2 includes any www2.epa.gov/caaac/caaac-reports. pollutant for which a NAAQS has been 294 monitoring and test data in an electronic Memorandum from Stephen D. Page to promulgated, including PM2.5. Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘Consideration of form and periodic electronic reporting 292 For a list of potential control measures for Multiple Pollutants in Control Strategy of information as needed to the PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, see http:// Development.’’ August 10, 2005.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15449

attainment plans for areas designated haze and, where appropriate, air toxics Because of these relationships, nonattainment for the 2012 annual and any potential negative impacts on models and data analysis intended to PM2.5 NAAQS. Although it is not ecosystems; address PM2.5 could be beneficial for use feasible to integrate fully these planning • Conduct an integrated assessment in addressing ozone and visibility requirements, states could potentially of the impact that controls have on impairment. When performing a multi- use common databases and modeling ambient levels of PM2.5, ozone, regional pollutant assessment, the modeling tools for all three SIP submissions for haze, and, where applicable, air toxics, should take into account previously these different requirements and rely on greenhouse gases, ecosystem protection implemented or planned measures to similar control measures as appropriate. and environmental justice to identify reduce PM2.5, ozone, and regional haze. Furthermore, as states develop plans to those controls with the greatest States that undertake multi-pollutant meet any current or future PM2.5 potential co-benefits; and, assessments as part of their attainment NAAQS, they may wish to modify • Use common data bases and demonstration should consider existing plans for implementing the analytical tools, where possible. assessing the impact of their PM2.5 ozone NAAQS or other NAAQS, or for The EPA is requesting comment on strategies on ozone and visibility regional haze, as they consider strategies what incentives or assistance the agency impairment to ensure that optimal more comprehensively. However, it is might be able to provide to encourage emission reduction strategies are important to note that states and the states to integrate their planning developed for the three programs to the EPA must continue to meet all the CAA activities. extent possible. This could facilitate mandated planning and program addressing all of these pollutants in a elements for individual NAAQS. The 3. Multi-Pollutant Assessments/One- more cost effective manner. EPA seeks comment on alternative Atmosphere Modeling States may also find it desirable to assess the impact of PM , ozone, and/ approaches to integrate the planning A multi-pollutant assessment, or one- 2.5 or regional haze control strategies on requirements for multiple NAAQS and atmosphere modeling, is conducted toxic air pollutants regulated under the other CAA programs that are with a single air quality model that is promulgated at different times. CAA or under state air toxic initiatives. capable of simulating transport and Given the relationships that exist formation of multiple pollutants 2. What is the EPA doing beyond between air toxics and the formation of encouraging states to integrate their air simultaneously.296 For example, this PM2.5 and ozone, states may find that quality planning activities to the extent type of model can simulate formation controls can be selected to meet goals feasible? and deposition involving pollutants for PM2.5 and/or ozone attainment as Ideally, an air quality management associated with PM2.5, ozone and well as those of specific air toxic plan (AQMP) is a set of pollution regional haze, and it can include programs. reduction strategies/planning activities algorithms simulating gas phase for an area demonstrating: attainment/ chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, G. Measures To Ensure Appropriate maintenance of one or more NAAQS; aerosol formation and acid deposition. Protections for Overburdened risk reductions from HAPs; This type of model could also include Populations improvements in visibility and the formation and deposition of key air 1. Review of PM NAAQS and At-Risk ecosystem health; and, integration of toxics and the chemical interactions that Populations occur with these individual toxic land use, transportation, energy and As discussed in Section II of this climate activities in the area. Three species to produce PM2.5 and ozone. Multi-pollutant assessments are preamble, when the EPA sets a primary areas in the country—North Carolina, NAAQS, the CAA directs the recommended for PM attainment New York and the City of St. Louis 2.5 Administrator to establish a standard demonstrations because the formation (involving both Missouri and Illinois)— that is ‘‘requisite’’ to protect public and transport of VOC and NO are participated in an EPA-led pilot effort to X health with ‘‘an adequate margin of closely related to the formation of both develop multi-pollutant AQMPs. The safety.’’ 297 ozone and regional haze. There is often In setting the NAAQS, the pilot projects provided lessons EPA considers available, relevant regarding AQMP development that a positive correlation between measured secondary particulate matter and ozone. scientific information on the health should prove useful to other areas effects that may occur in the general interested in better integrating their air Many of the same factors affecting PM2.5 concentrations also affect ozone quality planning. The areas’ initial 297 The requirement that primary standards AQMPs and other materials are concentrations because similarities exist provide an adequate margin of safety was intended available on the EPA’s Web site.295 in sources of precursors for both to address uncertainties associated with Implementation of the 2012 PM2.5 pollutants. For example, emissions of inconclusive scientific and technical information available at the time of standard setting. It was also NAAQS provides an opportunity for NOX may lead to formation of nitrates, intended to provide a reasonable degree of states to consider how to use a multi- which affect both ambient PM2.5 and protection against hazards that research has not yet pollutant approach from the beginning ozone levels and impair visibility. Many identified. Both kinds of uncertainties are of their planning process. The EPA VOC (such as toluene) are air toxics and components of the risk associated with pollution at recommends that states and tribes may also be sources of precursors for concentrations below those at which human health effects can be said to occur with reasonable wishing to take a comprehensive both organic particles and ozone. In scientific certainty. Thus, in selecting primary approach consider the following addition, the presence of ozone itself standards that provide an adequate margin of safety, activities: may be an important factor affecting the EPA Administrator is seeking not only to • Develop models for the attainment secondary particle formation. prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be harmful but also to prevent demonstration that include previously lower pollutant levels that may pose an implemented or planned measures to 296 Depending on the context, ‘‘multi-pollutant’’ unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not reduce PM2.5 precursors and secondary can be defined in different ways. In this context the precisely identified as to nature or degree. The CAA fine particles, ozone precursors, agency is defining multi-pollutant modeling as does not require the Administrator to establish a simultaneous modeling of PM2.5, ozone, key air primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level or at pollutants that contribute to regional toxics, and regional haze. Future multi-pollutant background concentration levels, but rather at a models may include the ability to model a broader level that reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect 295 See http://www.epa.gov/air/aqmp/. array of air toxics as well as greenhouse gases. public health with an adequate margin of safety.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

population, as well as specific groups emergency department visits, and the EPA expects that attainment for the within the general population that are at development of chronic respiratory 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and future PM2.5 increased risk for experiencing adverse disease.300 NAAQS in nonattainment areas with the pollutant-related health effects (i.e., at- In addition, the Policy Assessment most severe pollution problems may risk populations).298 These groups could (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2–60) observed that need to give greater emphasis to exhibit a greater risk of pollutant-related the highest concentrations of PM2.5 in an reducing direct PM2.5 emissions in health effects than the general area tend to be measured at monitors combination with efforts already population for a number of reasons located in areas where the surrounding underway to further reduce precursor including being adversely affected at populations are more likely to live emissions. Placing greater emphasis on lower pollutant concentrations, below the poverty line and to have reducing emissions from sources of experiencing a larger health impact at a higher percentages of minorities. The direct PM2.5 (e.g., certain industrial given pollutant concentration, and/or EPA directed states to relocate a limited facilities located in more densely being exposed to higher pollutant number of existing monitors to near- populated areas; areas with high motor concentrations than the general roadway sites in large urban areas. Both vehicle and other diesel engine population. Thus, the NAAQS review of these revisions were informed by emissions, such as rail yards and near process inherently takes into scientific evidence that underscored the major roadways; and, areas with high consideration certain environmental potentially disproportionate exposure to wood smoke emissions) could provide justice factors as part of the standard- high PM2.5 concentrations and therefore the added benefit of reducing exposure setting process. In setting a secondary disproportionate risk to low-income and to PM2.5 in low-income and minority standard, the CAA directs the minority populations. communities. With this in mind, the EPA is seeking Administrator to establish a standard 2. Relationship Between Direct PM 2.5 comment on additional ways that air that ‘‘is requisite to protect the public Emissions and PM Precursor 2.5 agencies can provide public health welfare from any known or anticipated Emissions Reductions and At-Risk protection specifically for overburdened adverse effects.’’ Populations Section 109(d) of the CAA requires populations when preparing attainment the EPA to periodically review (every 5 Sources of direct PM emissions have plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The years) the science upon which the their greatest impact on PM2.5 discussion that follows provides some standards are based and the standards concentrations and public health in the examples of points in the attainment themselves. As discussed elsewhere in general vicinity of the source (e.g., plan development process at which a this proposal, in its 2012 review of the within 10 miles), while sources of state could assess opportunities for PM NAAQS, the EPA revised the precursor emissions can contribute to providing such additional protections, PM2.5 concentrations more than 100 primary annual PM2.5 standard by and examples of what those additional lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms miles away and are considered to have protections might look like. 3 a more regional impact. To date, state per cubic meter (mg/m ) so as to provide 3. Options for States To Consider To PM2.5 attainment plans have generally increased protection against health Ensure Appropriate Protections From effects associated with long- and short- relied to a greater extent on reductions PM2.5 Exposure for Overburdened 299 of precursor pollutants rather than on term PM2.5 exposures. The agency Populations also revised the form of the primary reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions. Studies show, however, that on a per The EPA believes that states have annual PM2.5 standard to eliminate the spatial averaging provisions to avoid ton basis, the reduction of a ton of direct sufficient flexibility and discretion potential disproportionate impacts on PM2.5 emissions leads to greater health under the CAA in implementing their benefits than the reduction of a ton of attainment strategies to focus resources at-risk populations. In conjunction with 301 these revisions, the EPA retained the SO2 or NOX. on controlling those sources of The process for developing attainment primary 24-hour PM standard, as emissions that directly and adversely 2.5 plans for the current and future PM revised in 2006 (71 FR 61144, October 2.5 affect low-income and other at risk NAAQS presents a potential 17, 2006), to provide supplemental populations. By reducing impacts on at- opportunity to target the health protection against health effects risk populations, states can maximize protections afforded by the NAAQS, as health benefits, thereby creating greater associated with short-term PM 2.5 net benefits for the state in a cost- exposures, especially in areas with high 300 In the final 2012 p.m. NAAQS rule, based on effective manner.302 In addition, peak PM concentrations. This suite of 2.5 information presented in the Integrated Science reducing adverse impacts to low-income primary annual PM standards Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009, 2.5 and minority populations advances the provides increased public health sections 2.2.1 and 8.1.7), the EPA made a finding that persons with lower socioeconomic status are at environmental justice goal of fair protection, including the health of at- increased risk for experiencing adverse health treatment for these populations. risk populations which include effects related to PM exposures (78 FR 3085, There are a number of actions that children, older adults, persons with pre- January 15, 2013, at page 3104). Persons with lower states could take to focus resources in existing health and lung disease, and socioeconomic status (SES) have been generally found to have a higher prevalence of pre-existing this way. Some of these actions can help persons of lower socioeconomic status, diseases, limited access to medical treatment, and identify areas where additional ambient against a broad range of PM2.5-related increased nutritional deficiencies, which can monitoring may be needed in low effects that include premature mortality, increase this population’s risk to PM-related effects income and overburdened communities. increased hospital admissions and (77 FR 38911, June 29, 2012). 301 See Fann, N., Fulcher, C., and B. Hubbell, 2009. The Influence of location, source, and 302 Wesson, K., Fann, N., Morris, M, Fox, T., 298 The legislative history of section 109 of the emission type in estimates of the human health Hubbell, T., 2010. A multipollutant, risk-based CAA indicates that a primary standard is to be set benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air approach to air quality management. Case study for at the ‘‘maximum permissible ambient air level . . . Quality, Atmosphere & Health. Volume 2, Number Detroit. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 1, 296– which will protect the health of any [sensitive] 3, 169–176, June 2009. See also Fann et. al., 2011. 304. The study compared air quality control group of the population’’ and that for this purpose Maximizing health benefits and minimizing strategies and concluded that the multi-pollutant, ‘‘reference should be made to a representative inequality: incorporating local-scale data in the risk-based approach was able to produce sample of persons comprising the sensitive group design and evaluation of air quality policies. approximately two times greater monetized benefits rather than to a single person in such a group.’’ Society for Risk Analysis, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 908–922, through avoided health impacts and was more cost 299 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). June 2011. effective than a pollutant-by-pollutant approach.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15451

Such information can be used to (SEPs) 303 that could be applied in the 110(a)(1), 172(a)(2), 182 187, and 191. support updates to the state’s annual target area; and, See 40 CFR 49.4(a). In addition, the EPA monitoring plan. Examples of actions to • Prioritize targeted enforcement determined it was not appropriate to support updates to the annual strategies. treat tribes similarly to states with monitoring plan include: In addition to the above, states could respect to provisions of the CAA • Develop databases and online increase opportunities for meaningful requiring as a condition of program mapping tools that enable users involvement of community groups in approval the demonstration of criminal (including state staff, public, and the attainment plan development, annual enforcement authority or providing for regulated community) to understand monitoring network plan reviews, and the delegation of such criminal permitting processes 304 for at-risk and enforcement authority. See 40 CFR where sources of direct PM2.5 emissions are located and where new or modified minority populations by taking the 49.4(g). To the extent a tribe is following steps: precluded from asserting criminal sources of emissions could have • potential impacts on low income and Develop advisory boards and/or enforcement authority, the federal other overburdened communities; develop enhanced notice-and-comment government will exercise primary • requirements for low income and criminal enforcement responsibility. See Incorporate existing mapping tools minority communities to assure 40 CFR 49.8. In such circumstances, which identify target areas in the meaningful involvement relative to tribes seeking approval for CAA attainment plan development process projects that impact their communities; programs provide potential investigative and related actions; and, • Provide special notice of important leads to an appropriate federal • Analyze emissions data, ambient actions affecting target areas in enforcement agency. data, and available modeling to identify appropriate languages and with If a tribe elects to do a TIP, the agency potential unmonitored PM2.5 hotspots in attention to cultural barriers; will work with the tribe to develop an areas with a high percentage of low • Provide advance notification for appropriate schedule which meets the income, minority or indigenous persons low income and minority communities needs of the tribe, and which does not (see Section IV.E of this preamble for of upcoming opportunities for public interfere with the attainment of the further discussion of this option). comment on SIPs, ambient air NAAQS in other jurisdictions. The tribe Once target areas for addressing these monitoring plans, and other relevant developing a TIP can work with the EPA sensitive population needs within a actions; Regional Office on the appropriateness nonattainment area have been • Maintain multi-lingual Web sites of addressing RFP and other substantive identified, the state could consider and offer translators for public meetings SIP requirements that may or may not taking any of the following actions and hearings; be appropriate for the tribe’s situation. which help target emissions reductions • Coordinate with the state’s EJ The CAA and the TAR provide tribes that may be needed to attain the PM2.5 coordinator to assist with outreach opportunities and flexibility for the tribe NAAQS: efforts; and, in the preparation of a TIP to address • Provide states with appropriate the NAAQS. If a tribe elects to develop • Prioritize the selection of control federal EJ guidance tools. a TIP, the TAR offers flexibility for the measures that target reductions of direct The EPA is seeking comment on these tribe to identify and implement on a PM , particularly from sources located 2.5 examples and whether and how the EPA case-by-case basis only those CAA in ‘‘at-risk’’ areas as part of the state’s might provide recommendations to programs or reasonably severable RACM and RACT analysis (for Moderate states preparing attainment plans for the program elements needed to address nonattainment areas) or BACM and 2012 and any future PM NAAQS on their specific air quality problems. In BACT analysis (for Serious 2.5 additional ways to ensure equal the TAR, the EPA described this flexible nonattainment areas), as well as other protections for overburdened implementation approach as a modular measures needed to demonstrate populations. approach. Each tribe may evaluate the attainment (see Sections IV.D and VI.D, particular activities, including potential respectively, of this preamble for further H. Tribal Issues sources of air pollution within the discussion of this option); The 1998 Tribal Air Rule (TAR) (40 exterior boundaries of its reservation (or • Improve the understanding of the CFR part 49), which implements section within non-reservation areas for which potential impact of minor sources by 301(d) of the CAA, gives tribes the it has demonstrated jurisdiction), which improving or generating an emissions option of developing TIPs. Specifically, cause or contribute to its air pollution inventory for such minor sources, the TAR provides for the tribes to be problem. A tribe may adopt measures including sources that are not currently treated in the same manner as a state in for controlling those sources of PM2.5- required to report emissions, to generate implementing certain sections of the related emissions, as long as the options on how emissions can be CAA. However, tribes are not required elements of the TIP are reasonably reduced in the target area; to develop implementation plans. The severable from the package of elements • Design voluntary programs to EPA determined in the TAR that it was that can be included in a whole TIP. A reduce VMT and mobile source-related inappropriate to treat tribes in a manner TIP must include regulations designed PM2.5 emissions (e.g., diesel retrofits); similar to a state with regard to specific to solve specific air quality problems for • Incorporate environmental justice plan submittal and implementation which the tribe is seeking the EPA’s criteria into the alternatives analysis to deadlines for NAAQS-related approval, as well as a demonstration ensure appropriate siting and require requirements, including, but not limited that the tribal air agency has the cumulative impact studies for proposed to, such deadlines in CAA sections authority from the tribal government to projects; develop and run their program, the • 303 For more information on SEPs, go to capability to enforce their rules, and the Eliminate exemptions from and/or www2.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental- resources to implement the program raise thresholds for minor source environmental-projects-sep. they adopt. In addition, the tribe must 304 permitting; See 78 FR 27220 (May 9, 2013) notice of receive an eligibility determination from • availability, ‘‘EPA Activities To Promote Develop a list of potential Environmental Justice in the Permit Application the EPA to be treated in the same supplemental environmental projects Process.’’ manner as a state for the particular

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

matter at issue and to receive reservation. Likewise, if the agency achieve cleaner air sooner, and help to authorization from the EPA to run a determines that sources in an area under ensure continued health protection. CAA program. tribal jurisdiction could interfere with a Second, early steps could help an area The EPA would review and approve, larger nonattainment area meeting the avoid a nonattainment designation in where appropriate, these partial TIPs as NAAQS by its attainment date, it would the first place, or for an area eventually one step of an overall air quality plan to develop a FIP for those sources in designated as nonattainment, early attain the NAAQS. A tribe may step in consultation with the tribe, as necessary reductions could help bring the area later to add other elements to the plan, or appropriate. back into attainment sooner, which may or the EPA may step in to fill gaps in States have an obligation to notify lead to qualifying for a CDD and the air quality plan as necessary or other states in advance of any public subsequent suspension of attainment appropriate. In approving a TIP, the hearing(s) on their state plans if such planning requirements as described in agency would evaluate whether the plan plans will significantly impact such Section IX.C of this preamble. In appropriately coordinates with the other states. 40 CFR 51.102(d)(5). Under addition, early action to improve air overall air quality plan for an area when section 301(d) of the CAA and the TAR, quality can help an eventual tribal lands are part of a multi- tribes may become eligible to be treated nonattainment area, particularly an area jurisdictional area. in a manner similar to states (TAS) for that has never been designated Because many PM2.5 nonattainment this purpose. Affected tribes with this nonattainment before, to establish areas will include multiple status must also be informed of the working relationships between key jurisdictions, and in some cases both contents of such state plans and given stakeholders. The EPA’s expectation is Indian country and state lands, it is access to the documentation supporting that early actions to reduce emissions in particularly important for the tribes and these plans. In addition to this such areas would be less resource- the states to work together to coordinate mandated process, the EPA encourages intensive than actions taken once a their planning efforts. States need to states to extend the same notice to all nonattainment designation has been incorporate Indian country emissions in affected tribes, regardless of their TAS made, since at that point the their base emissions inventories if status. implementation of controls would need Indian country is part of an attainment Executive Orders and the EPA’s to occur in conjunction with actions to or nonattainment area.305 Tribes and Indian policies generally call for the comply with other requirements such as states should coordinate their planning EPA to coordinate and consult with nonattainment NSR and transportation activities as appropriate to ensure that tribes on matters that affect tribes. conformity. neither is adversely affecting attainment Executive Order 13175, titled, In January 2013, the EPA began a new of the NAAQS in the area as a whole. ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with early emissions reduction program for Coordinated planning in these areas will Indian Tribal Governments’’ requires attainment areas called ‘‘PM Advance,’’ help ensure that the planning decisions the EPA to develop a process to ensure which is much like the related ‘‘Ozone made by the states and tribes ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal Advance’’ program that began in April complement each other and that the officials in the development of 2012. Additional information about the nonattainment area makes reasonable regulatory policies that have Tribal PM Advance program for the annual progress toward attainment and implications.’’ In addition, the EPA’s and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is provided ultimately attains the applicable PM2.5 policies include the agency’s 1984 in a separate guidance document that is NAAQS. In reviewing and approving Indian Policy relating to Indian tribes available at http://www.epa.gov/ individual TIPs and SIPs, the EPA will and implementation of federal ozonepmadvance. determine if together they are consistent environmental programs, the April 10, 2. Residential Wood Smoke Programs with the overall air quality needs of an 2009, Office of Air Quality Planning and The EPA recognizes that residential area. Standards guidance ‘‘Consulting with wood smoke is a concern for many To date, very few tribes have Indian Tribal Governments,’’ and the nonattainment areas. The EPA estimates submitted for the EPA’s approval TIPs ‘‘EPA Policy on Consultation and covering areas over which they have that wood stoves, hydronic heaters and Coordination With Indian Tribes.’’ fireplaces emit more than 345,000 tons jurisdiction. In the absence of a TIP, the Consistent with these policies, the EPA EPA is authorized under the TAR to of PM2.5 into the air throughout the intends to meet with tribes on activities country each year—mostly during the implement CAA programs in such areas potentially affecting the attainment and as necessary or appropriate. For winter months. Residential wood smoke maintenance of the current and future can increase fine particle pollution to example, an unhealthy air quality PM NAAQS in Indian country, situation on an Indian reservation may 2.5 levels that cause significant health including agency actions on SIPs. As concerns (e.g., asthma attacks, heart require the EPA to develop a FIP to such, it would be helpful for states to reduce emissions from sources on the attacks, premature death). Wood smoke work with tribes with land that is part causes many counties throughout the of the same air quality area during the 305 On January 17, 2014, the United States Court U.S. to either exceed the national of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit SIP development process and to health-based standards for fine particles, issued a decision vacating the EPA’s 2011 rule coordinate with tribes as they develop or places them on the cusp of exceeding entitled ‘‘Review of New Sources and Modifications their SIPs. in Indian Country’’ (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011) with the standards. Because wood stoves, respect to non-reservation areas of Indian country I. Voluntary Programs for Reducing hydronic heaters and other similar (See, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Ambient PM2.5 appliances can be used around the clock Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). in residential areas, they can cause Under the court’s reasoning, with respect to CAA 1. PM Advance Program state implementation plans, a state has primary significant and varying health and regulatory jurisdiction in non-reservation areas of The EPA believes there are significant quality of life issues. Indian country (i.e., Indian allotments located advantages for states, tribes and local To reduce fine particle pollution, outside of reservations and dependent Indian agencies to take steps to reduce direct many PM2.5 nonattainment areas will communities) within its geographic boundaries unless the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a PM2.5 emissions and emissions of PM2.5 need to address residential wood smoke. tribe has jurisdiction over a particular area of non- precursors as early as possible. First and The EPA has developed the ‘‘Strategies reservation Indian country within the state. foremost, early reductions help to for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15453

document that provides education and monitoring (CAM) program, the title V the source emissions monitoring data outreach tools, information on air operating permits program, and the collection process easier and more regulatory approaches to reduce wood acid deposition control program, as well transparent. The EPA therefore seeks smoke, as well as information about as specific SIP control measures.308 appropriate examples and supporting voluntary programs that communities Accurate stationary source emissions data from individual sources and air around the country have used.306 In monitoring is critical for purposes of agencies with experience in this area to addition, it includes methods for developing accurate emissions inform such future guidance. The EPA calculating emissions reductions, inventories and in order to identify also seeks comment on the specific funding ideas and the basic components appropriate control measures to reduce topics and questions that follow, which of a wood smoke reduction plan that emissions from stationary sources. In the agency may address in future can be adopted into a SIP as an addition, after control measures are in guidance related to improved source enforceable control measure.307 To place, stationary source emissions monitoring. Specifically: access the document, go to http:// monitoring provides process and control (1) Based on your experience, in epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf. device performance information to the which cases do you believe improved For more information on the EPA’s facility operator so that appropriate monitoring techniques are more wood smoke reduction program, visit corrective action can be taken if appropriate than visual emissions (VE) http://www.epa.gov/burnwise. emission levels exceed applicable techniques for monitoring compliance thresholds. Thus, appropriate stationary with PM2.5 (or PM, in general) emissions J. Improved Stationary Source source emissions monitoring Emissions Monitoring limits? Please identify monitoring requirements, like the control measures techniques that you would recommend 1. Background with which they are associated, are a in lieu of VE, and describe the instances For purposes of demonstrating fundamental element of an approvable in which VE remains appropriate. compliance with the EPA’s air quality attainment plan. (2) Based on your experience, are bag By way of example, in a limited study regulatory requirements, the EPA, air leak detection systems, PM continuous on improving stationary source agencies, and sources rely on two basic parameter monitoring systems (CPMS), emissions monitoring, the EPA found types of monitoring: ambient air quality or PM continuous emissions monitoring that revising the measurement monitoring and stationary source systems (CEMS) reliable, cost-effective technique at a stationary source could emissions monitoring. Ambient air methods for monitoring compliance provide information to the facility quality monitoring, as discussed in with PM emissions? Please provide operator to take corrective action that Section II of this preamble, entails additional information on reliability and could potentially reduce emissions up collecting and measuring samples of cost to support your position. to 15 percent, and that increasing criteria pollutants in ambient air to monitoring frequency at the facility (3) Will increasing the frequency of evaluate air quality as compared to could provide information that could be VE observations resolve the issue of clean air standards and historical used to inform corrective actions that applicability of VE techniques for information. Stationary source could yield potential stationary source monitoring compliance with PM2.5 emissions monitoring, on the other emissions reductions of up to 13 emissions? In other words, are there hand, entails collecting and using percent.309 310 Implementation of situations in which increased VE measurement data (or other information) stationary source emissions monitoring frequency (i.e., daily versus weekly) from individual stationary sources to improvements could thus lead to would be expected to have no impact on demonstrate compliance with emissions actions to achieve additional emissions compliance with PM2.5 emission limits? standards, to assess process or control reductions not only at individual If so, please provide relevant data and device performance, or to verify work explanation of such situations. practices. While ambient air quality sources but also in the nonattainment areas where these sources are located. (4) Should the EPA consider monitoring is used to assess compliance mandating through rulemaking the use with the NAAQS, stationary source 2. Guidance To Help Improve Stationary of alternatives to VE techniques for emissions monitoring is used to assess Source Emissions Monitoring monitoring compliance with PM2.5 and compliance with source-specific Because of the important role that PM emissions limits in certain regulations under programs like the effective stationary source emissions situations and applications? If so, in New Source Performance Standards monitoring can play in informing the what cases? (NSPS), the National Emissions development of attainment strategies for (5) Should the EPA’s effort with Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas, the regard to the use of improved (NESHAP), the compliance assurance EPA is interested in applied best monitoring techniques in lieu of VE practices for stationary source emissions monitoring be focused on applicable 306 On February 3, 2015, the EPA strengthened the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for monitoring that could be included in requirements established/relied upon new residential wood heaters and established NSPS guidance for other stationary sources for compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS, for other new wood heaters, including outdoor and and air agencies. The EPA seeks to or should the agency more broadly indoor wood-fired boilers (also known as hydronic gather information about ways to make address other applicable requirements heaters). The standards will reduce emissions of where VE techniques are commonly direct PM2.5 as well as carbon monoxide, VOC, air toxics (including formaldehyde, benzene and 308 Regulations governing the implementation of used (e.g., to estimate TSP and PM10 polycyclic organic matter), and black carbon. See these programs are located at 40 CFR parts 60, 61, emissions)? http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters/new- 63, 64, 70, 71 and 75. 309 (6) Should the EPA consider source-performance-standards-new-residential- Impact of Improved Monitoring on PM2.5 wood-heaters-new. Emissions, memorandum from L. Barr and K. mandating through rulemaking the use 307 For further guidance on incorporating Schaffner, RTI International, to B. Parker, U.S. of alternatives to continuous opacity voluntary measures into a SIP, see ‘‘Incorporating Environmental Protection Agency. December 2003. monitoring systems (COMS) for 310 Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State As discussed in Section IX.E of this preamble, monitoring compliance with PM2.5 and Implementation Plan (SIP).’’ U.S. EPA. Office of Air emissions monitoring has four essential and Radiation. September 2004. Available at components: (i) indicator(s) of performance; (ii) PM emissions limits in certain http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/evm_ measurement technique(s); (iii) monitoring situations and applications? If so, in ievm_g.pdf. frequency; and, (iv) averaging time. what cases?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(7) In its study published in 2003, the Thus, many states may have stationary measures for direct PM2.5 from sources EPA identified stationary source source emission limits adopted into in a nonattainment area, the state must emission reduction techniques that air their existing SIPs based only on specify PM2.5 emission limits in its SIP agencies should consider when filterable PM2.5 emissions or based on that include both filterable and developing their potential list of control outdated methods for measuring or condensable emissions. In addition, measures for a PM2.5 NAAQS estimating condensable PM2.5 compliance testing of those sources nonattainment area.311 Specifically, the emissions. must include measurement of EPA identified improved measurement The following discussion focuses on condensable emissions (such as through techniques and increased monitoring current test methods for quantifying the use of Method 202). Under this frequency as practices that could better condensable PM2.5 emissions and the proposal, any new or revised emission inform sources and air agencies of EPA’s proposed requirements for states limit used as a control measure to bring excess emissions from individual developing control strategies for PM2.5 an area into attainment for any current sources which, if responded to more nonattainment areas. or future PM2.5 NAAQS must use quickly, could yield significant 2. Test Methods for Condensable PM methods that measure PM2.5 or total PM reductions and assist in bringing the From Stationary Sources including both filterable and area into attainment for the NAAQS. condensable particulate matter. Existing Please comment on whether these Since January 1, 2011, the EPA has emission limitations that are not being techniques remain appropriate, given required that states take into revised as part of a Moderate area or that they were based on the best consideration condensable PM2.5 Serious area attainment plan can remain technical information available at the emissions when establishing emission as filterable PM or whatever test method time. Are there ways to improve the limits for stationary sources as part of is used by the state for compliance methodologies described in the study? any control strategy for PM2.5 NAAQS determination. In these cases, the 312 (8) Please submit any examples of nonattainment areas. This date acceptability of existing stationary coincided with the effective date of the improved stationary source emissions source test methods for PM2.5 attainment monitoring, including a description of agency’s revisions to test methods for plans will depend upon what is the measure, monitoring data, etc. measuring filterable PM10 emissions required under the state’s current test (9) Please submit any other from stationary sources (Method 201A) methods for PM emissions. The EPA methodologies—complete with and for measuring condensable PM believes that this proposed requirement equations and explanations—for emissions from stationary sources is appropriate because the addition of (Method 202).313 The revisions estimating emissions reductions due to the condensable portion of PM2.5 to increased the precision of Method 202 improved monitoring. filterable PM2.5 may increase direct and improved the consistency in the The EPA will continue to explore and PM2.5 emissions by a factor of five or implement innovative, cost-effective measurements obtained between source more, and the use of test methods that ideas that offer tangible incentives for tests performed under different only measure filterable emissions improved source monitoring to be regulatory authorities. potentially limit the control measures In the preamble to the 2007 PM adopted as part of the associated 2.5 available for developing cost effective emissions limitations that will help Implementation Rule, the EPA strategies to achieve attainment of the explained that the use of the (then achieve additional reductions from PM2.5 NAAQS. stationary sources and bring areas into anticipated) revisions to the EPA The EPA seeks comment on this Method 201A combined with Method attainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS in a proposed requirement for states to 202 to obtain measured source specific timely way. quantify condensable PM2.5 emissions in emissions of PM2.5 would improve the their attainment plans for PM K. Stationary Source Test Methods for 2.5 quality of emissions inventories for nonattainment areas. Emissions of Condensable PM2.5 stationary sources and would aid in the X. What is the EPA proposing with 1. Background development of a more reliable attainment strategy, as sources that may respect to revoking the 1997 primary As discussed in Section II of this have a considerable amount of annual PM2.5 NAAQS? preamble, direct PM2.5 comprises of two condensable PM2.5 emissions could be A. Background components: Filterable PM2.5 and better characterized with the new condensable PM2.5 emissions. Accurate methods. The EPA continues to believe If the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 test methods for quantifying filterable that using these improved test methods NAAQS were to remain in place after PM emissions have been available for conformity requirements begin to apply can help identify sources of direct PM2.5 air agencies and states to apply since the emissions which, if better controlled, for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 early 1970s. In addition, controls have NAAQS (1 year after the effective date can help to bring a PM2.5 nonattainment improved over the past 40 years and area into attainment. Likewise, use of of designations), a number of federal most sources now achieve substantially these test methods may help a state agencies, metropolitan planning lower emissions than required by state identify sources whose condensable organizations (MPOs) and other state, and federal emissions limits. With the emissions may have been incorrectly local, and federal transportation and air filterable portion of PM2.5 emissions estimated and therefore may not provide quality agencies in areas that are being relatively well controlled, the currently designated nonattainment or meaningful PM2.5 control opportunities. condensable portion of PM2.5 emissions maintenance for the 1997 annual PM2.5 now represents a larger share of overall 3. Proposed SIP Requirements for Test NAAQS and will be designated PM2.5 emissions for several categories of Methods For Condensable PM2.5 nonattainment for the 2012 primary stationary sources. However, accurate Emissions annual NAAQS would be required to test methods for condensable PM2.5 The EPA proposes to require that, implement conformity requirements for emissions have only been recently where a state needs to adopt control both annual PM2.5 NAAQS developed and approved by the EPA. concurrently. Additionally, some areas 312 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). would also be implementing conformity 311 Ibid. 313 75 FR 80118 (December 21, 2010). requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15455

NAAQS, and two areas remain subject 172(e), which addresses relaxations of a standards. In proposing anti-backsliding to conformity requirements for the 1997 NAAQS, requires protections for areas requirements that would apply as 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This could lead that have not attained a NAAQS prior to appropriate to the options that are being to unnecessary complexity for a relaxation by requiring controls which considered, the EPA seeks to apply the transportation conformity are at least as stringent as the controls principles of section 172(e).318 determinations, especially if an area’s applicable in nonattainment areas prior B. History of Revocation of Other boundaries for the various PM2.5 to any such relaxation. Section 110(l) NAAQS differ from one another and the provides that a SIP revision cannot be NAAQS same test of conformity cannot be used approved if it will interfere with The EPA has either adopted or has for all of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Even where attainment or other CAA requirements. proposed to adopt transition policies for an area’s boundaries are unchanged, Under section 175A(d), an area that is other NAAQS, including the policies for different analysis years under the redesignated to attainment may, with an the transitions from: conformity rules may be required for appropriate showing of no interference, • The 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the each PM2.5 NAAQS. It could also lead to cease to implement a measure that is 1997 ozone NAAQS; general conformity determinations being contained in the SIP at the time of • The 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 made in areas that are attainment for the redesignation, but only if that measure ozone NAAQS; 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. is retained as a contingency measure in • The prior lead NAAQS to the 2008 Finally, state and local air quality the area’s maintenance plan.315 316 lead NAAQS; and, The transition from the 1997 to the agencies would be required to continue • The prior sulfur dioxide (SO2) 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS is a attainment planning activities for the NAAQS to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS straightforward tightening of the level It is important to note that for all even if they had air quality data that with little change in the form of the previous NAAQS transitions, the EPA resulted in their being designated standard, so it is unambiguous that the has used revocation to reduce the attainment for the 2012 primary annual 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS is burden associated with implementing a PM2.5 NAAQS. more stringent than the 1997 primary NAAQS that has been replaced with a The EPA believes that it is more annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In the final 2012 more stringent NAAQS. important and consistent with CAA PM NAAQS rule the EPA eliminated the In its Phase 1 Rule for the transition requirements to determine conformity provisions that allowed for an area to from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the

for the new 2012 primary annual PM2.5 use spatial averaging of monitoring data 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA stated that NAAQS, which is more stringent and to determine whether or not it is the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be thus more protective of health than the attaining the 1997, 2012 and any future revoked (i.e., no longer apply) 1 year 1997 PM NAAQS. This section annual PM NAAQS.317 Eliminating 2.5 2.5 after the effective date of initial area therefore describes the EPA’s proposed spatial averaging provides additional designations for the 1997 ozone approaches for transitioning from the protection for populations that may be NAAQS. The EPA also included anti- 1997 primary annual PM NAAQS to at a greater risk to exposures of elevated 2.5 backsliding requirements in the Phase 1 the 2012 primary annual PM NAAQS. levels of PM . In these circumstances 2.5 2.5 Rule to address the transition between This section discusses a number of where the annual PM NAAQS has 2.5 the two standards. options for revoking the 1997 primary clearly been strengthened, section The Phase 1 Rule for implementation annual PM2.5 NAAQS and addresses 172(e) on its face does not apply. The anti-backsliding requirements that EPA’s interpretation that anti- of the 1997 ozone NAAQS was the would apply, as appropriate, under each backsliding provisions consistent with subject of legal challenges, and the of the revocation options. The EPA is the purposes of section 172(e) by resulting court decision in South Coast not proposing to revoke the 1997 analogy should apply as upheld by the upheld the EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as long as secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this court in South Coast as appropriate in action because that NAAQS has been the absence of statutory provisions adequate anti-backsliding measures 319 retained in order to prevent certain addressing tightened air quality were retained to prevent backsliding. 314 The decision directed the EPA to welfare effects associated with PM2.5. The proposed options are framed in 315 Nonattainment areas that were redesignated to provide additional 1-hour ozone the context of the CAA requirements attainment with an approved section 175A NAAQS anti-backsliding requirements that apply to NAAQS transitions to maintenance plan are referred to throughout this for NNSR, section 185 fees, and section document as ‘‘maintenance areas.’’ 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency ensure that states and nonattainment 316 Unimplemented requirements in the SIP or areas continue to make progress and do those shown to be unnecessary for maintenance can measures for failure to attain the 1-hour not reverse progress, or backslide, from be shifted to the contingency measures portion of ozone NAAQS by the applicable improvements already made in air the SIP upon redesignation. See ‘‘Procedures for attainment date or to make reasonable Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to further progress toward attainment of quality. The CAA contains several Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, provisions indicating congressional Director, Air Quality Management Division, that standard, in addition to the anti- intent not to allow a state to alter or September 4, 1992; ‘‘State Implementation Plan backsliding measures contained in the remove provisions from an approved (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests Phase 1 rule.320 for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and attainment plan if the revision would Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air reduce air quality protection. Section Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 318 South Coast Air Quality Management District 193 of the CAA prohibits modification 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). of a control requirement in effect or Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 319 South Coast Air Quality Management District Radiation, September 17, 1993. As discussed v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). required to be adopted as of November elsewhere in this document, an exception is made 320 For a more complete discussion of the 15, 1990 (the date of enactment of the for NNSR, which can be removed from the SIP requirements for the transition from the 1-hour 1990 CAA Amendments), unless such a completely and need not be retained as a ozone NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, see the modification would ensure equivalent contingency measure after redesignation to Federal Register dated April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951, attainment. 23969, 23970, 23971, 23972, 23973, 23974, 23975, or greater emissions reductions. Section 317 See the Federal Register published on January 23976, 23977, 23978, 23979, 23980, 23981, 23982, 15, 2013 (78 FR 3085, 3124, 3125, 3126, 3137 and 23983, 23984, 23985, 23986, 23987, 23988 and 314 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 3229). 23989).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

As part of its final SIP requirements revocation for that purpose.326 It should (and the classifications associated with rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the be noted, however, that the revocation those designations) for that standard EPA included requirements for the of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for would no longer be in effect, and the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS transportation conformity purposes was designations that would remain in effect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.321 In the subject of litigation in the D.C. would be those for the 1997 secondary 327 developing that rulemaking, the EPA Circuit Court. The court issued its annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 primary decision on December 23, 2014, and built upon its experience in and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS held that the EPA lacked authority to implementing the Phase 1 rule for the and the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 transition from the 1-hour ozone revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS only for NAAQS. However, the EPA would transportation conformity purposes NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and retain the listing of the designated because for areas that remain designated the decision in the South Coast nonattainment areas for the revoked as nonattainment or maintenance for the litigation. The EPA revoked the 1997 1997 ozone NAAQS, CAA section 176(c) 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in ozone NAAQS on the effective date of requires transportation conformity 40 CFR part 81, for the sole purpose of the final SIP requirements rule and determinations in nonattainment and identifying the anti-backsliding finalized anti-backsliding requirements maintenance areas. requirements that may apply to the consistent with the implementation of Following promulgation of the 2008 areas at the time of revocation. the court decision for the previous lead NAAQS and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the Accordingly, such references to ozone transition that would apply in EPA revoked the prior lead and SO2 historical designations for the revoked areas designated nonattainment for the NAAQS for all purposes in areas that standard should not be viewed as 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of had attained the prior NAAQS and had current designations under CAA section revocation.322 been redesignated to attainment, as well 107(d). It should be noted that as part of the as in areas that had initially been For any proposed option that allows designated as attainment for those transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS for revocation in nonattainment areas NAAQS. The EPA retained the prior to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA for the 1997 primary annual PM NAAQS in areas that had not yet 2.5 revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for attained those NAAQS until those areas NAAQS, the EPA is also proposing anti- transportation conformity purposes only had an approved attainment plan for the backsliding provisions to ensure that in in a separate action related to revised NAAQS. Because the EPA these areas: (i) There is protection classifications for the 2008 ozone revoked the prior lead and SO2 NAAQS against degradation of air quality (e.g., NAAQS that was finalized prior to the in areas that had been redesignated to the areas do not backslide in terms of air time that the full implementation rule attainment for those NAAQS, the EPA quality improvements); (ii) the areas had been proposed.323 The EPA took primarily relied on the CAA’s anti- continue to make progress toward this action because the D.C. Circuit backsliding provisions found in sections attainment of the new, more stringent Court in litigation on the transportation 110(l) and 193 in order to provide anti- 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS; conformity rule and in its decision in backsliding protection.328 and, (iii) there is consistency with the the South Coast litigation affirmed that In developing the options for revoking PM2.5 NAAQS implementation the use of motor vehicle emissions the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS framework outlined in subpart 4 of part budgets that have been approved or contained in this proposal, the EPA has D, title I of the CAA. At the current time, found adequate for use in transportation drawn from these prior anti-backsliding there are 14 areas that continue to be conformity determinations for the prior approaches. designated as nonattainment for the NAAQS must be used in transportation C. Proposed Options for Revocation and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; however all conformity determinations for the new Related Anti-Backsliding Requirements but 2 of these areas have 2011–2013 air NAAQS until a state submits motor for the 1997 Primary Annual PM2.5 quality data showing that they are vehicle emissions budgets for the new NAAQS attaining that NAAQS. Therefore, the NAAQS and those budgets are either The EPA is proposing and seeking EPA expects many of these current found adequate or are approved.324 325 comment on two options for revoking nonattainment areas will be eligible to These cases seemed to indicate that the the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS seek redesignation to attainment prior to use of these existing budgets until new and is seeking comment on whether to any revocation. The EPA is proposing budgets are available is the appropriate revoke the NAAQS at the current time. and seeking comment on the following anti-backsliding measure with respect to Under either of the options to revoke the two options: transportation conformity to support 1997 NAAQS, revocation would take • Option 1: Revoke the 1997 primary effect no sooner than 1 year after the annual PM2.5 NAAQS for all purposes in 321 See the published proposal at 78 FR 34178 effective date of designations for the attainment areas for that NAAQS 1 year (June 6, 2013) and the final SIP requirements rule 2012 primary annual PM NAAQS. 2.5 after the effective date of the for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at http://www.epa.gov/ One of these options would provide for groundlevelozone/implement.html. designations for the 2012 primary 322 revocation at a later date for some areas. Ibid. annual PM2.5 NAAQS; or, 323 After revocation of the 1997 primary 77 FR 30160 (May 21, 2012). • 324 See South Coast Air Quality Management annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the designations Option 2: Revoke the 1997 primary District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). annual PM2.5 NAAQS for all purposes in 325 40 CFR 93.101 defines ‘‘motor vehicle 326 In addition, the Court affirmed that conformity all nonattainment and attainment areas emissions budget’’ as ‘‘that portion of the total determinations need not be made for a revoked for that NAAQS 1 year after the effective allowable emissions defined in the submitted or standard. approved control strategy implementation plan 327 NRDC v. EPA, No. 12–1321 (D.C. Cir.) date of the designations for the 2012 revision or maintenance plan for a certain date for (challenging EPA actions taken at 77 FR 30160 (May primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress 21, 2012)). milestones or demonstrating attainment or 328 For details on the requirements for the lead More details on the proposed options maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria NAAQS and the SO2 NAAQS, respectively, see 73 and associated rationale are included pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway FR 66964 (November 12, 2008), at page 67043; and below. and transit vehicle use and emissions.’’ 75 FR 35519 (June 22, 2010), at page 35580.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15457

1. Option 1: Revoke the 1997 Primary plan for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas that exist for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for All Purposes NAAQS under section 110(a)(1). 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Attainment Areas for That NAAQS 1 The EPA also notes that areas upon the effective date of the proposed Year After the Effective Date of the designated nonattainment for the 2012 revocation: Designations for the 2012 Primary primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be • For areas designated attainment for Annual PM2.5 NAAQS required to comply with applicable the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS conformity requirements beginning 1 and nonattainment for the 1997 primary The EPA’s first proposed option year after the effective date of annual PM NAAQS, the EPA’s would revoke the 1997 primary annual 2.5 designations for that NAAQS. For preferred proposed option is not to PM NAAQS for all purposes in areas 2.5 transportation conformity purposes require these areas to adopt any that are designated as attainment for these requirements would include using outstanding applicable requirements for that NAAQS 1 year after the effective adequate or approved motor vehicle the revoked 1997 primary annual PM date of designations for the 2012 2.5 emissions budgets for the 1997 annual standard. However, the EPA proposes primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as well PM2.5 NAAQS where they exist until the that the approved PSD SIPs for these as in future areas that are redesignated area has approved or adequate budgets areas satisfy the obligation to submit an as attainment areas after the initial for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 approvable maintenance plan for the revocation. The areas addressed by this 329 NAAQS. The use of such budgets 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS option are those that were originally serves as the appropriate anti- under section 110(a)(1). designated as attainment areas for the backsliding measure for transportation • For these same areas (i.e., those 1997 primary PM2.5 NAAQS and those conformity purposes. designated attainment for the 2012 that were originally designated as In general, Option 1 builds upon the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and nonattainment but have since or will in EPA’s practice in the transition from the nonattainment for the 1997 primary the future be redesignated to attainment 1-hour to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in annual PM2.5 NAAQS), the EPA is also for that NAAQS. Under this option, the that areas will not only be able to be proposing an alternative anti- EPA would not revoke the 1997 primary redesignated to attainment up to the backsliding option where these areas annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any area that is date of the initial revocation, but any would be required to show maintenance designated nonattainment for that remaining nonattainment areas will be for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. able to be redesignated after the initial NAAQS. This maintenance showing Areas that are designated revocations occur 1 year after the would be due 3 years after the effective nonattainment for the 1997 annual effective date of designations.330 This date of designations for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the time of the initial approach is also consistent with the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The revocation would be required to approach established for the transition maintenance showing would contain a continue to meet all applicable from the prior lead and SO2 NAAQS to demonstration of continued requirements for such NAAQS, and the current lead and SO2 NAAQS. maintenance of the 2012 primary annual could continue to seek redesignation to PM NAAQS in the area for 10 years 2. Option 2: Revoke the 1997 Primary 2.5 attainment for the 1997 primary annual from the effective date of the area’s Annual PM NAAQS for All Purposes PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, even if the 2.5 designation as attainment for the 2012 in All Nonattainment and Attainment revocation were to become effective in primary annual PM NAAQS. The EPA Areas for That NAAQS 1 Year After the 2.5 April 2016, redesignations could would take further action to specify the continue to be approved after that date. Effective Date of Designations for the elements of such a maintenance For such areas, the effective date of the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS showing should the agency require it in revocation would be the effective date of Under this second proposed option, the final rule. For areas designated the area’s redesignation to attainment the EPA would revoke the 1997 primary nonattainment for the 2012 primary for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. annual PM2.5 NAAQS for all purposes in annual PM2.5 NAAQS and also The EPA notes that under proposed all nonattainment and attainment areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 Option 1 it is unnecessary to propose 1 year after the effective date of annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is anti-backsliding requirements for the designations for the 2012 primary proposing that these areas continue to 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirements implement their approved SIPs for the since Option 1 would only revoke this for revoking the 1997 primary annual 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and fulfill NAAQS in attainment areas. Anti- NAAQS in attainment areas for that any outstanding requirements, and that backsliding requirements are not NAAQS are discussed under proposed they comply with the applicable applicable to attainment areas (i.e., for Option 1. However, revoking the 1997 requirements for the current 2012 former nonattainment areas that have primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For been redesignated to attainment the EPA nonattainment areas for that NAAQS example, at some time in the future has already determined through the would require anti-backsliding there may be an area that is reclassified redesignation process and approval of measures. Therefore, the EPA is as Serious for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plans that all applicable proposing the following anti-backsliding while also classified as Moderate for the requirements for the 1997 primary measures for any designated 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In such an area, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS—including anti- lower Serious area major source backsliding requirements—have been 329 Areas that do not have adequate or approved threshold of 70 tpy (PTE) would apply. fulfilled and areas that have always motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 In addition to these proposed been designated attainment for this annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 requirements, if a state seeks to revise NAAQS would use one of the two interim NAAQS). emissions tests required by 40 CFR 93.109(c)(3) and any measure already approved into its For areas that were initially 40 CFR 93.119(b). SIP for a nonattainment area for the 330 designated as attainment for both the Although section 51.905(a) specified that the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the state anti-backsliding requirements ‘‘attached’’ at the 1997 and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS the must meet the requirements of sections time of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing that the approved PSD areas were still able to redesignate to attainment for 110(l) and 193, if applicable. SIPs for these areas satisfy the obligation the 1-hour ozone NAAQS up to the date of The EPA notes that Option 2 for 2012 to submit an approvable maintenance revocation of that standard. attainment/1997 nonattainment would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

be similar to the approach to revocation associated with two primary annual motor vehicle emissions budgets for the of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS consistent PM2.5 NAAQS. These agencies would be 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS are with court decisions and the approach required to continue attainment found adequate or are approved. Once a to revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS planning activities for the 1997 primary NAAQS is revoked in a nonattainment in the final 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP annual PM2.5 NAAQS even if they had area, the EPA would not designate or requirements rule.331 The EPA also air quality data that resulted in their redesignate areas for that NAAQS after notes that areas designated being designated attainment for the the revocation of that NAAQS except as nonattainment for the 2012 primary 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. described in Option 1. The extent of annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be required State, local and federal agencies would continued implementation of a revoked to comply with applicable conformity be required to continue to make standard derives from administration of requirements beginning 1 year after the transportation and general conformity anti-backsliding requirements for that effective date of designations for that determinations for the less protective standard. NAAQS. For transportation conformity 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under Option 1, the 1997 primary purposes these requirements would annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be revoked D. Discussion of Options include using adequate or approved only in areas that have attained the 1997 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Until the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and have been 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS where they NAAQS is revoked, that NAAQS redesignated to attainment with an exist until the area has approved or remains in effect, in parallel with the approved section 175A maintenance adequate budgets for the 2012 primary 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and plan for the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 332 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The use of continues to apply independently and NAAQS; under Option 2, many of the such budgets serves as the appropriate by its own terms. The EPA believes that areas where the 1997 primary annual anti-backsliding measure for all of the proposed options to revoke the NAAQS would be revoked would have transportation conformity purposes. 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS are been redesignated to attainment with an Further details regarding this option and consistent with the CAA and previous approved maintenance plan. The EPA associated rationale are in Section X.D precedent in transitioning from a also anticipates that states will continue of this preamble. previous NAAQS to a new, more to request that areas be redesignated to Lastly, the EPA requests comment on stringent NAAQS, and would ensure attainment and the EPA will continue to the possible approach of not revoking that attainment areas continue to attain act on those requests under Option 2. As the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS the revoked NAAQS into the future. If a result the EPA anticipates that a at this time. Under this concept, the the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS number of such requests will be EPA would not revoke the 1997 primary is revoked, the EPA is proposing that approved prior to the point in time that annual PM2.5 NAAQS for any purpose at the anti-backsliding requirements for the EPA has proposed for the this time. As a result, all nonattainment the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, revocations to become effective (i.e., 1 and maintenance areas would be as proposed in this rulemaking, will year after the effective date of required to continue planning activities become applicable. However, the EPA designations for the 2012 primary associated with the 1997 annual PM2.5 notes that most of the areas that were annual PM2.5 NAAQS). Therefore, the NAAQS such as submitting attainment initially designated as nonattainment for number of nonattainment areas for the SIPs and maintenance plans, NNSR, and the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS will transportation and general conformity where the NAAQS would be revoked continue to decrease and fewer areas requirements for the 1997 primary have already been redesignated to will be required to comply with anti- annual PM2.5 NAAQS, in addition to attainment (i.e., they are maintenance backsliding requirements, and a any new requirements associated with areas) or could qualify for redesignation correspondingly larger number of areas the more health-protective 2012 primary based on current air quality data, and in will be required to continue to annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under this such cases their approved maintenance implement their approved section 175A approach the EPA would not have to plan for the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 1997 primary 334 establish any anti-backsliding would prevent backsliding. Under annual PM2.5 NAAQS. requirements. Option 2 there would be a limited It should also be noted that, for either The EPA again notes that if this number of nonattainment areas where proposed option, after the effective date approach were finalized it would be the the 1997 primary annual NAAQS would of any revocation of the 1997 primary first time that the EPA has not taken be revoked and where anti-backsliding annual PM2.5 NAAQS, transportation some action to reduce the burden measures would be required. Under all and general conformity determinations associated with implementing a NAAQS of the proposed options, conformity would continue to be required in areas that has been replaced with a more would apply in areas that are designated that are designated nonattainment for stringent NAAQS.333 If the EPA were to nonattainment for the more health the 1997 secondary annual PM2.5 finalize this approach, it would result in protective 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such areas are state and local agencies being required NAAQS. In the case of transportation redesignated to attainment pursuant to to implement the requirements conformity, adequate or approved motor the requirements of section 107(d)(3). vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 Areas that are initially designated as 331 See the final SIP requirements rule for the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be nonattainment for the 2012 primary 2008 ozone NAAQS at http://www.epa.gov/ used in conformity determinations until annual NAAQS are subject to groundlevelozone/implement. transportation and general conformity 332 Areas that do not have adequate or approved 334 Based on 2011–13 air quality data, many of the requirements after the end of the grace motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 areas that were initially designated nonattainment period that ends 1 year after the annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 for the 1997 annual PM NAAQS will have already 2.5 effective date of designations for the NAAQS would use one of the two interim met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and will have emissions tests required by 40 CFR 93.109(c)(3) and been redesignated to attainment by the time it is 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 93.119(b). revoked (projected to be in or around April 2016), further information for how conformity 333 As discussed in Section IX.B of this preamble, and thus after revocation of the 1997 primary will be implemented for the 2012 PM2.5 the EPA has taken action to revoke previous ozone, annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the number of areas with SO2 and lead NAAQS when the previous NAAQS 1997 anti-backsliding requirements will be NAAQS in Section IX.B of this has been revised. correspondingly reduced. preamble. Under Options 1 and 2 the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15459

timing that the EPA is proposing means For Option 2, the EPA is applying a would outweigh any compensating that any area that was previously a 1997 general principle to apply transition benefit for an area that is already annual PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment requirements depending on how the attaining that more stringent NAAQS area, but has been redesignated to area is designated—attainment or and that is subject to prior attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 nonattainment—for the 2012 primary nonattainment requirements which are NAAQS by the time of revocation of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, while taking into already incorporated into the SIP. 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS account the area’s status with respect to Under Option 2, the EPA is also (e.g., April 2016 for most areas), will not the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. proposing, for areas that are attainment For those areas which have already be subject to the anti-backsliding for the 2012 primary annual PM incorporated measures into their 2.5 requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, that the NNSR anti-backsliding approved SIPs that satisfy the NAAQS. This is because when an area requirement(s) for the 1997 annual nonattainment requirements for that has been redesignated to attainment for PM NAAQS cease to apply, since PSD standard, section 110(l) functions to 2.5 a PM2.5 NAAQS while that NAAQS is in will then be in effect. The state may effect, it has fulfilled all applicable require continued implementation of such measures unless revised in request that the corresponding NSR requirements for that NAAQS, including requirements be removed entirely, applicable anti-backsliding accordance with its provisions. rather than be retained in the SIP as a requirements for the 1997 annual PM Under Option 2, the EPA is proposing 2.5 maintenance plan contingency NAAQS. The area is, therefore, not as one alternative that areas designated measure.338 Areas that are designated subject to anti-backsliding requirements attainment for the 2012 primary annual nonattainment for the more stringent for the revoked 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and nonattainment for 2012 primary annual PM NAAQS will PM NAAQS. These areas are required the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (as of 2.5 2.5 be subject to NNSR and other instead to implement their approved revocation of the 1997 primary annual nonattainment requirements for their CAA section 175A maintenance plan for PM2.5 NAAQS) not be required to adopt classification under the more stringent the 1997 primary annual PM NAAQS any outstanding applicable 2.5 2012 primary annual PM NAAQS. and implement a PSD program for this requirements for the revoked 1997 2.5 NAAQS, if they are designated primary annual standard. This approach The revocation of the 1-hour ozone attainment for the 2012 primary annual is similar to the approach followed in NAAQS and the associated anti- 335 336 the transition from the 1-hour ozone PM2.5 NAAQS. Revisions to the backsliding provisions were the subject approved maintenance plan can only be NAAQS to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. of past litigation. In its December 2006 made if the revisions meet the However, instead of submitting a decision on that challenge, as modified requirements of section 110(l) and, if maintenance plan the EPA is also following rehearing, the Court held with applicable, section 193. The EPA proposing that the approved PSD SIPs respect to the anti-backsliding approach proposes that these areas not be for these areas satisfy the obligation to for conformity that 1-hour ozone motor required to submit a second 10-year submit an approvable maintenance plan vehicle emissions budgets must be used maintenance plan for the 1997 primary for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 in transportation conformity NAAQS under section 110(a)(1). This is annual PM2.5 NAAQS because there is determinations for the more protective no justification for additional similar to what the EPA finalized for the 1997 ozone NAAQS where such SIP maintenance plan burdens to be transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS motor vehicle emissions budgets have 337 imposed on these areas solely because at to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The been found adequate or approved, until one time they were designated EPA’s rationale for this approach is as SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets for nonattainment under the revoked 1997 follows: Areas designated attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are available.339 the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Not In addition, the Court affirmed more requiring a second 10-year maintenance and nonattainment for the 1997 primary broadly that in order for transportation plan for these areas would help to annual PM2.5 NAAQS (as of revocation conformity determinations to fulfill the minimize the burden associated with of the 1997 primary annual PM2.5 requirements of CAA section 176(c)(1), preparing SIPs for a succession of NAAQS) have already attained the most motor vehicle emissions budgets for a NAAQS of increasing stringency. stringent existing standard. These areas prior NAAQS must be used in As explained previously, for areas thus have developed nonattainment transportation conformity redesignated to attainment under plans that in combination with federal determinations under a revised NAAQS Options 1 and 2, the section 175A measures and emissions controls in until emissions budgets for the revised upwind areas have produced sufficient maintenance plan for the 1997 primary NAAQS are either found adequate or are emissions reductions to achieve the annual PM2.5 NAAQS satisfies the anti- approved, but that conformity more protective 2012 primary annual backsliding requirements of these areas. determinations need not be made for a PM NAAQS. They remain subject to The EPA believes that for these areas 2.5 revoked standard. Therefore, areas the 1997 nonattainment area any further 110(a)(1) maintenance plan designated nonattainment for the 2012 requirements already approved into the requirement under the 2012 primary primary annual PM NAAQS that have SIP, which can be revised only upon a 2.5 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for areas adequate or approved SIP budgets for showing that such revision is consistent designated attainment for that NAAQS the 1997 annual PM NAAQS must with sections 110(l) and 193, if 2.5 would be unnecessarily burdensome. continue to use such budgets in applicable. At this time, and given the transportation conformity 335 succession of NAAQS of increasing Areas initially designated as attainment for the determinations until budgets for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS would also be required stringency that has occurred, the EPA to continue to implement a PSD program unless an believes that the burden of developing area was designated nonattainment for the 2012 an approvable maintenance plan for the 338 See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3), the comparable primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Such an area would provision for transitions from the 1-hour NAAQS to be required to implement a NNSR program for that 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which allows such areas NAAQS. to request that the 1-hour NNSR provisions be 336 Areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 337 See the the final SIP requirements rule for the removed from the SIP. 339 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS would implement a 2008 ozone NAAQS at http://www.epa.gov/ See South Coast Air Quality Management NNSR program for that NAAQS. groundlevelozone/implement.html. District v. EPA, 472 F.3d at 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS are conformity for the more stringent 2012 Rulemaking and Permitting Training for 340 found adequate or are approved. primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EJ Communities.’’ These proposed With regard to general conformity, the Areas designated nonattainment for regulations are designed to protect and D.C. Circuit Court did not address the the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS enhance the health and safety of these need for specific anti-backsliding will likely need the full 1-year grace and other populations, and they will not measures in its initial decision or in the period provided in section 176(c)(6) to adversely affect the health or safety of modified decision on the South Coast complete the required initial minority, low-income or indigenous litigation. Therefore, if the EPA finalizes transportation conformity populations. either Option 1 or 2 and revokes the determination. Those areas that were designated as either nonattainment or XII. Statutory and Executive Order 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Reviews general conformity determinations will maintenance for the 1997 annual PM2.5 be required in nonattainment areas for NAAQS at the time of designation as A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory the 2012 primary annual NAAQS as nonattainment for the 2012 primary Planning and Review and Executive required by section 176(c)(5) to ensure annual PM2.5 NAAQS will need Order 13563: Improving Regulation and that the action of federal agencies do not certainty as to the specific requirements Regulatory Review for that conformity determination. For cause a violation of that NAAQS, make This action is a significant regulatory example they need to know what an existing violation worse or delay action that was submitted to the Office analysis years must be addressed and, if timely attainment of the NAAQS or an of Management and Budget (OMB) for the boundaries for the PM NAAQS are interim milestone.341 The EPA believes 2.5 different, they need to know whether to review because it raises novel policy that revoking the 1997 primary annual address conformity for both areas and issues. Any changes made in response PM2.5 NAAQS under Option 1 or 2 is to OMB recommendations have been which test or tests would apply. 342 logical because it would result in only The EPA seeks comment on the documented in the docket. one primary annual PM NAAQS—the 2.5 options proposed in the preceding B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS— discussion regarding revoking the 1997 The information collection activities applying for purposes of transportation primary annual PM standard, as well 2.5 in this proposed rule have been and general conformity in most areas, as on whether the agency should take no submitted for approval to the Office of after the end of the 1-year conformity action to revoke the standard as this Management and Budget (OMB) under grace period that applies to newly time. designated nonattainment areas. (CAA the PRA. The Information Collection section 176(c)(6)). XI. Environmental Justice Request (ICR) document prepared by the Areas that are attaining the more Considerations EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR health protective 2012 primary annual The EPA believes the human health or number 2258.03, OMB Control No. 2060–0611. You can find a copy of the PM2.5 NAAQS would no longer have to environmental risk addressed by this expend resources to make conformity action will not have disproportionately ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is determinations for any of the current high and adverse human health or briefly summarized here. The EPA is proposing this PM2.5 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS after the environmental effects on minority, low- NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule to 1997 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS is income, or indigenous populations revoked and the area is redesignated as because it would not negatively affect describe the CAA requirements that attainment for the 1997 secondary the level of protection provided to must be met by states with nonattainment areas required to develop annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Some of these human health or the environment under attainment plans for attaining and areas would be required to continue to the PM2.5 NAAQS. When promulgated, make conformity determinations for the these proposed regulations will clarify maintaining the NAAQS. The intended effect of the SIP Requirements Rule is to 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and based the state implementation plan on 2011–13 air quality data two areas requirements and the NNSR permitting provide certainty to states regarding would be required to make conformity requirements to be met by states in their planning obligations such that determinations for the 1997 24-hour order to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as states may begin SIP development. Only states with nonattainment areas are PM2.5 NAAQS. It should be noted that expeditiously as practicable. These any areas that are attaining the more requirements are designed to protect all required to submit SIPs under this rule. For purposes of analysis of the health protective 2012 primary annual segments of the general population. The estimated paperwork burden, the EPA NAAQS are also necessarily attaining EPA included specific discussion in this assumed there were 21 existing the less stringent 1997 annual PM preamble about actions that could be 2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 and NAAQS by a wide margin. Therefore, considered for the protection of 2006 PM the options of this proposal would minority, low-income or indigenous 2.5 NAAQS, and 15 populations in Section IV.D.6 on hypothetical, newly-designated provide a seamless transition from 343 demonstrating conformity for the 1997 Moderate area attainment plan control nonattainment areas. The attainment annual PM2.5 NAAQS to demonstrating strategies; Section VI.D.7 on Serious area attainment plan control strategies; 342 Note that a regulatory impact analysis evaluating the costs and benefits associated with 340 and Section IX.G, measures to ensure Areas that do not have adequate or approved attaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS was released at the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 appropriate protections for time the NAAQS review was finalized. See annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 overburdened populations. In addition, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions NAAQS would use one of the two interim as part of the consultation activities to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for emissions tests requied by 40 CFR 93.109(c)(3) and Particulate Matter.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 40 CRR 93.119(b). conducted in developing this rule, the Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning 341 It should be noted that some areas will remain EPA participated in training and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts designated nonattainment for 1997 secondary outreach activities with representatives Division, February 28, 2013. EPA–452/R–12–005. 343 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Such areas will remain from environmental justice These hypothetical nonattainment areas were subject to transportation and general conformity for developed based on 2010–12 air quality data and that NAAQS until such time that they are organizations in a March 2014 state recommendations. Actual nonattainment redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS conference held in Research Triangle designations and boundaries are based on the most pursuant to the requirements of section 107(d)(3). Park, NC titled, ‘‘Clean Air Act recent, complete air quality data available.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15461

plan requirements would appear as 40 numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act CFR 51.1000 through 51.1015 which CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. (UMRA) implement CAA subsections 172(c)(1) Submit your comments on the and (2), and 189(a)(1)(B) and (C), This action does not contain any agency’s need for this information, the unfunded mandate as described in 189(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 189(c). Some accuracy of the provided burden states have new nonattainment areas UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does estimates and any suggested methods not significantly or uniquely affect small and some states should already have for minimizing respondent burden to information from emission sources, as governments. This action imposes no the EPA using the docket identified at enforceable duty on any state, local or facilities should have provided this the beginning of this rule. You may also information to meet 1997 and 2006 tribal governments or the private sector. send your ICR-related comments to The CAA imposes the obligation for PM2.5 NAAQS SIP requirements, OMB’s Office of Information and states to submit attainment plans to operating permits and/or emissions Regulatory Affairs via email to oria_ reporting requirements. Such implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. In this [email protected], Attention: rule, the EPA is clarifying those information does not generally reveal Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is the details of production processes. But, requirements. Therefore, this action is required to make a decision concerning not subject to the requirements of to the extent it may, confidential the ICR between 30 and 60 days after business information for the affected sections 202, 203, and 205 of the receipt, OMB must receive comments no UMRA. facilities is protected. Specifically, later than April 22, 2015. The EPA will submissions of emissions and control respond to any ICR-related comments in E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism efficiency information that is the final rule. confidential, proprietary and trade This action does not have federalism secret and is not emission data is C. Regulatory Flexibility Act implications. It will not have substantial protected from disclosure under the direct effects on the states, on the requirements of subsections 503(e) and The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) relationship between the national 114(c) of the CAA. generally requires an agency to prepare government and the states, or on the a regulatory flexibility analysis of any The annual state burden for this distribution of power and regulation subject to notice-and- information collection for the 15 responsibilities among the various comment rulemaking requirements hypothetical newly designated 2012 levels of government, as specified in under the Administrative Procedures PM nonattainment areas, averaged Executive Order 13132. The 2.5 Act or any other statute unless the over the first 3 years of this ICR, is requirement to submit attainment plans agency certifies the rule will not have a estimated to be a total of 54,000 labor to meet a PM2.5 NAAQS is imposed by significant economic impact on a hours per year at an annual labor cost the CAA. This proposed rule, if made substantial number of small entities. of $3.2 million (present value) over the final, would interpret those Small entities include small businesses, 3-year period, or approximately requirements as they apply to current small organizations and small $649,000 per state for the 5 state and future PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, governmental jurisdictions. respondents. The average annual Executive Order 13132 does not apply reporting burden is approximately 3,600 For purposes of assessing the impacts to these proposed regulations. hours per response, with approximately of this rule on small entities, small In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 3 responses per state for 15 state entity is defined as: (1) A small business and consistent with the EPA policy to responses. There are no capital or as defined in the Small Business promote communications between the operating and maintenance costs Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 EPA and state and local governments, associated with the proposed rule CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental the EPA specifically solicits comments requirements. Burden is defined at 5 jurisdiction that is a government of a on this proposed action from state and CFR 1320.3(b). city, county, town, school district or local officials. In addition, the EPA The annual state burden for this special district with a population of less intends to meet with organizations information collection for the 21 than 50,000; and (3) a small representing state and local officials existing nonattainment areas for the organization that is any not-for-profit during the comment period for this 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, averaged enterprise which is independently action. over the first 3 years of this ICR, is owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation estimated to be a total of 43,400 labor and Coordination With Indian Tribal hours per year at an annual labor cost After considering the economic Governments of $2.6 million (present value) over the impacts of this proposed rule on small 3-year period, or approximately entities, I certify that this action will not This proposed action does not have $370,000 per state for the 7 state have a significant economic impact on tribal implications, as specified in respondents. The average annual a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, reporting burden is approximately 2,000 This proposed rule will not impose any November 9, 2000). It would not have a hours per response, with approximately requirements directly on small entities. substantial direct effect on one or more 3 responses per state for 21 state Entities potentially affected directly by Indian tribes. Furthermore, these responses. There are no capital or this proposal include state, local and proposed regulation revisions do not operating and maintenance costs tribal governments and none of these affect the relationship or distribution of associated with the proposed rule governments are small governments. power and responsibilities between the requirements. Burden is defined at 5 Other types of small entities are not federal government and Indian tribes. CFR 1320.3(b). directly subject to the requirements of The CAA and the TAR establish the An agency may not conduct or this rule. The EPA continues to be relationship of the federal government sponsor, and a person is not required to interested in the potential impacts of the and tribes in characterizing air quality respond to, a collection of information proposed rule on small entities and and developing plans to attain the unless it displays a currently valid OMB welcomes comments on issues related to NAAQS, and these revisions to the control number. The OMB control such impacts. regulations do nothing to modify that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

relationship. Thus, Executive Order the EPA is not considering the use of (d) The standards set forth in this 13175 does not apply to this action. any voluntary consensus standards. section will remain applicable to all Although Executive Order 13175 does areas notwithstanding the promulgation J. Executive Order 12898: Federal not apply to this action, the EPA solicits of the 2012 primary annual PM Actions To Address Environmental 2.5 comment on this proposed action from national ambient air quality standards Justice in Minority Populations and tribal officials. The EPA also intends to (NAAQS) in § 50.18. The 1997 primary Low-Income Populations offer to consult with any tribal annual PM2.5 NAAQS set forth in this government to discuss this proposal. The EPA believes the human health or section will no longer apply to an area environmental risk addressed by this G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 1 year after the effective date of the action will not have disproportionately designation of that area, pursuant to Children From Environmental Health high and adverse human health or and Safety Risks section 107 of the Clean Air Act, for the environmental effects on minority, low- primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS set forth The EPA interprets Executive Order income, or indigenous populations. The in § 50.18; except that for areas 13045 as applying only to those results of this evaluation are contained designated nonattainment for the 1997 regulatory actions that concern in Section XI of this preamble. annual PM2.5 NAAQS set forth in this environmental health or safety risks that K. Determination Under Section 307(d) section as of 1 year after the effective the EPA has reason to believe may date of the designations for the primary Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(E) and disproportionately affect children, per annual PM2.5 NAAQS established in the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the § 50.18, the requirements applicable to Administrator proposes to determine action’’ in section 2–202 of the the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS set forth Executive Order. This action is not that this action is subject to the in this section will apply until the subject to Executive Order 13045 provisions of section 307(d). Under effective date of an area’s redesignation because it implements a previously section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of to attainment for the 1997 annual promulgated health or safety-based section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other NAAQS pursuant to the requirements of federal standard established pursuant to actions as the Administrator may section 107 of the Clean Air Act. The determine.’’ the CAA. 1997 secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS These proposed regulatory provisions Statutory Authority and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are designed to help implement the shall remain in effect. current and future PM2.5 NAAQS, The statutory authority for this action promulgated to protect the health and is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7407, PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR welfare of individuals, including 7410, and 7601. PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND children, who are susceptible to the List of Subjects SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION adverse effects of exposure to unhealthy PLANS levels of ambient PM2.5. 40 CFR Part 50 ■ Environmental protection, Air 3. The authority citation for part 51 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions continues to read as follows: Concerning Regulations That pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 7671q. Distribution, or Use 40 CFR Part 51 This action is not a ‘‘significant Environmental protection, Air Subpart I—Review of New Sources and energy action’’ as defined in Executive pollution control, Intergovernmental Modifications Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, relations, Particulate matter. ■ 4. In § 51.165: 2001)), because it is not likely to have 40 CFR Part 93 ■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(A)(1), a significant adverse effect on the (a)(1)(x)(A), and (a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2); supply, distribution, or use of energy. Environmental protection, Air ■ b. Remove paragraphs pollution control, Intergovernmental I. National Technology Transfer and (a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(3), and (4); and relations, Particulate matter. Advancement Act ■ d. Revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and Dated: March 10, 2015. (a)(2)(ii)(A). Section 12(d) of the National The revisions read as follows: Technology Transfer and Advancement Gina McCarthy, Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– Administrator. § 51.165 Permit requirements. 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) For the reasons stated in the (a) * * * directs the EPA to use voluntary preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code (1) * * * consensus standards in its regulatory of Federal Regulations is proposed to be (iv)(A) * * * activities unless to do so would be amended as follows: (1) Any stationary source of air inconsistent with applicable law or pollutants that emits, or has the otherwise impractical. Voluntary PART 50—NATIONAL PRIMARY AND potential to emit, 100 tons per year or consensus standards are technical SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY more of any regulated NSR pollutant (as standards (e.g., materials specifications, STANDARDS defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxxvii) of test methods, sampling procedures and this section), except that lower ■ business practices) that are developed or 1. The authority citation for part 50 emissions thresholds shall apply in adopted by voluntary consensus continues to read as follows: areas subject to subpart 2, subpart 3, or standards bodies. NTTAA directs the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act, EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, ■ 2. In § 50.13, add paragraph (d) to read according to paragraphs explanations when the agency decides as follows: (a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i) through (viii) of this not to use available and applicable section. voluntary consensus standards. § 50.13 National primary and secondary (i) 50 tons per year of volatile organic This proposed rulemaking does not ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. compounds in any serious ozone involve technical standards. Therefore, * * * * * nonattainment area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15463

(ii) 50 tons per year of volatile organic apply to any new major stationary Ruling) in any Serious nonattainment area for compounds in an area within an ozone source or major modification that is PM2.5. transport region, except for any severe major for the pollutant (as defined in * * * * * or extreme ozone nonattainment area. paragraph (a)(1)(xxxvii) of this section) 10. (i) Significant means, in reference to a (iii) 25 tons per year of volatile for which the area is designated net emissions increase or the potential of a organic compounds in any severe ozone nonattainment under section source to emit any of the following nonattainment area. 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, if the pollutants, a rate of emissions that would equal or exceed any of the following rates: (iv) 10 tons per year of volatile organic stationary source or modification would compounds in any extreme ozone locate anywhere in the designated Pollutant and Emissions Rate nonattainment area. nonattainment area. Different Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy) (v) 50 tons per year of carbon pollutants, including individual Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy monoxide in any serious nonattainment precursors, are not summed to Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy area for carbon monoxide, where determine applicability of a major Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds stationary sources contribute stationary source or major modification. or nitrogen oxides Lead: 0.6 tpy significantly to carbon monoxide levels (ii) * * * in the area (as determined under rules Particulate matter: 25 tpy of particulate (A) Except as otherwise provided in matter emissions issued by the Administrator). paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this PM10: 15 tpy (vi) 70 tons per year of PM10 in any section, and consistent with the PM2.5: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions; 40 serious nonattainment area for PM10. definition of major modification tpy of sulfur dioxide emissions; 40 tpy of (vii) 70 tons per year of PM2.5 in any contained in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(A) of nitrogen oxides emissions serious nonattainment area for PM2.5. this section, a project is a major * * * * * (viii) 70 tons per year of any precursor modification for a regulated NSR 31. * * * for PM2.5 in any serious nonattainment pollutant (as defined in paragraph (ii) * * * area for PM2.5. (a)(1)(xxxvii) of this section), if it causes (b) *** * * * * * two types of emissions increases—a (2) Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are (x)(A) Significant means, in reference precursors to PM2.5 in all PM2.5 significant emissions increase (as nonattainment areas. to a net emissions increase or the defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxvii) of this potential of a source to emit any of the section), and a significant net emissions * * * * * ■ following pollutants, a rate of emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 6. Revise subpart Z to read as follows: that would equal or exceed any of the (a)(1)(vi) and (x) of this section). The Subpart Z—Provisions for following rates: project is not a major modification if it Implementation of PM2.5 National Pollutant Emission Rate does not cause a significant emissions Ambient Air Quality Standards increase. If the project causes a Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year significant emissions increase, then the Sec. (tpy) project is a major modification only if it 51.1000 Definitions. Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy also results in a significant net 51.1001 Applicability of part 51. Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy emissions increase. 51.1002 Classifications. Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic 51.1003 Attainment plan submittals and * * * * * compounds or nitrogen oxides due dates. ■ Lead: 0.6 tpy 5. In Appendix S to part 51: 51.1004 Attainment dates. PM : 15 tpy ■ a. Revise paragraph II.A.4.(i)(a) 51.1005 Attainment date extensions. 10 51.1006 Requirements for demonstrating PM2.5: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions; introductory text; ■ b. Add paragraphs II.A.4.(a)(7) and insignificant contribution of PM2.5 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide emissions; 40 precursors. tpy of nitrogen oxide emissions; 40 (8); and 51.1007 Requirements for de minimis tpy of VOC emissions; ■ c. Revise paragraphs II.A.10.(i) and source category determinations for direct * * * * * II.A.31.(ii)(b)(2). PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. (xxxvii) * * * The revisions and addition read as 51.1008 Emissions inventory requirements. (C) * * * follows: 51.1009 Moderate area attainment plan (2) Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, control strategy requirements. Appendix S to Part 51—Emission Offset 51.1010 Serious area attainment plan volatile organic compounds and Interpretative Ruling control strategy requirements. ammonia are precursors to PM2.5 in any * * * * * 51.1011 Attainment demonstration and PM2.5 nonattainment area, unless the modeling requirements. II. * * * State demonstrates to the 51.1012 Reasonable further progress (RFP) A. * * * requirements. Administrator’s satisfaction or the EPA 4. (i) * * * 51.1013 Quantitative milestone demonstrates that major stationary (a) Any stationary source of air pollutants requirements. sources of a particular precursor do not which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 51.1014 Contingency measures contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels tons per year or more of a regulated NSR requirements. that exceed the PM ambient standards pollutant (as defined in paragraph II.A.31 of 2.5 51.1015 Clean data requirements. in a particular area. this Ruling), subject to regulation under the * * * * * Act, except that lower emissions thresholds § 51.1000 Definitions. shall apply in areas subject to subpart 2, (2) Applicability procedures. (i) Each subpart 3, or subpart 4 of part D, title I of the The following definitions apply for plan shall adopt a preconstruction Act, according to paragraphs II.A.4(i)(a)(1) purposes of this subpart. Any term not review program to satisfy the through (6) of this ruling. defined herein shall have the meaning requirements of sections 172(c)(5) and * * * * * as defined in 40 CFR 51.100 or Clean 173 of the Act for any area designated (7) 70 tons per year of PM2.5 in any serious Air Act section 302. nonattainment for any national ambient nonattainment area for PM2.5. Act means the Clean Air Act as air quality standard under subpart C of (8) 70 tons per year of any PM2.5 precursor codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q 40 CFR part 81. Such a program shall (as defined in paragraph II.A.31 of this (2003).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Additional feasible measure is any nonattainment area and that generally Reasonably available control measure control measure that otherwise meets can achieve greater permanent and (RACM) is any technologically and the definition of ‘‘best available control enforceable emissions reductions in economically feasible measure that can measure’’ (BACM) but can only be direct PM2.5 emissions and/or emissions be implemented in whole or in part implemented in whole or in part of PM2.5 precursors from sources in the within 4 years after the date of beginning 4 years after the date of area than can be achieved through the designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment reclassification of an area as Serious and implementation of RACM on the same area and that achieves permanent and no later than the statutory attainment source(s). BACM includes best available enforceable reductions in direct PM2.5 date for the area. control technology (BACT). emissions and/or PM2.5 precursor Additional reasonable measure is any Date of designation means the emissions from sources in the area. control measure that otherwise meets effective date of a PM2.5 area designation RACM includes reasonably available the definition of ‘‘reasonably available as promulgated by the Administrator. control technology (RACT). control measure’’ (RACM) but can only Date of reclassification means the Reasonable further progress (RFP) be implemented in whole or in part effective date of a PM2.5 area means such annual incremental during the period beginning 4 years reclassification from Moderate to reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 after the date of designation of a Serious as promulgated by the and PM2.5 precursors regulated in the nonattainment area and no later than Administrator. attainment plan as are required for the the end of the sixth calendar year Direct PM2.5 emissions means solid purpose of ensuring attainment of the particles emitted directly from an air following the date of designation of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in a area. emissions source or activity, or gaseous nonattainment area by the applicable Applicable annual standard is the emissions or liquid droplets from an air attainment date. annual PM2.5 NAAQS established, emissions source or activity which Subpart 1 means subpart 1 of part D revised, or retained as a result of a condense to form particulate matter at of title I of the Act. particular PM2.5 NAAQS review. ambient temperatures. Direct PM2.5 Subpart 4 means subpart 4 of part D Applicable attainment date means the emissions include filterable and of title I of the Act. latest statutory date by which an area is condensable PM2.5 emissions composed required to attain a particular PM2.5 of elemental carbon, directly emitted § 51.1001 Applicability of part 51. NAAQS, unless EPA has approved an organic carbon, directly emitted sulfate, The provisions in subparts A through attainment plan for the area to attain directly emitted nitrate, and other X of this part apply to areas for purposes such NAAQS, in which case the inorganic particles (including but not of the PM2.5 NAAQS to the extent they applicable attainment date is the date limited to crustal material, metals, and are not inconsistent with the provisions approved under such attainment plan. If sea salt). of this subpart. EPA grants an extension of an approved Existing control measure means any attainment date, then the applicable federally enforceable national, state, or § 51.1002 Classifications. attainment date for the area shall be the local control measure that results in (a) Initial classification as Moderate extended date. reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 nonattainment area. Any area Applicable 24-hour standard is the emissions of PM2.5 precursors in a designated nonattainment for a PM2.5 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS established, nonattainment area in that state. NAAQS shall be classified at the time of revised, or retained as a result of a Implemented means adopted by the such designation, by operation of law, particular PM2.5 NAAQS review. state and fully approved into the SIP by as a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area. Attainment projected inventory means EPA for the nonattainment area; built, (b) Reclassification as Serious PM2.5 the projected emissions of direct PM2.5 installed, and/or otherwise physically nonattainment area. A Moderate and all PM2.5 precursors from sources manifested; and, fully complied with by nonattainment area shall be reclassified included in the base year inventory, and the affected sources. to Serious under the following from any additional sources of such Most stringent measure (MSM) is any circumstances: emissions expected within the permanent and enforceable control (1) The EPA shall reclassify as Serious boundaries of the nonattainment area by measure that achieves the most stringent through notice-and-comment the projected attainment date for the emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 rulemaking any Moderate PM2.5 area. emissions and/or emissions of PM2.5 nonattainment area that the EPA Base year inventory means the actual precursors from among those control determines cannot practicably attain a emissions of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 measures which are either included in particular PM2.5 NAAQS by the precursors from all sources within the any other SIP for any NAAQS or have applicable Moderate area attainment boundaries of a nonattainment area in been achieved in practice by any state date. one of the 3 years used for purposes of and that can feasibly be implemented in (2) A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment designations or another technically the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS area shall be reclassified by operation of appropriate year. nonattainment area. law as a Serious nonattainment area if Benchmark RFP analysis means the PM2.5 design value (DV) for a PM2.5 the EPA finds through notice-and- analysis submitted as part of the RFP nonattainment area is the highest of the comment rulemaking that the area failed plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that three-year average concentrations to attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS by requires generally linear emissions calculated for the ambient air quality the applicable Moderate area attainment reductions in direct PM2.5 and in each monitors in the area, in accordance with date. PM2.5 precursor from the base year 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. through the projected attainment year. PM2.5 NAAQS are the fine particulate § 51.1003 Attainment plan submittals and Best available control measure matter National Ambient Air Quality due dates. (BACM) is any technologically and Standards codified at 40 CFR part 50. (a) Nonattainment areas initially economically feasible control measure PM2.5 precursors are sulfur dioxide classified as Moderate. that can be implemented in whole or in (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), volatile (1) For any area designated as part within 4 years after the date of organic compounds (VOC), and nonattainment and initially classified as reclassification of a PM2.5 ammonia (NH3). Moderate for a PM2.5 NAAQS, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15465

state(s) shall submit a Moderate area submit to EPA the portion of the Serious they apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas attainment plan that meets all of the area attainment plan that meets the (40 CFR part 93). following requirements: requirements set forth at paragraphs (i) Emissions inventory requirements (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iv) through (vii) of § 51.1004 Attainment dates. set forth at § 51.1008(a)(1); this section to EPA no later than 4 years (a) The state shall submit a projected (ii) Emissions inventory requirements from the date of reclassification. attainment date as part of its attainment set forth at § 51.1008(a)(2); (ii) For any nonattainment area plan submission under § 51.1003 for any (iii) Moderate area attainment plan reclassified to Serious for a particular PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area located in whole or in part within its control strategy requirements set forth at PM2.5 NAAQS under § 51.1002(b)(2), the § 51.1009; state(s) shall submit to EPA a Serious boundaries. The state shall justify the (iv) Attainment demonstration and area attainment plan meeting the projected attainment date for each such modeling requirements set forth at requirements set forth at paragraphs nonattainment area (or portion of a § 51.1011; (b)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section no nonattainment area) as part of the (v) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) later than 18 months from the date of demonstration of attainment developed requirements set forth at § 51.1012; reclassification. and submitted according to the (vi) Quantitative milestone (iii) If the state(s) submits to EPA a requirements set forth at § 51.1011 and requirements set forth at § 51.1013; request for a Serious area attainment according to the following: (vii) Contingency measure date extension simultaneous with the (1) Nonattainment areas initially requirements set forth at § 51.1014; and, Serious area attainment plan due under classified as Moderate. (i) Except for nonattainment areas that (viii) Nonattainment new source paragraph (b)(1) of this section, such a meet the criterion under paragraph review plan requirements pursuant to plan shall meet the most stringent (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the projected section 189(a)(1)(A) and section measure (MSM) requirements set forth attainment date for a Moderate PM 172(c)(5) of the CAA. at § 51.1010(b) in addition to the BACM 2.5 nonattainment area shall be as (2) The state(s) shall submit its and BACT and additional feasible expeditious as practicable with the Moderate area attainment plan to EPA measure requirements set forth at implementation of all control measures no later than 18 months from the date § 51.1010(a). required under § 51.1009 and may be as of designation of the area. (c) Serious nonattainment areas (b) Nonattainment areas reclassified to late as the end of the sixth calendar year subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing Serious. after the date of designation if the state to attain the PM NAAQS by the (1) For any nonattainment area 2.5 demonstrates that the implementation of applicable Serious area attainment date. reclassified to Serious for a PM2.5 certain control measures that qualify as (1) For any Serious nonattainment NAAQS under § 51.1002(b), in addition RACM or RACT or additional area that fails to attain a particular PM to meeting the Moderate area attainment 2.5 reasonable measures, but that are not NAAQS by the applicable Serious area plan submittal requirements set forth at necessary for demonstrating attainment attainment date, the state(s) shall submit § 51.1003(a), the state(s) shall submit a by the end of the sixth calendar year a revised Serious area attainment plan Serious area attainment plan that meets after the date of designation, will not that demonstrates that the area annually all of the following requirements: collectively advance the attainment date will achieve at least 5 percent (i) Emissions inventory requirements by at least 1 year.

set forth at § 51.1008(b)(1); reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 (ii) The projected attainment date for and PM2.5 precursors based on the most (ii) Emissions inventory requirements a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area set forth at § 51.1008(b)(2); recent emissions inventory for the area which the state demonstrates cannot and that meets the following (iii) Serious area attainment plan practicably attain the applicable PM2.5 control strategy requirements set forth at requirements: NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar § 51.1010; (i) Emissions inventory requirements year after the date of designation of the (iv) Attainment demonstration and set forth at § 51.1008(c)(1); area with the implementation of all modeling requirements set forth at (ii) Emissions inventory requirements control measures required under § 51.1011; set forth at § 51.1008(c)(2); § 51.1009 shall be such date unless and (v) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (iii) Demonstration of attainment and until the area is reclassified as Serious requirements set forth at § 51.1012; modeling requirements set forth at according to § 51.1002. (vi) Quantitative milestone § 51.1011; (2) Nonattainment areas reclassified to requirements set forth at § 51.1013; (iv) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Serious. (vii) Contingency measure requirements set forth at § 51.1012; (i) Except for nonattainment areas that requirements set forth at § 51.1014; and, (v) Quantitative milestone meet the criterion under paragraph (viii) Nonattainment new source requirements set forth at § 51.1013; and, (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the projected review plan requirements pursuant to (vi) Contingency measure attainment date for a Serious PM2.5 section 189(b)(3) and section 172(c)(5) requirements set forth at § 51.1014. nonattainment area shall be as of the CAA. (2) The state(s) shall submit to EPA expeditious as practicable with the (2) The state(s) shall submit its the revised attainment plan meeting the implementation of all control measures Serious area attainment plan to EPA requirements set forth at paragraphs required under § 51.1010 but no later according to the following schedule: (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section no than the end of the tenth calendar year (i) For any nonattainment area later than 12 months from the missed after the date of designation. reclassified to Serious for a particular applicable Serious area attainment date. [ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED PM2.5 NAAQS under § 51.1002(b)(1), the (d) Any attainment plan submitted to state(s) shall submit to EPA the portion EPA under this section shall establish REGULATORY TEXT] of the Serious area attainment plan that motor vehicle emissions budgets for the (i) Except for nonattainment areas that meets the requirements set forth at projected attainment year for the area, if meet the criterion under paragraph paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (iii) and (viii) of this applicable. The state shall develop such (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the projected section no later than 18 months from the budgets according to the requirements attainment date for a Serious PM2.5 date of reclassification. The state(s) shall of the transportation conformity rule as nonattainment area shall be as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15466 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

expeditious as practicable with the nonattainment area fails to attain the (i) The state demonstrates that implementation of all control measures PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious attainment of the applicable PM2.5 required under § 51.1010 and may be as area attainment date, EPA will proceed NAAQS by the approved attainment late as the end of the tenth calendar year to establish a new attainment date date for the area would be impracticable after the date of designation if the state through a direct final action published or, in the absence of an approved demonstrates that the implementation of in the Federal Register. attainment date, attainment of the certain control measures that qualify as applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the BACM or BACT or additional feasible § 51.1005 Attainment date extensions. applicable statutory attainment date for measures, but that are not necessary for (a) Nonattainment areas initially the area would be impracticable; demonstrating attainment by the end of classified as Moderate. (ii) The state has complied with all the tenth calendar year after the date of (1) A state with a Moderate PM2.5 requirements and commitments designation, will not collectively nonattainment area may apply for a 1- pertaining to the area in the applicable advance the attainment date by at least year attainment date extension for the implementation plan; and, 1 year.] area if the following conditions are met (iii) The state demonstrates that the (ii) A state that submits an attainment in the year preceding the applicable attainment plan for the area includes the plan that demonstrates that a Serious attainment date for the area: most stringent measures (MSM) that are PM2.5 nonattainment area cannot (i) The state has complied with all included in the attainment plan of any practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by requirements and commitments state or are achieved in practice in any the end of the tenth calendar year pertaining to the area in the applicable state, and can feasibly be implemented following the date of designation of the implementation plan; in the area consistent with § 51.1010(b). area with the implementation of all (ii) For an area designated (2) At the time of application for an control measures required under nonattainment for a particular 24-hour attainment date extension, the state § 51.1010(a) must request an extension PM2.5 NAAQS for which the state seeks shall submit to EPA a Serious area of the Serious area attainment date an attainment date extension, the 98th attainment plan that meets the following consistent with § 51.1005(b). The percentile concentration at each monitor requirements: request must propose a projected in the area for the calendar year prior to (i) Emissions inventory requirements attainment date for the nonattainment the applicable attainment date is less set forth at § 51.1008(b); area that is as expeditious as than or equal to the level of the (ii) Most stringent measures (MSM) practicable, but no later than the end of applicable 24-hour standard (calculated requirement described under paragraph the fifteenth calendar year from the date according to the data analysis (b)(1)(iii) of this section and of designation of the area. requirements in 40 CFR part 50, § 51.1010(b); (3) Serious nonattainment areas appendix N); (iii) Attainment demonstration and subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing (iii) For an area designated modeling requirements set forth at to attain by the applicable Serious area nonattainment for a particular annual § 51.1011 that justify the state’s attainment date. The projected PM2.5 NAAQS for which the state seeks conclusion under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of attainment date for a Serious PM2.5 an attainment date extension, the this section; nonattainment area that failed to attain annual average concentration at each (iv) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable monitor in the area for the calendar year requirements set forth at § 51.1012; Serious area attainment date shall be as prior to the applicable attainment date (v) Quantitative milestone expeditious as practicable based on is less than or equal to the level of the requirements set forth at § 51.1013; and, annual reductions in direct PM2.5 and applicable annual standard (calculated (vi) Contingency measure significant PM2.5 precursor emissions according to the data analysis requirements set forth at § 51.1014. within the area of not less than 5 requirements in 40 CFR part 50, (3) The applicable implementation percent of the amount of such emissions appendix N). plan for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment as reported in the most recent emissions (2) The applicable implementation area for which a state seeks an inventory prepared for the area, but no plan for a Moderate PM2.5 attainment date extension under later than 5 years following the missed nonattainment area for which a state § 51.1004(a)(2)(ii) is the plan submitted Serious area attainment date. seeks an attainment date extension is to EPA to meet the requirements set (b) Except for attainment plans that the plan submitted to EPA to meet the forth at § 51.1003(a). meet the conditions of paragraphs requirements of § 51.1003(a). (4) The applicable implementation (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(3) of this section, the (3) For a Moderate PM2.5 plan for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment Administrator shall approve an nonattainment area, the requesting state area for which a state seeks an attainment date at the same time and in (or states) shall submit a written request attainment date extension under the same manner in which the by February 28 of the year following the § 51.1004(a)(2)(i) is the plan submitted Administrator approves the attainment applicable attainment date for the area. to EPA to meet the requirements set plan for the area. (4) A state with a Moderate area that forth at § 51.1003(b)(1). (1) In accordance with paragraph received an initial 1-year attainment (5) A state applying for an attainment (a)(1)(ii) of this section, if a state date extension may apply for a second date extension for a Serious demonstrates that a Moderate PM2.5 1-year attainment date extension for the nonattainment area under nonattainment area cannot practicably area if the state meets the conditions § 51.1004(a)(2)(ii) shall submit to EPA a attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of described in paragraph (a)(1) of this request for an extension at the same the sixth calendar year following the section in the year preceding the time as it submits the Serious area date of designation of the area, EPA approved attainment date. attainment plan due under shall proceed under the provisions of (b) Nonattainment areas reclassified § 51.1003(b)(1). § 51.1002(b)(1) to reclassify the area to as Serious. (6) A state applying for an attainment Serious through notice-and-comment (1) A state may apply for one date extension for a Serious rulemaking. attainment date extension not to exceed nonattainment area subsequent to (2) In accordance with paragraph 5 years for a Serious nonattainment area submitting an initial Serious area (a)(3) of this section, if a Serious PM2.5 if the following conditions are met: attainment plan that demonstrated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15467

attainment of the NAAQS by the PM2.5 precursors in a PM2.5 (ii) The emissions values shall be applicable attainment date consistent nonattainment area shall be considered projected emissions of the same sources with § 51.1004(a)(2)(i) at the time of non-de minimis unless and until the included in the base year inventory for submittal may apply for such an state conducts a technical analysis to the nonattainment area (i.e., those only extension no later than 60 calendar days determine whether a particular source within the nonattainment area). The prior to the approved attainment date category may qualify for a presumptive state shall include in this inventory for the area or, in the absence of an de minimis source category exemption projected emissions growth and approved attainment date, no later than from evaluation for potential control contraction from both controls and other 60 calendar days prior to the applicable measures due to its minimal causes during the relevant period. statutory attainment date for the area. contribution to the ambient PM2.5 (iii) The temporal period of emissions (c) Serious nonattainment areas concentrations in the area. shall be the same temporal period subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing (b) The state shall define source (annual or average-season-day) as the to attain by the applicable Serious area categories for stationary sources base year inventory for the attainment date. If a Serious area fails to classified under the North American nonattainment area. attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS by the Industry Classification System (NAICS) (iv) Consistent with the base year applicable Serious area attainment date, at the level represented by four (4) digits inventory for the nonattainment area, the area is then subject to the or fewer. the inventory shall include direct PM2.5 requirements of section 189(d) of the (c) The state shall define a single emissions and emissions of all PM2.5 Act, and, for this reason, the state is source category for on-road mobile precursors. prohibited from requesting an extension sources, including on-road vehicles and (v) The same sources reported as of the applicable Serious area engines, and a single source category for point sources in the base year inventory attainment date for such area. nonroad mobile sources, including for the nonattainment area shall be (d) For any attainment date extension nonroad engines, equipment, and provided as point sources in the request submitted pursuant to this vehicles, or may define a single source attainment projected inventory for the section, the requesting state (or states) category for all mobile sources in the nonattainment area. Nonpoint and shall submit a written request and aggregate. mobile source projected emissions shall evidence of compliance with these be provided using the same detail (e.g., § 51.1008 Emissions inventory state, county, and process codes) as the regulations which includes both of the requirements. following: base year inventory. (i) Evidence that all control measures (a) For any nonattainment area (vi) The same detail of the emissions submitted in the applicable attainment initially classified as Moderate, the state included shall be consistent with the plan have been implemented, and shall submit to EPA all of the following: level of detail in the base year inventory (1) A base year inventory for the (ii) Evidence that the area has made (i.e., as required by 40 CFR part 41, nonattainment area for all emissions emission reduction progress that subpart A). sources that meets the following (b) For any nonattainment area represents reasonable further progress minimum criteria: reclassified as Serious, the state shall toward timely attainment of the (i) The inventory year shall be one of submit to EPA all of the following: applicable PM NAAQS. 2.5 the 3 years used for designations or (1) For purposes of meeting the (e) For a PM nonattainment area 2.5 another technically appropriate emissions inventory requirements of located in two or more states or inventory year if justified by the state in CAA section 172(c)(3), a base year jurisdictions, all states and/or the plan submission. inventory for the nonattainment area for jurisdictions in which such area is (ii) The inventory shall include actual all emissions sources that meets the located shall submit separate attainment emissions of all sources within the requirements listed under paragraph date extension requests for the area nonattainment area. (a)(1) of this section, and in addition, consistent with the requirements set (iii) The emissions values shall be uses the Serious area definition of a forth at paragraph (d) of this section. either annual total emissions or average- major source listed under § 51.1006 Requirements for demonstrating season-day emissions. The state shall § 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(vii) and (viii) in insignificant contribution of PM2.5 include as part of the plan a rationale determining sources to include as point precursors. for providing annual or seasonal sources. (a) For purposes of determining that a emissions. (2) An attainment projected inventory particular PM2.5 precursor does not (iv) The inventory shall include direct for the nonattainment area that meets contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 emissions and emissions of all the criteria listed under paragraph (a)(2) PM2.5 concentrations in a PM2.5 PM2.5 precursors. of this section. nonattainment area, the state shall (v) The state shall report emissions as (c) Serious nonattainment areas conduct a technical analysis that point sources according to the point subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain a PM2.5 NAAQS by the accounts for all emissions of such PM2.5 source emissions thresholds of the Air precursor from all sources located Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR), 40 applicable Serious area attainment date. within the area. CFR part 51, subpart A. No later than 12 months after EPA finds (b) The state shall submit results and (vi) The detail of the emissions through notice-and-comment supporting documentation for any inventory shall be consistent with the rulemaking that a Serious technical analyses conducted pursuant data elements required by 40 CFR part nonattainment area, or portion thereof to paragraph (a) of this section as part 51, subpart A. contained within a state’s borders, fails of any attainment plan for the area. (2) An attainment projected inventory to attain a PM2.5 NAAQS by the for the nonattainment area that meets applicable attainment date and thus § 51.1007 Requirements for de minimis the following minimum criteria: becomes subject to the requirements source category determinations for direct (i) The year of the projected inventory under CAA section 189(d), the state PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. shall be the most expeditious year for shall submit to EPA all of the following: (a) All categories of sources of direct which attainment is demonstrated by (1) For purposes of meeting the PM2.5 emissions and of emissions of the modeled attainment plan. emissions inventory requirements of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15468 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

CAA section 172(c)(3), a base year factors including but not limited to a (B) Any control measure identified for inventory for the nonattainment area for source’s processes and operating adoption and implementation under all emissions sources that meets the procedures, raw materials, physical this paragraph that can only be requirements listed under paragraph plant layout, and potential implemented in whole or in part during (a)(1) of this section, and in addition, environmental impacts such as the period beginning 4 years after the uses the Serious area definition of a increased water pollution, waste date of designation of the Moderate major source listed under disposal, and energy requirements. PM2.5 nonattainment area and the § 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(vii) and (viii) in (ii) For purposes of evaluating the beginning of the calendar year determining sources to include as point economic feasibility of a potential containing the applicable attainment sources. control measure, the state may consider date for the area shall be considered an (2) An attainment projected inventory factors including but not limited to additional reasonable measure for the for the nonattainment area as defined by capital costs, operating and area. § 51.1000(e) and that meets the criteria maintenance costs, and cost listed under paragraph (a)(2) of this effectiveness of the measure. (ii) If the state demonstrates through section. (iii) The state must submit to EPA as air quality modeling that the area cannot part of its Moderate area attainment practicably attain the applicable PM2.5 § 51.1009 Moderate area attainment plan NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar control strategy requirements. plan a detailed written justification for eliminating from further consideration year following the date of designation of (a) The state shall identify, adopt, and any potential control measure identified the area, the state shall adopt all implement control measures, including under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on technologically and economically control technologies, on sources of the basis of technological or economic feasible control measures identified direct PM emissions and sources of 2.5 infeasibility. under paragraph (a)(3) of this section emissions of PM precursors located in 2.5 (4) The state shall use air quality unless the state makes a demonstration any Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area that one or more such measures, when or portion thereof located within the modeling that meets the requirements of § 51.1011(a) and that accounts for considered collectively, would have state consistent with the following: minimal effect on reducing ambient (1) The state shall identify all sources emissions reductions estimated due to all technologically and economically PM2.5 concentrations in the area. of direct PM2.5 emissions and all sources feasible control measures identified for of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the (A) Any control measure identified for nonattainment area in accordance with sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and adoption and implementation under the emissions inventory requirements of sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors this paragraph that can be implemented § 51.1008(a); in the Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment in whole or in part by 4 years after the (2) The state shall identify all area to demonstrate that the area can date of designation of the Moderate attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS as potential control measures to reduce PM2.5 nonattainment area shall be emissions from all sources of direct expeditiously as practicable but no later considered RACM for the area. Any than the end of the sixth year following PM2.5 emissions and all sources of such control measure that is also a the date of designation of the area, or to emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the control technology shall be considered demonstrate that the Moderate PM nonattainment area identified under 2.5 RACT for the area. paragraph (a)(1) of this section. nonattainment area cannot practicably (B) Any control measure identified for (i) The state may elect not to identify attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by potential control measures to reduce such date. adoption and implementation under emissions from any sources of a (i) If the state demonstrates through this paragraph that can only be implemented in whole or in part during particular PM2.5 precursor if the state air quality modeling that the area can demonstrates that all sources of such attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the period beginning 4 years after the PM2.5 precursor contribute the end of the sixth calendar year date of designation of the Moderate insignificantly to ambient PM2.5 following the date of designation of the PM2.5 nonattainment area through the concentrations in the area under area, the state shall adopt and end of the sixth calendar year following § 51.1006. implement all technologically and the date of designation of the area shall (ii) The state may elect not to identify economically feasible control measures be considered an additional reasonable potential control measures to reduce identified under paragraph (a)(3) of this measure for the area. emissions from sources in any source section that are necessary to bring the (b) The state shall identify, adopt, and category of direct PM2.5 emissions or area into attainment by such date. The implement control measures, including state shall also adopt and implement all emissions of PM2.5 precursors control technologies, on sources of other technologically and economically determined to be a de minimis source direct PM emissions and sources of feasible measures identified under 2.5 category under § 51.1007. emissions of PM precursors located paragraph (a)(3) of this section that, 2.5 (3) For any potential control measure outside the Moderate PM when considered collectively, would 2.5 identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this nonattainment area, or portion thereof, advance the attainment date for the area section, the state may make a located within the state if doing so is demonstration that such measure is not by at least 1 year. necessary to provide for attainment or technologically or economically feasible (A) Any control measure identified for will expedite attainment of the to implement in whole or in part by the adoption and implementation under applicable PM NAAQS in such area. end of the sixth calendar year following this paragraph that can be implemented 2.5 the date of designation of the area, and in whole or in part by 4 years after the (c) For control measures on sources of the state may eliminate such whole or date of designation of the Moderate direct PM2.5 emissions in the form of partial measure from further PM2.5 nonattainment area shall be source emissions limitations, the state consideration under this paragraph. considered RACM for the area. Any shall establish such limitations taking (i) For purposes of evaluating the such control measure that is also a into account the filterable and technological feasibility of a potential control technology shall be considered condensable fractions of such control measure, the state may consider RACT for the area. emissions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15469

§ 51.1010 Serious area attainment plan plant layout, and potential PM2.5 nonattainment area cannot control strategy requirements. environmental impacts such as practicably attain the applicable PM2.5 [PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT FOR increased water pollution, waste NAAQS by such date.] OPTION 1: disposal, and energy requirements. (ii) For purposes of evaluating the [PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT FOR (a) The state shall identify, adopt, and economic feasibility of a potential OPTION 2: implement control measures, including control measure, the state may consider (a) The state shall identify, adopt, and control technologies, on sources of capital costs, operating and implement control measures, including direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of maintenance costs, and cost control technologies, on sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors located in effectiveness of the measure. direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of any Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area or (iii) The state shall submit to EPA as emissions of PM2.5 precursors located in portion thereof located within the state part of its Serious area attainment plan any Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area or to yield a control strategy for the area submission a detailed written portion thereof located within the state that is more stringent than that justification for eliminating from further to yield a control strategy for the area developed for the area when it was consideration any potential control that is more stringent than that classified as Moderate, and consistent measure identified under paragraph developed for the area when it was with the following: (a)(2) of this section on the basis of classified as Moderate, and consistent (1) The state shall identify all sources technological or economic infeasibility. with the following: of direct PM2.5 emissions and all sources The state shall provide as part of its (1) The state shall identify all sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the written justification an explanation of of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of nonattainment area in accordance with how its criteria for determining the emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the the emissions inventory requirements of technological and economic feasibility nonattainment area in accordance with § 51.1008(b); of potential control measures under the emissions inventory requirements of (2) The state shall identify all paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this § 51.1008; potential control measures to reduce section are more stringent than its (2) The state shall identify all emissions from all sources of direct criteria for determining the potential control measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions and sources of technological and economic feasibility emissions from all sources of direct emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the of potential control measures under PM2.5 emissions and sources of nonattainment area identified under § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for the same emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the paragraph (a)(1) of this section. sources in the PM2.5 nonattainment area. nonattainment area identified under (i) The state shall survey other (4) Except as provided under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the state (i) The state shall survey other and identify any measures not shall adopt and implement all potential NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. previously identified by the state during control measures identified under and identify any measures not the development of the Moderate area paragraph (a)(2) of this section. previously identified by the state during attainment plan for the area. (i) Any control measure that can be the development of the Moderate area (ii) The state may elect not to identify implemented in whole or in part by the attainment plan for the area. potential control measures to reduce end of the fourth year following the date (ii) The state may elect not to identify emissions from any sources of a of reclassification of the area to Serious potential control measures to reduce particular PM2.5 precursor if the state shall be considered a best available emissions from any sources of a demonstrates that all sources of such control measure for the area. Any such particular PM2.5 precursor if the state PM2.5 precursor contribute control measure that is also a control demonstrates that all sources of such insignificantly to ambient PM2.5 technology for a stationary source in the PM2.5 precursor contribute concentrations in the area under area shall be considered a best available insignificantly to ambient PM2.5 § 51.1006. control technology for the area. concentrations in the area under (iii) The state may elect not to identify (ii) Any control measure that can be § 51.1006. potential control measures to reduce implemented in whole or in part (3) The state may make a emissions from sources in any source between the end of the fourth year demonstration that a measure identified category of direct PM2.5 emissions or following the date of reclassification of under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is emissions of PM2.5 precursors the area to Serious and the applicable not technologically or economically determined to be a de minimis source attainment date for the area shall be feasible to implement in whole or in category under § 51.1007. considered an additional feasible part by the end of the tenth calendar (3) The state may make a measure. year following the date of designation of demonstration that any measure (5) The state shall use air quality the area, and may eliminate such whole identified under paragraph (a)(2) of this modeling that meets the requirements of or partial measure from further section is not technologically or § 51.1011(b) and that accounts for consideration under this paragraph. economically feasible to implement in emissions reductions estimated due to (i) For purposes of evaluating the whole or in part by the end of the tenth all best available control measures, technological feasibility of a potential calendar year following the date of including best available control control measure, the state may consider designation of the area, and may technologies, and additional feasible factors including but not limited to a eliminate such whole or partial measure measures identified for sources of direct source’s processes and operating from further consideration under this PM2.5 emissions and sources of procedures, raw materials, physical paragraph. emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the plant layout, and potential (i) For purposes of evaluating the area to demonstrate that the area can environmental impacts such as technological feasibility of a potential attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as increased water pollution, waste control measure, the state may consider expeditiously as practicable but no later disposal, and energy requirements. factors including but not limited to a than the end of the tenth calendar year (ii) For purposes of evaluating the source’s processes and operating following the date of designation of the economic feasibility of a potential procedures, raw materials, physical area, or to demonstrate that the Serious control measure, the state may consider

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

capital costs, operating and the area to Serious and the applicable environmental impacts such as maintenance costs, and cost attainment date for the area shall be increased water pollution, waste effectiveness of the measure. considered an additional feasible disposal, and energy requirements. (iii) The state shall submit to EPA as measure.] (ii) For purposes of evaluating the part of its Serious area attainment plan (b) For a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment economic feasibility of a potential submission a detailed written area which air quality modeling control measure, the state may consider justification for eliminating from further demonstrates cannot practicably attain capital costs, operating and consideration any potential control the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the end maintenance costs, and cost measure identified under paragraph of the tenth calendar year following the effectiveness of the measure. (a)(2) of this section on the basis of date of designation of the area, the state (iii) The state shall submit to EPA as technological or economic infeasibility. shall identify, adopt, and implement the part of its Serious area attainment plan The state shall provide as part of its most stringent control measures that are submission a detailed written written justification an explanation of included in the attainment plan for any justification for eliminating from further how its criteria for determining the state or are achieved in practice in any consideration any potential control technological and economic feasibility state, and can be feasibly implemented measure identified under paragraph of potential control measures under in the area, consistent with the (b)(2) of this section on the basis of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this following: technological or economic infeasibility. section are more stringent than its (1) The state shall identify all sources The state shall provide as part of its criteria for determining the of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of written justification an explanation of technological and economic feasibility emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the how its criteria for determining the of potential control measures under nonattainment area in accordance with technological and economic feasibility § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for the same the emissions inventory requirements of of potential control measures under sources in the PM2.5 nonattainment area. § 51.1008(b). paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this (4) The state shall use air quality (2) The state shall identify all section are more stringent than its modeling that meets the requirements of potential control measures to reduce criteria for determining the § 51.1011(b) and that accounts for emissions from all sources of direct technological and economic feasibility emissions reductions estimated due to PM2.5 emissions and sources of of potential control measures under all technologically and economically emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this feasible control measures identified for nonattainment area identified under section and under § 51.1009(a)(3)(i) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section and not sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and (ii) for the same sources in the PM2.5 sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors otherwise determined to contribute nonattainment area. in the area to demonstrate that the area insignificantly to ambient PM2.5 (4) Except as provided under can attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS concentrations in the area according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the state as expeditiously as practicable but no § 51.1006 or to be de minimis according shall adopt and implement all control later than the end of the tenth calendar to § 51.1007. measures identified under paragraph year following the date of designation of (i) The state shall survey other (b)(2) of this section that may achieve the area, or to demonstrate that the NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. greater emissions reductions from any and identify the most stringent Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area non-de minimis sources of direct PM2.5 cannot practicably attain the applicable measures adopted into any SIP for any emissions or sources of emissions of PM NAAQS by such date. NAAQS or used in practice to control 2.5 PM2.5 precursors in the area than (5) For a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment emissions from any non-de minimis previously adopted measures have area which air quality modeling source categories. achieved and that shall achieve demonstrates that the area can attain the (ii) The state shall reanalyze any attainment as expeditiously as applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of measures previously rejected by the practicable but no later than 5 years the tenth calendar year following the state during the development of any after the applicable attainment date for date of designation of the area, the state Moderate area or Serious area the area. shall adopt and implement all attainment plan control strategy for the (c) The state shall identify, adopt, and technologically and economically area, unless the extension request is implement control measures, including feasible control measures needed to made at the same time as the Serious control technologies, on sources of bring the area into attainment by such area attainment plan required after the direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of date and additionally any other such area is reclassified in accordance with emissions of PM2.5 precursors located measures that, when considered § 51.1005(b)(5). outside the Serious PM2.5 nonattainment collectively, would advance the (3) The state may make a area or portion thereof, located within attainment date for the area by at least demonstration that a measure identified the state if doing so will expedite 1 year. under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is attainment of the applicable PM2.5 (i) Any control measure that can be not technologically or economically NAAQS within the area. implemented in whole or in part by the feasible to implement in whole or in (d) For control measures on sources of end of the fourth year following the date part by 5 years after the applicable direct PM2.5 emissions in the form of of reclassification of the area to Serious attainment date for the area, and may source emissions limitations, the state shall be considered a best available eliminate such whole or partial measure shall establish such limitations taking control measure for the area. Any such from further consideration under this into account the filterable and control measure that is also a control paragraph. condensable fractions of such technology for a stationary source in the (i) For purposes of evaluating the emissions. area shall be considered a best available technological feasibility of a potential control technology for the area. control measure, the state may consider § 51.1011 Attainment demonstration and (ii) Any control measure that can only factors including but not limited to a modeling requirements. be implemented in whole or in part source’s processes and operating (a) Nonattainment areas initially between the end of the fourth year procedures, raw materials, physical classified as Moderate. The attainment following the date of reclassification of plant layout, and potential demonstration due to EPA as part of any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15471

Moderate area attainment plan required demonstration due to EPA as part of a notwithstanding BACM implementation under § 51.1003(a) shall meet all of the Serious area attainment plan required deadline requirements in § 51.1010. following criteria: under § 51.1003(b) shall meet all of the (1) The attainment demonstration following criteria: § 51.1012 Reasonable further progress shall show the projected attainment date (1) The attainment demonstration (RFP) requirements. for the Moderate nonattainment area shall show the projected attainment date (a) Consistent with CAA section that is as expeditious as practicable in for the Serious nonattainment area that 172(c)(2), the state shall submit in each accordance with the requirements of is as expeditious as practicable in attainment plan for a PM2.5 § 51.1004(a)(1). accordance with the requirements of nonattainment area a plan that (2) The attainment demonstration § 51.1004(a)(2). demonstrates that the area will achieve, shall meet the requirements of (2) The attainment demonstration on an annual basis, reasonable further Appendix W of this part and shall shall meet the requirements of progress (RFP) in reducing emissions of include inventory data, modeling Appendix W of this part and shall direct PM2.5 and any PM2.5 precursors results, and emission reduction analyses include inventory data, modeling from sources in the area that the state on which the state has based its results, and emission reduction analyses has determined are necessary to be projected attainment date. on which the state has based its controlled in order for the area to attain (3) The base year for the emissions projected attainment date. the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS as inventory required for an attainment (3) The base year for the emissions expeditiously as practicable. The RFP demonstration under this paragraph inventories required for attainment plan shall include all of the following: shall be one of the 3 years used for demonstrations under this paragraph (1) A description of each control designations or another technically shall be one of the 3 years used for measure adopted by the state to satisfy appropriate inventory year if justified by designations or another technically the control strategy requirements of the state in the plan submission. appropriate inventory year if justified by § 51.1009 (for Moderate area attainment (4) The control strategies modeled as the state in the plan submission. plans) or § 51.1010 (for Serious area part of the attainment demonstration (4) The control strategies modeled as attainment plans), as appropriate, and shall be consistent with the following as part of the attainment demonstration the projected reductions in direct PM2.5 applicable: shall be consistent with the following as emissions and emissions of PM2.5 (i) For a Moderate area that can applicable: precursors that each control measure demonstrate attainment of the (i) For a Serious area that can will achieve by the projected attainment applicable PM2.5 NAAQS no later than demonstrate attainment of the date for the area. the end of the sixth calendar year applicable PM2.5 NAAQS no later than (2) A schedule for implementing the following the date of designation of the the end of the tenth calendar year measures described in paragraph (a)(1) area with the implementation of RACM following the date of designation of the of this section. and RACT and additional reasonable area with the implementation of best (3) An analysis that demonstrates that measures, the control strategies modeled available control measures (BACM), by the end of the calendar year for each as part of the attainment demonstration including best available control milestone date for the area determined shall be consistent with control strategy technologies (BACT), and additional in accordance with § 51.1013(a), requirements under § 51.1009(a). feasible measures, the control strategies emissions will be at a level that reflects (ii) For a Moderate area that cannot modeled as part of the attainment generally linear progress in reducing practicably attain the applicable PM2.5 demonstration shall be consistent with emissions on an annual basis between NAAQS by the end of the sixth calendar control strategy requirements under the base year and the attainment year. year following the date of designation of § 51.1010(a). (b) Except as provided under the area with the implementation of (ii) For a Serious area that cannot paragraph (c) of this section, the RFP RACM and RACT and additional practicably attain the applicable PM2.5 analysis required under paragraph (a)(3) reasonable measures, the control NAAQS by the end of the tenth calendar of this section shall include, at a strategies modeled as part of the year following the date of designation of minimum, a benchmark RFP analysis, attainment demonstration shall be the area with the implementation of best and may include an alternative RFP consistent with control strategy available control measures (BACM), analysis, consistent with the following: requirements under § 51.1009(b). including best available control (1) The base year for the RFP (5) The attainment demonstration and technologies (BACT), and additional emissions inventory shall be one of the supporting air quality modeling should feasible measures, the control strategies 3 years used for designations or another be consistent with the most current modeled as part of the attainment technically appropriate inventory year if version of EPA’s PM2.5 attainment demonstration shall be consistent with justified by the state in the plan demonstration modeling guidance. control strategy requirements under submission. (6) Required time frame for obtaining § 51.1010(b). (2) In the benchmark RFP analysis, emissions reductions. For each (5) The attainment demonstration and the state must identify direct PM2.5 Moderate nonattainment area, the supporting air quality modeling should emissions and PM2.5 precursors attainment plan must provide for be consistent with the most current regulated in the control strategy for the implementation of all control measures version of EPA’s PM2.5 attainment area and specify target emission needed for attainment as expeditiously demonstration modeling guidance. reduction levels to be achieved during as practicable. All control measures in (6) Required timeframe for obtaining the milestone years. In developing the the attainment demonstration must be emissions reductions. For each Serious benchmark RFP analysis, the state must implemented no later than the nonattainment area, the attainment plan develop emissions inventory beginning of the year prior to the must provide for implementation of all information for the area and calculate attainment date, notwithstanding RACM control measures needed for attainment the following: implementation deadline requirements as expeditiously as practicable. All (i) For direct PM2.5 emissions and in § 51.1009. control measures must be implemented each PM2.5 precursor addressed in the (b) Nonattainment areas reclassified no later than the beginning of the year control strategy, the full implementation as Serious. The attainment prior to the attainment date, reduction is calculated by subtracting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the full implementation inventory from following the effective date of of 4.5 years and 7.5 years, respectively, the base year inventory. designation of the area with the from the date of designation of the area. (ii) The ‘‘milestone date fraction’’ is implementation of control measures as (iii) The state shall select quantitative the ratio of the number of years from the required under § 51.1009, the RFP milestones that coincide with the base year to the milestone year divided analysis required under paragraph (a)(3) milestone due dates specified in by the number of years from the of this section shall demonstrate paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this baseline year to the full implementation generally linear emissions reductions in section, as applicable, and that provide year. direct PM2.5 emissions and emissions of for objective evaluation of emissions (iii) For direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors projected from the reductions and/or air quality each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor Moderate area control strategy improvements representing progress addressed in the attainment strategy, a determined according to § 51.1008 for toward attainment of the applicable benchmark emission reduction is each milestone year. PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, including, at calculated by multiplying the full (d) For a multi-state or multi- a minimum, a milestone that all control implementation reduction by the jurisdictional nonattainment area, the measures identified and adopted as milestone date fraction. RFP plans for each state represented in RACM and RACT for the area will be (iv) The benchmark emission level in the nonattainment area shall fully implemented within 4 years after the milestone year is calculated for demonstrate RFP on the basis of the date of designation. direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 common multi-state inventories. The (2) Nonattainment areas reclassified to precursor by subtracting the benchmark states or jurisdictions within which the Serious. (i) For an attainment plan submittal emission reduction from the base year area is located must provide a that demonstrates that a Serious PM emission level. coordinated RFP plan. Each state in a 2.5 nonattainment area can attain a (v) In comparing inventories between multi-state nonattainment area must particular PM NAAQS by the end of the base year and future years for direct ensure that the sources within its 2.5 the tenth calendar year following the PM2.5 emissions and emissions of PM2.5 boundaries comply with enforceable effective date of designation of the area precursors, the inventories must be emission levels and other requirements derived for sources located within the with the implementation of control that in combination with the reductions measures as required under nonattainment area. planned in other state(s) within the (vi) For purposes of establishing § 51.1010(a), the state shall submit nonattainment area will provide for motor vehicle emissions budgets for quantitative milestones to be achieved attainment as expeditiously as transportation conformity purposes (as no later than milestone dates of 7.5 practicable and demonstrate RFP required in 40 CFR part 93) for a PM years and 10.5 years, respectively, from 2.5 consistent with these regulations. nonattainment area, the state shall the date of designation of the area. include in its RFP submittal an § 51.1013 Quantitative milestone (ii) For an attainment plan submittal inventory of on-road mobile source requirements. that demonstrates that a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area cannot practicably emissions in the nonattainment area for (a) Consistent with CAA section attain a particular PM NAAQS by the each milestone year. 189(c)(1), the state must submit in each 2.5 end of the tenth calendar year following (3) The RFP analysis must attainment plan for a PM 2.5 the date of designation of the area with demonstrate that emissions for the nonattainment area specific quantitative the implementation of control measures milestone year are either: milestones that demonstrate reasonable (i) At levels that are roughly required under § 51.1010(a), the state further progress toward attainment of equivalent to the benchmark emission shall submit quantitative milestones to the applicable PM NAAQS in the area levels for direct PM emissions and 2.5 be achieved no later than milestone 2.5 and that meet the following emissions of PM precursors addressed dates of 7.5 years, 10.5 years, and 13.5 2.5 requirements: in the attainment plan; or years, respectively, from the date of (ii) At levels included in an (1) Nonattainment areas initially designation of the area. alternative RFP analysis that projects classified as Moderate. (iii) The state shall select quantitative generally equivalent improvement in air (i) For an attainment plan submittal milestones that coincide with the quality by the milestone year as would that demonstrates that a Moderate PM2.5 milestone due dates specified in be achieved under the benchmark RFP nonattainment area can attain the paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this plan. applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of section, as applicable, and that provide (iii) The equivalence of an alternative the sixth calendar year following the for objective evaluation of emissions RFP analysis to the corresponding date of designation of the area or earlier reductions and/or air quality benchmark analysis must be determined with the implementation of control improvements representing progress by comparing the expected air quality measures as required under § 51.1009, toward attainment of the applicable changes from the two analyses at the the state shall submit quantitative PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, including, at design value monitor location. This milestones to be achieved no later than a minimum, a milestone that all control comparison must use the information a milestone date of 4.5 years from the measures identified and adopted as developed for the attainment plan to date of designation of the area. BACM and BACT for the area will be assess the relationship between (ii) For an attainment plan submittal fully implemented within 4 years of emissions reductions of the direct PM2.5 that demonstrates that a Moderate PM2.5 reclassification of the area to Serious. emissions and emissions of PM2.5 nonattainment area cannot practicably (3) Serious areas that fail to attain by precursors addressed in the control attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment strategy for the area and the ambient air the end of the sixth calendar year date. For an attainment plan submittal quality improvement. following the effective date of for a Serious area that failed to attain a (c) For an attainment plan submittal designation of the area with the particular PM2.5 NAAQS by the that demonstrates that a Moderate PM2.5 implementation of control measures as applicable Serious area attainment date nonattainment area cannot practicably required under § 51.1009, the state shall and is therefore subject to the attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by submit quantitative milestones to be requirements of CAA section 189(d) and the end of the sixth calendar year achieved no later than milestone dates § 51.1003(c), the state shall submit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15473

quantitative milestones to be achieved § 51.1014 Contingency measure (2) EPA determines that the area has requirements. no later than a milestone date of 13.5 re-violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which years from the date of designation of the (a) The state must include as part of time the state shall submit such area and every 3 years thereafter until each attainment plan submitted under attainment plan elements for the the projected attainment date for the this subpart for a PM2.5 nonattainment Moderate nonattainment area by a area. The state shall select quantitative area specific contingency measures that future date to be determined by EPA milestones that coincide with the shall take effect with minimal further and announced through publication in milestone due dates for the area, and action by the state or EPA within 60 the Federal Register at the time EPA that provide for objective evaluation of days of the Administrator making a determines the area is violating the emissions reductions and/or air quality determination that the area has failed to PM2.5 NAAQS. improvements representing progress meet either of the following conditions: (b) Nonattainment areas reclassified toward attainment of the applicable (1) The area failed to meet the RFP as Serious. Upon a determination by PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. requirements of § 51.1012 or to submit (b) Not later than 90 days after the a milestone report due to EPA in EPA that a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment date on which a milestone applicable to accordance with § 51.1013(b); or, area has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS, the a PM2.5 nonattainment area occurs, each (2) The area failed to attain the requirements for the state to submit an state in which all or part of such area attainment demonstration, reasonable applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the is located shall submit to the applicable attainment date. further progress plan, and contingency Administrator a milestone report that (b) The contingency measures measures for the area shall be contains all of the following: adopted as part of a PM attainment suspended until such time as: (1) A certification by the Governor or 2.5 (1) The area is redesignated to Governor’s designee that the state’s plan shall meet all of the following attainment, after which such attainment plan control strategy, requirements: including the RFP plan, is being (1) The contingency measures shall requirements are permanently implemented as described in the consist of control measures that are not discharged; or, applicable attainment plan; otherwise included in the control (2) EPA determines that the area has strategy for the area. (2) A technical demonstration, re-violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which including calculations, to document (2) The contingency measures shall time the state shall submit such completion statistics for appropriate provide for emissions reductions attainment plan elements for the milestones and to demonstrate that the approximately equivalent to 1 year’s Moderate nonattainment area by a quantitative milestones have been worth of reductions needed for RFP, future date to be determined by EPA satisfied and how the emission based on the overall level of reductions and announced through publication in reductions achieved to date compare to needed to demonstrate attainment the Federal Register at the time EPA those required or scheduled to meet divided by the number of years from the determines the area is violating the base year to the attainment year, or RFP; PM2.5 NAAQS. (3) An air quality screening analysis approximately equivalent to 1 year’s to determine if measured air quality worth of air quality improvement or [ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED progress is consistent with the expected emissions reductions proportional to the REGULATORY TEXT: air quality improvement target overall amount of air quality correlated with the RFP emissions improvement or emissions reductions to (b) Nonattainment areas reclassified reductions for the previous 3-year be achieved by the area’s attainment as Serious. Upon a determination by period calculated in accordance with plan. EPA that a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment § 51.1012; (c) The attainment plan submission area has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS, the (4) An evaluation of whether the area shall contain a description of the requirements for the state to submit an will attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS specific trigger mechanisms for the attainment demonstration, provisions by the projected attainment date for the contingency measures and specify a demonstrating that best available area; and, schedule for implementation. control measures, including best (5) A description and schedule for any available control technology for remedial actions the state has taken or § 51.1015 Clean data requirements. stationary sources, shall be will take to address any failure to meet (a) Nonattainment areas initially implemented no later than 4 years a quantitative milestone, including the classified as Moderate. Upon a following the date of reclassification of implementation status of contingency determination by EPA that a Moderate the area to Serious, reasonable further measures required under PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained progress plan, and contingency § 51.1014(a)(1)(i) for failing to meet RFP. the PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for measures for the area shall be (c) In the event a state fails to submit the state to submit an attainment suspended until such time as: a milestone report that meets the demonstration, provisions (1) The area is redesignated to requirements of paragraph (b) of this demonstrating that reasonably available attainment, after which such section by the due date or the control measures, including reasonably requirements are permanently Administrator determines that the state available control technology for discharged; or, failed to meet a milestone by the stationary sources, shall be milestone date, the state shall submit an implemented no later than 4 years (2) EPA determines that the area has attainment plan revision within 9 following the date of designation of the re-violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which months of the missed due date or the area, reasonable further progress plan, time the state shall submit such Administrator’s determination of the and contingency measures for the area attainment plan elements for the Serious state’s failure to meet a milestone that shall be suspended until such time as: nonattainment area by a future date to assures that the state will achieve the (1) The area is redesignated to be determined by EPA and announced next milestone or attain the applicable attainment, after which such through publication in the Federal NAAQS by the applicable date, requirements are permanently Register at the time EPA determines the whichever is earlier. discharged; or, area is violating the PM2.5 NAAQS.]

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 15474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

PART 93—DETERMINING Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. § 93.153 Applicability. CONFORMITY OF FEDERAL ACTIONS * * * * * Subpart B—Determining Conformity of TO STATE OR FEDERAL General Federal Actions to State or (b) * * * IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Federal Implementation Plans (1) For purposes of paragraph (b) of ■ 7. The authority citation for part 93 ■ 8. In § 93.153, revise paragraphs (b)(1) this section the following rates apply in continues to read as follows: and (2) to read as follows: nonattainment areas (NAA’s):

Tons/year

Ozone (VOC’s or NOX): Serious NAA’s ...... 50 Severe NAA’s ...... 25 Extreme NAA’s ...... 10 Other ozone NAA’s outside an ozone transport region ...... 100 Other ozone NAA’s inside an ozone transport region: VOC ...... 50 NOX ...... 100 Carbon Monoxide: All maintenance areas ...... 100 SO2 or NO2: All NAA’s ...... 100 PM10: Moderate NAA’s ...... 100 Serious NAA’s ...... 70 PM2.5 (direct emissions, SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia): Moderate NAA’s ...... 100 Serious NAA’s ...... 70 Pb: All NAA’s ...... 25

(2) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section the following rates apply in maintenance areas:

Tons/year

Ozone (NOX, SO2 or NO2): All maintenance areas ...... 100 Ozone (VOC’s): Maintenance areas inside an ozone transport region ...... 50 Maintenance areas outside an ozone transport region ...... 100 Carbon monoxide: All maintenance areas ...... 100 PM10: All maintenance areas ...... 100 PM2.5 (direct emissions, SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia) ...... 100 All maintenance areas ...... 100 Pb: All maintenance areas ...... 25

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–06138 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015

Part IV

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

NUCLEAR REGULATORY • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. (if that document is available in COMMISSION Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– ADAMS) is provided the first time that 415–1101. a document is referenced. For the 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. convenience of the reader, the ADAMS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accession numbers are provided in a [NRC–2014–0200] Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. section of this document. • • RIN 3150–AJ44 Hand deliver comments to: 11555 NRC’s PDR: You may examine and Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland purchase copies of public documents at Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015 (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; White Flint North, 11555 Rockville telephone: 301–415–1677. Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory For additional direction on obtaining B. Submitting Comments Commission. information and submitting comments, ACTION: Proposed rule. see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Please include Docket ID NRC–2014– Submitting Comments’’ in the 0200 in the subject line of your SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of comment submission, in order to ensure Commission (NRC) is proposing to this document. that the NRC is able to make your amend the licensing, inspection, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment submission available to the annual fees charged to its applicants Arlette Howard, Office of the Chief public in this docket. and licensees. The proposed Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear The NRC cautions you not to include amendments are necessary to Regulatory Commission, Washington, identifying or contact information that implement the Omnibus Budget DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415– you do not want to be publicly Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA–90), 1481, email: [email protected]. disclosed in your comment submission. as amended, which requires the NRC to The NRC will post all comment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recover through fees approximately 90 submissions at http:// percent of its budget authority in Fiscal I. Obtaining Information and Submitting www.regulations.gov as well as enter the Year (FY) 2015, not including amounts Comments comment submissions into ADAMS, appropriated for Waste Incidental to II. Background and the NRC does not routinely edit III. Discussion Reprocessing (WIR), the Nuclear Waste IV. Section-by-Section Analysis comment submissions to remove Fund (NWF), generic homeland security V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification identifying or contact information. activities, and Inspector General (IG) VI. Regulatory Analysis If you are requesting or aggregating services for the Defense Nuclear VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality comments from other persons for Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). These VIII. Plain Writing submission to the NRC, then you should fees represent the cost of the NRC’s IX. National Environmental Policy Act inform those persons not to include services provided to applicants and X. Paperwork Reduction Act identifying or contact information that licensees. Public Protection Notification they do not want to be publicly XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards disclosed in their comment submission. DATES: Submit comments by April 22, XII. Availability of Guidance Your request should state that the NRC 2015. Comments received after this date XIII. Availability of Documents does not routinely edit comment will be considered if it is practical to do I. Obtaining Information and submissions to remove such information so, but the Commission is able to ensure Submitting Comments before making the comment consideration only for comments submissions available to the public or received before this date. Because A. Obtaining Information entering the comment into ADAMS. OBRA–90, as amended, requires that the Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– NRC collect the FY 2015 fees by 0200 when contacting the NRC about II. Background September 30, 2015, the NRC will not the availability of information for this Over the past 40 years the NRC (and grant any requests for an extension of action. You may obtain publicly- earlier, as the Atomic Energy the comment period. available information related to this Commission, the NRC’s predecessor ADDRESSES: You may submit comments action by any of the following methods: agency) has assessed and continues to by any of the following methods (unless • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to assess fees to applicants and licensees to this document describes a different http://www.regulations.gov and search recover the cost of its regulatory method for submitting comments on a for Docket ID NRC–2014–0200. program. The NRC’s cost recovery specific subject): • NRC’s Agencywide Documents principles for fee regulation are • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to Access and Management System governed by two major laws: (1) The http://www.regulations.gov and search (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- Independent Offices Appropriations Act for Docket ID NRC–2014–0200. Address available documents online in the of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 483 (a)); and questions about NRC dockets to Carol ADAMS Public Documents collection at (2) OBRA–90 (42 U.S.C. 2214), as Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ amended. The NRC is required each email: [email protected]. For adams.html. To begin the search, select year, under OBRA–90, as amended, to technical questions contact the ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then recover approximately 90 percent of its individual listed in the FOR FURTHER select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS budget authority, not including amounts INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, appropriated for WIR, amounts proposed rule. please contact the NRC’s Public appropriated for generic homeland • Email comments to: Document Room (PDR) reference staff at security activities, and IG services for [email protected]. If you 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by the DNFSB, through fees to the NRC do not receive an automatic email reply email to [email protected]. The licensees and applicants. confirming receipt, then contact us at ADAMS accession number for each In addition to the requirements of 301–415–1677. document referenced in this document OBRA–90, as amended, the NRC is also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15477

required to comply with the Congressional Budget Justification adjustments are shifts of the same work requirements of the Small Business figures with adjustments made for the and the associated resources within or Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of current estimate. In order to ensure between programs, business, or product 1996. This Act encourages small timely publication of this rule, lines. Reallocation of resources occurs businesses to participate in the adjustments have not been made for the when resources are used differently regulatory process, and requires appropriation received on December 16, than originally budgeted, for reasons agencies to develop more accessible 2014. All figures in the final rule will be such as changes in agency priorities or sources of information on regulatory updated based on the NRC’s workload changes. For example, FY and reporting requirements for small appropriation (an estimate has been 2015 resources decreased in the New businesses and create a small entity included in this proposed rule). Because Reactors and Fuel Facilities Business compliance guide. The NRC, in order to the enacted appropriation is less than Lines due to projected workload ensure equitable fee distribution among the President’s budget, the final rule decreases, while resources allocated to all licensees, develops a fee will reflect that, overall, the NRC will the Operating Reactors Business Line methodology specifically for small collect a lower amount of fees than is increased to support efforts to reduce entities that consisted of a small entity reflected in this proposed rule. the inventory of pending licensing definition and the Small Business III. Discussion actions. The 2015 proposed fee rule is Administration’s most common based on the anticipated distribution of In compliance with OBRA–90, as receipts-based size standards as funds for agency needs at the time of its amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of described under the North American development. The final rule will be 1954 (AEA), the NRC proposes to amend Industry Classification System (NAICS) adjusted to reflect the NRC’s FY 2015 identifying industry codes. The NAICS its fee schedules for parts 170 and 171 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal reduced appropriation of $1,015.3 is the standard used by Federal million. statistical agencies to classify business Regulations (10 CFR) to recover Table 1.1 contains a sample of the establishments for the purposes of approximately 90 percent of its FY 2015 anticipated impact of this calculation. collecting, analyzing, and publishing budget authority, less the amounts Based on OBRA–90, as amended, the statistical data related to the U.S. appropriated for WIR, the NWF, generic business economy. The purpose of this homeland security activities, and IG NRC is required to recover $935.3 fee methodology is to lessen the services for the DNFSB. The 10 CFR part million through 10 CFR part 170 170 user fees, under the authority of the financial impact on small entities licensing and inspections fees and 10 IOAA, recover the NRC’s costs of through the establishment of a CFR part 171 annual fees for the FY providing specific regulatory benefits to maximum fee at a reduced rate for 2015 proposed fee rule. This amount identifiable applicants and licensees. qualifying licensees. excludes non-fee items for WIR For example, the NRC assesses these For FY 2015, the NRC staff performed activities totaling $1.4 million, IG fees to cover the costs of inspections, a biennial review using the same fee services for the DNFSB totaling $0.9 applications for new licenses and methodology developed in FY 2009 that million, and generic homeland security license renewals, and requests for activities totaling $18.1 million. The applies a fixed percentage of 39 percent license amendments. The 10 CFR part to the prior 2-year weighted average of required fee recovery amount is $4.5 171 annual fees, on the other hand, million more than the amount recovered materials users’ fees. This methodology recover generic regulatory costs that are disproportionately impacted NRC’s in FY 2014, an increase of 0.5 percent. not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR After accounting for billing adjustments, small licensees fees by increasing fees part 170 fees. by an approximate 43 percent on this amount is decreased by $9.0 million average compared to other materials FY 2015 Proposed Fee Collection as a result of net billing adjustments (sum of unpaid current year invoices licensees not eligible for small entity fee In order to allow sufficient time for (estimated) minus payments for prior status whose fees increased by 38 the NRC to issue the FY 2015 final fee year invoices). This leaves percent or less for FY 2015; therefore, rule during FY 2015, as required by approximately $926.2 million in FY the NRC staff limited the increase to 21 OBRA–90, the NRC is issuing the 2015 to be billed as fees to licensees for percent based on historical applications proposed fee rule based on the 10 CFR part 170 licensing and of the fee methodology. Consequently, President’s budget. The FY 2015 final inspection fees and 10 CFR part 171 the change resulted in a fee of $3,400 for fee rule will be based on the enacted annual fees. This amount represents an an upper-tier small entity and $700 for budget. The enacted budget represents a a lower-tier small entity for FY 2015. $44.2 million reduction from the increase of $9.5 million in fees assessed The NRC staff believes these fees are President’s budget, which will reduce to licensees over the FY 2014 final fee reasonable and provide relief to small the hourly rate and the amount of rule published on June 30, 2014 (79 FR entities while at the same time annual fees the NRC is required to 37124). recovering from those licensees some of collect. Table I summarizes the proposed the NRC’s costs for activities that benefit The FY 2015 proposed fee rule is budget and fee recovery amounts for the them. The next biennial review will be based on the President’s budget request FY 2015 proposed fee rule. The FY 2014 conducted in FY 2017. of $1,059.5 million, modified to reflect amounts are provided for comparison Additionally, this proposed rule is comparability adjustments and purposes. (Individual values may not based on the NRC’s FY 2015 reallocation of resources. Comparability sum to totals due to rounding.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE I—BUDGET AND FEE RECOVERY AMOUNTS [Dollars in millions]

Estimated FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Final rule Proposed rule final

Total Budget Authority ...... $1,055.9 $1,059.5 $1,015.3 Less Non-Fee Items ...... ¥21.8 ¥20.3 ¥$20.3 Balance ...... $1,034.1 $1,039.2 $995.0 Fee Recovery Rate ...... 90% 90% 90% Total Amount to be Recovered: ...... $930.7 $935.3 $895.5 10 CFR Part 171 Billing Adjustments: Unpaid Current Year Invoices (estimated) ...... 0.5 0.6 0.6 Less Current Year from Collections (Terminated—Operating Reactors) ...... ¥2.2 0 0 Less Payments Received in Current Year for Previous Year Invoices (estimated) ..... ¥12.3 ¥9.6 ¥9.6 Subtotal ...... ¥14.0 ¥9.0 ¥9.0 Amount to be Recovered through 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Fees ...... $916.7 $926.2 $886.5 Less Estimated 10 CFR Part 170 Fees ...... ¥332.5 ¥324.3 ¥$324.3 Less Prior Year Unbilled 10 CFR Part 170 Fees ...... ¥0 ¥0 ¥0 10 CFR Part 171 Fee Collections Required ...... $584.2 $601.9 $562.2

TABLE I.I—ESTIMATED FINAL FY 2015 FEES

Percent FY 2015 Percent Estimated FY Percent change from Class/Category of licenses FY 2014 Final Proposed change from 2015 final change from FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2014 proposed

Operating Power Reactors ...... $4,999,000 $5,087,000 1.8 $4,750,000 ¥5.0 ¥6.6 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommis- sioning ...... 224,000 237,000 5.8 234,000 4.5 ¥1.3 Research and Test Reactors (Nonpower Reactors) ...... 84,500 88,500 4.7 84,700 0.2 ¥4.3 High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 7,175,000 9,424,000 31.3 8,198,000 14.3 ¥13.0 Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 2,469,000 3,243,000 31.3 2,821,000 14.3 ¥13.0 UF6 Conversion and Deconversion Facil- ity ...... 1,466,000 1,925,000 31.3 1,675,000 14.3 ¥13.0 Conventional Mills ...... 33,800 40,700 20.4 35,300 4.4 ¥13.3 Typical Materials Users: Radiographers (Category 3O) ...... 29,800 26,900 ¥9.7 25,700 ¥13.8 ¥4.5 Well Loggers (Category 5A) ...... 13,600 14,900 9.6 14,300 5.1 ¥4.0 Gauge Users (Category 3P) ...... 6,800 8,200 20.6 7,900 16.2 ¥3.7 Broad Scope Medical (Category 7B) 35,700 38,500 7.8 37,300 4.5 ¥3.1

Hourly Rate 0.07 percent lower than the FY 2014 2014 estimate of 1,375 hours per direct The NRC’s hourly rate is used in hourly rate of $279. FTE and represents increased assessing full cost fees, or the total cost The NRC’s hourly rate is derived by productivity. These hours exclude all of services provided by the NRC, for dividing the sum of recoverable indirect activities such as training and specific services provided, as well as budgeted resources for: (1) Mission- general administration. The staff used flat fees for certain application reviews. direct program salaries and benefits; (2) 1,420 hours in the FY 2015 budget The NRC is proposing to decrease the mission-indirect program support; and formulation cycle (which began in current hourly rate of $279 to $277 in (3) agency office support and the IG, all March 2013). The NRC generated this FY 2015 (with an estimated $268 hourly of which are agency overhead or figure by reviewing and analyzing the rate in the final rule). The hourly rate indirect costs by mission-direct FTE most currently available time and labor decrease is due to the increase in hours. The mission-direct FTE hours are data from FY 2010 through FY 2012 to estimated direct hours worked per the product of the mission-direct FTE determine if the direct hours per FTE for mission-direct FTE during the year. The multiplied by the hours per direct FTE. FY 2015 budget formulation should be hourly rate is inversely related to the The only budgeted resources excluded revised. mission-direct FTE rate. Thus, as the from the hourly rate are those for Table II shows the results of the FTE rate increases, the hourly rate contract activities related to mission- hourly rate calculation methodology. decreases. This rate would be applicable direct and fee-relief activities. The FY 2014 amounts are provided for to all activities for which fees are In FY 2015, the NRC used 1,420 hours comparison purposes. (Individual assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31. per direct FTE to calculate the hourly values may not sum to totals due to The FY 2015 proposed hourly rate is fee rate, which is higher than the FY rounding.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15479

TABLE II—HOURLY RATE CALCULATION

Estimated FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Final rule Proposed rule final

Mission-Direct Program Salaries & Benefits ...... $359.2 $368.4 $365.6 Mission-Indirect Program Support ...... $21.0 $67.8 $67.8 Agency Corporate Support, and the IG ...... $486.0 $455.6 $422.3

Subtotal ...... $866.2 $891.8 $855.7 Less Offsetting Receipts ...... ¥$0.0 ¥$0.0 $.04

Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate (Millions of Dollars) ...... $866.2 $891.7 $855.6 Mission-Direct FTE (Whole numbers) ...... 2,254 2,267 2,249 Professional Hourly Rate (Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate divided by Mission-Direct FTE Hours) (Whole Numbers) ...... $279 $277 $268

As shown in Table II, dividing the FY minimal. Fees under $1,000 are rounded Moreover, the NRC would use its fee- 2015 $891.7 million budget amount to the nearest $10, fees that are greater relief surplus to decrease all licensees’ included in the hourly rate by total than $1,000 but less than $100,000 are annual fees, based on their percentage mission-direct FTE hours (2,267 FTE rounded to the nearest $100, and fees share of the budget. The NRC would times 1,420 hours) results in an hourly that are greater than $100,000 are apply the 10 percent of its budget that rate of $277. The hourly rate is rounded rounded to the nearest $1,000. is excluded from fee recovery under to the nearest whole dollar. The proposed licensing flat fees are OBRA–90, as amended (fee relief), to applicable for fee categories K.1. offset the total budget allocated for Flat Application Fee Changes through K.5. of § 170.21, and fee activities that do not directly benefit The NRC is proposing to amend the categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. current NRC licensees. The budget for current flat application fees in §§ 170.21 through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. these fee-relief activities is totaled and and 170.31 to reflect the revised hourly through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., then reduced by the amount of the rate of $277. These flat fees are 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31. Applications NRC’s fee relief. Any difference between calculated by multiplying the average filed on or after the effective date of the the fee-relief and the budgeted amount professional staff hours needed to FY 2015 final fee rule would be subject of these activities results in a fee-relief process the licensing actions by the to the revised fees in the final rule. adjustment (increase or decrease) to all proposed professional hourly rate for FY licensees’ annual fees, based on their Application of Fee-Relief and Low-Level 2015. The agency estimates the average percentage share of the budget, which is Waste (LLW) Surcharge professional staff hours needed to consistent with the existing fee process licensing actions every other The NRC proposes to credit a total of methodology. year as part of its biennial review of fees $10.6 million to licensees’ annual fees In the Staff Requirements performed in compliance with the Chief for both fee-relief activities and LLW Memorandum for SECY–14–0082, Financial Officers Act of 1990. The NRC surcharge based on their share of the fee ‘‘Jurisdiction for Military Radium and performed this review as part of this FY recoverable budget authority. For this U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 proposed fee rulemaking. The rulemaking, the NRC also proposes to Oversight of U.S. Department of Defense lower hourly rate of $277 is the primary establish rebaselined annual fees by Remediation of Radioactive Material’’ reason for the decrease in application changing the number of licensees in (ADAMS Accession No. ML14356A070), fees. accordance with SECY–05–0164, the Commission approved the staff’s In general, the increase in application ‘‘Annual Fee Calculation Method,’’ recommendation to finalize and fees is due to the increased number of September 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession implement a Memorandum of hours required to perform specific No. ML052580332). The rebaselining Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. activities based on the biennial review. method analyzes the budget in detail Department of Defense (DOD) for Application fees for 11 fee categories and allocates the budgeted costs to remediation of DOD unlicensed sites (2.D., 3.C., 3.H., 3.M., 3.P., 3.R.2., 3.S., various classes or subclasses of containing radioactive materials subject 4.B., 5.A., 7.A., and 7.C. under § 170.31) licensees. Stated otherwise, rebaselining to the NRC’s regulatory authority. The increase as a result of the average time is the annual reallocation of NRC MOU is slated to be finalized in FY to process these types of license resources based on changes in the NRC’s 2015. As part of this effort, the applications. The decrease in fees for 7 budget. The NRC established the Commission approved the fee categories (2.C., 2.E., 2.F., 3.B., 3.I., rebaselined methodology for calculating establishment of a new fee relief 3.N., and 3.O. under § 170.31) is due to annual fees through notice and category for the regulatory activities for a decrease in average time to process comment rulemaking in the FY 1999 fee the monitoring of DOD unlicensed sites these types of applications. Also, the rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999), under the MOU. Consistent with this application fees increase for 3 import determining that base annual fees will direction, the NRC proposes to include and export fee categories (K.4., K.5., and be re-established (rebaselined) every a new activity under fee relief activities, 15.D. under § 170.31) and decrease for 4 third year, or more frequently if there is within 10 CFR part 170 licensing and import and export fee categories (15.G., a substantial change in the total NRC inspection fees or 10 CFR part 171 15.H., 15.K., and 15.L. under § 170.31). budget or in the magnitude of the annual fees. These program activities The amounts of the materials budget allocated to a specific class of capture site-specific oversight activities licensing flat fees are rounded so that licenses. The FY 2014 fee rulemaking performed under the MOU and any the fees would be convenient to the user used this same rebaselining ongoing non-site specific MOU-related and the effects of rounding would be methodology. program activities. These activities will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

therefore be funded by the agency’s 10- Grants will be allocated consistent with under decommissioning activities for percent appropriation. the FY 2015 appropriation in the FY total fee-relief resources. In comparison to FY 2014, resources 2015 final fee rule. Additionally, the Table III summarizes the fee-relief for Scholarships and Fellowships budgetary resources in FY 2015 would activities for FY 2015. The FY 2014 decreased by $14.8 million in the FY slightly increase due to a reduction in amounts are provided for comparison 2015 President’s budget. The $15 decommissioning billings under 10 CFR purposes. (Individual values may not million requirement for University part 170, which would lower the offset sum to totals due to rounding.)

TABLE III—FEE-RELIEF ACTIVITIES [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Fee-relief activities Budgeted Budgeted costs costs

1. Activities not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee: a. International activities ...... $11.2 $10.0 b. Agreement State oversight ...... 12.6 12.4 c. Scholarships and Fellowships ...... 18.9 4.1 d. Medical Isotope Production ...... 3.1 5.0 2. Activities not assessed under 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspection fees or 10 CFR part 171 annual fees based on existing law or Commission policy: a. Fee exemption for nonprofit educational institutions ...... 11.9 10.6 b. Costs not recovered from small entities under 10 CFR 71.16(c) ...... 8.4 9.2 c. Regulatory support to Agreement States ...... 17.9 19.0 d. Generic decommissioning/reclamation (not related to the power reactor and spent fuel storage fee classes) ...... 17.1 17.7 e. In Situ leach rulemaking and unregistered general licensees ...... 1.0 1.3 f. Potential Department of Defense remediation program MOU activities ...... 0.0 0.0

Total fee-relief activities ...... 102.1 89.3 Less 10 percent of the NRC’s total FY budget (less non-fee items) ...... ¥103.4 103.9 Fee-Relief Adjustment to be Allocated to All Licensees’ Annual Fees ...... ¥1.3 ¥14.6

Table IV shows how the NRC would adjustment is subtracted from the and Agreement States, the costs of these allocate the $14.6 million fee-relief required annual fee recovery for each activities are recovered through annual assessment adjustment to each license fee class. fees. Separately, the NRC has continued to fee class. As explained previously, the Table IV also shows the allocation of NRC would allocate this fee-relief allocate the LLW surcharge based on the the LLW surcharge activity. For FY adjustment to each license fee class volume of LLW disposal of three classes 2015, the total budget allocated for LLW based on their percentage of the budget of licenses: operating reactors, fuel for their fee class compared to the NRC’s facilities, and materials users. Because activity is $4 million. (Individual values total budget. The fee-relief surplus LLW activities support NRC licensees may not sum to totals due to rounding.)

TABLE IV—ALLOCATION OF FEE–RELIEF ADJUSTMENT AND LLW SURCHARGE, FY 2015 [Dollars in millions]

LLW Surcharge Fee-relief adjustment Total Percent $ Percent $ $

Operating Power Reactors ...... 32 1.3 86.0 ¥12.6 ¥11.3 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning ...... 0 0 3.7 ¥0.5 ¥0.5 Research and Test Reactors ...... 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Fuel Facilities ...... 54 2.2 5.2 ¥0.8 1.4 Materials Users ...... 14 0.6 3.1 ¥0.5 0.1 Transportation ...... 0 0 0.5 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 Rare Earth Facilities ...... 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uranium Recovery ...... 0 0 1.2 ¥0.2 ¥0.2

Total ...... 100 4.0 100 ¥14.6 ¥10.6

Revised Annual Fees for FY 2015 to recover approximately 90 the FY 2014 fee rule, primarily within percent of the NRC’s FY 2015 budget the fuel facilities and spent fuel storage The NRC is required to establish authority, less non-fee amounts and the fee classes. These decreases are later rebaselined annual fees, which includes estimated amount to be recovered explained in detail within each fee updating the number of NRC licensees through 10 CFR part 170 fees. The total class. The total amount to be recovered in the FY 2015 fee calculations. estimated 10 CFR part 170 collections through annual fees from current Therefore, the NRC proposes to revise for this proposed rule total are $324.3 licensees for this proposed rule is its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 million, a decrease of $8.3 million from $601.9 million, an increase of $17.8

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15481

million from the FY 2014 final rule. The warrant the use of the rebaselining costs to the different classes of licenses FY 2015 Final Fee Rule will reflect an method. (based on the specific activities the NRC estimated annual fee collection of For FY 2015, the NRC’s total fee will perform in FY 2015), the estimated $562.2 million. The required annual fee recoverable budget, as mandated by law, 10 CFR part 170 collections for the collection in FY 2014 was $584.2 is $935.3 million, an increase of $4.5 various classes of licenses, and million. million compared to FY 2014. The FY allocation of the fee-relief surplus 2015 budget was allocated to the In the agency’s FY 2006 final fee rule adjustment to all fee classes. The appropriate fee class based on budgeted percentage of the NRC’s budget not (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the activities. As compared with the FY subject to fee recovery remains at 10 Commission determined that the agency 2014 annual fees, the FY 2015 percent for FY 2015, the same as FY should proceed with a presumption in rebaselined fees increase for most fee favor of rebaselining when calculating classes—operating reactors, spent fuel 2014. annual fees each year. Rebaselining storage and reactor decommissioning, Table V shows the rebaselined fees for involves a detailed analysis of the NRC’s fuel facilities, research and test reactors, FY 2015 for a representative list of budget, with the NRC allocating some materials users, DOE categories of licensees. The FY 2014 budgeted resources to fee classes and transportation activities, and most amounts are provided for comparison categories of licensees. The Commission uranium recovery licensees. purposes. (Individual values may not expects that for most years there will be The factors affecting all annual fees sum to totals due to rounding.) budgetary and other changes that include the distribution of budgeted

TABLE V—REBASELINED ANNUAL FEES

FY 2014 FY 2015 Estimated Class/category of licenses Final annual Proposed FY 2015 fee annual fee final fee

Operating Power Reactors ...... $4,999,000 $5,087,000 $4,750,000 + Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning ...... 224,000 237,000 234,000 Total, Combined Fee ...... 5,223,000 5,324,000 4,984,000 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning ...... 224,000 237,000 234,000 Research and Test Reactors (Nonpower Reactors) ...... 84,500 88,500 84,700 High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 7,175,000 9,424,000 8,198,000 Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 2,469,000 3,243,000 2,821,000 UF6 Conversion and Deconversion Facility ...... 1,466,000 1,925,000 1,675,000 Conventional Mills ...... 33,800 40,700 35,300 Typical Materials Users: Radiographers (Category 3O) ...... 29,800 26,900 25,700 Well Loggers (Category 5A) ...... 13,600 14,900 14,300 Gauge Users (Category 3P) ...... 6,800 8,200 7,900 Broad Scope Medical (Category 7B) ...... 35,700 38,500 37,300

The work papers (ADAMS Accession presented in this section may not sum reduced by estimated 10 CFR part 170 No. ML15021A198) that support this to totals due to rounding. collections and adjusted for allocated generic transportation resources and fee- proposed rule show in detail the a. Fuel Facilities allocation of the NRC’s budgeted relief. In FY 2015, the LLW surcharge resources for each class of licenses and The FY 2015 budgeted costs to be for fuel facilities is added to the how the fees are calculated. The work recovered in the annual fees assessment allocated fee-relief adjustment (see papers are available as indicated in to the fuel facility class of licenses Table IV, ‘‘Application of Fee-Relief Section XIII, ‘‘Availability of (which includes licensees in fee Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY Documents,’’ of this document. categories 1.A.(1)(a), 1.A.(1)(b), 2015,’’ in Section II, ‘‘Discussion,’’ of 1.A.(2)(a), 1.A.(2)(b), 1.A.(2)(c), 1.E., and this document). The summary Paragraphs a. through h. of this 2.A.(1) under § 171.16) are calculations used to derive this value section describe budgetary resources approximately $38.6 million. This value are presented in Table VI for FY 2015, allocated to each class of licenses and is based on the full cost of budgeted with FY 2014 values shown for the calculations of the rebaselined fees. resources associated with all activities comparison. (Individual values may not Individual values in the tables that support this fee class, which is sum to totals due to rounding.)

TABLE VI—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR FUEL FACILITIES [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $47.2 $48.2 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥16.7 ¥11.3 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 30.5 36.9 Allocated generic transportation ...... 0.6 0.8 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge ...... 1.1 1.4 Billing adjustments ...... ¥0.6 ¥0.05

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VI—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR FUEL FACILITIES—Continued [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Reclassification of licensee current year fee billing received: ...... ¥2.2 0

Total remaining required annual fee recovery ...... 29.5 38.6

In FY 2015, the fuel facilities annual a change of category for a particular fuel The matrix depicts the categorization of fee increased in part due to a slight rise facility licensee, as a result of the licensees/certificate holders by in budgetary resources. The primary methodology used in the fuel facility authorized material types and use/ cause for the FY 2015 increase was effort/fee matrix. Consequently, this activities. reduced 10 CFR part 170 billings from change may also have an effect on the Each year, the NRC’s fuel facility construction delays. The NRC allocates fees assessed to other fuel facility project managers and regulatory the total remaining annual fee recovery licensees and certificate holders. For amount to the individual fuel facility example, if a fuel facility licensee analysts determine the level of effort licensees, based on the effort/fee amends its license/certificate to reflect associated with regulating each of these determination matrix developed for the cessation of licensed activities (e.g., facilities. This is done by assigning, for FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31447; decommissioning or license each fuel facility, separate effort factors June 10, 1999). In the matrix included termination), then that licensee will not for the safety and safeguards activities in the publicly-available NRC work be subject to 10 CFR part 171 costs associated with each type of regulatory papers, licensees are grouped into applicable to the fee class, and the activity. The matrix includes 10 types of categories according to their licensed budgeted generic costs for the safety regulatory activities, including activities (i.e., nuclear material and/or safeguards components that enrichment and scrap/waste-related enrichment, processing operations, and continue to be associated with the activities (see the work papers for the material form) and the level, scope, license will have to be spread among the complete list). Effort factors are assigned depth of coverage, and rigor of generic remaining fuel facility licensees/ as follows: 1 (low regulatory effort), 5 regulatory programmatic effort certificate holders. (moderate regulatory effort), and 10 applicable to each category from a safety The methodology is applied as (high regulatory effort). The NRC then and safeguards perspective. This follows. First, a fee category is assigned, totals separate effort factors for safety methodology can be applied to based on the nuclear material possessed and safeguards activities for each fee determine fees for new licensees, or used, and/or the activity or activities category. current licensees, licensees in unique authorized by license or certificate. license situations, and certificate Although a licensee/certificate holder The effort factors for the various fuel holders. may elect not to fully use a license/ facility fee categories are summarized in This methodology is adaptable to certificate, the license/certificate is still Table VII. The value of the effort factors changes in the number of licensees or used as the source for determining shown, as well as the percent of the certificate holders, licensed or certified authorized nuclear material possession total effort factor for all fuel facilities, material and/or activities, and total and use/activity. Second, the category reflects the total regulatory effort for programmatic resources to be recovered and license/certificate information are each fee category (not per facility). This through annual fees. When a license or used to determine where the licensee/ results in spreading of costs to other fee certificate is modified, it may result in certificate holder fits into the matrix. categories.

TABLE VII—EFFORT FACTORS FOR FUEL FACILITIES, FY 2015

Effort factors Facility type Number of (percent of total) (fee category) facilities Safety Safeguards

High-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(a)) ...... 2 89 (43.8) 97 (54.5) Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(b)) ...... 3 70 (34.5) 26 (14.6) Limited Operations (1.A.(2)(a)) ...... 1 2 (1.0) 7 (3.9) Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Demonstration (1.A.(2)(b)) ...... 1 3 (1.5) 15 (8.4) Hot Cell (1.A.(2)(c)) ...... 1 6 (3.0) 3 (1.7) Uranium Enrichment (1.E.) ...... 1 21 (10.3) 23 (12.9) UF6 Conversion and Deconversion (2.A.(1)) ...... 1 12 (5.9) 7 (3.9)

For FY 2015, the total budgeted factor for safety activities for all fuel activities is allocated to each fee resources for safety activities are $19.8 facilities is 100, and the total effort category based on its percent of the total million, excluding the fee-relief factor for safety activities for a given fee regulatory effort for safeguards adjustment and the reclassification category is 10, that fee category will be activities. The fuel facility fee class’ adjustment. This amount is allocated to allocated 10 percent of the total portion of the fee-relief adjustment, $1.4 each fee category based on its percent of budgeted resources for safety activities. million, is allocated to each fee category the total regulatory effort for safety Similarly, the budgeted resources based on its percent of the total activities. For example, if the total effort amount of $17.4 million for safeguards regulatory effort for both safety and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15483

safeguards activities. The annual fee per TABLE VIII—ANNUAL FEES FOR FUEL b. Uranium Recovery Facilities licensee is then calculated by dividing FACILITIES—Continued the total allocated budgeted resources The total FY 2015 budgeted costs to for the fee category by the number of FY 2015 be recovered through annual fees Facility type assessed to the uranium recovery class licensees in that fee category. The fee (fee category) Proposed (rounded) for each facility is annual fee (which includes licensees in fee summarized in Table VIII. categories 2.A.(2)(a), 2.A.(2)(b), Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel 2.A.(2)(c), 2.A.(2)(d), 2.A.(2)(e), 2.A.(3), (1.A.(1)(b)) ...... 3,243,000 ABLE NNUAL EES FOR UEL T VIII—A F F Limited Operations (1.A(2)(a)) .... 912,000 2.A.(4), 2.A.(5), and 18.B. under FACILITIES Gas Centrifuge Enrichment § 171.16) are approximately $1.2 Demonstration (1.A.(2)(b)) ...... 1,824,000 million. The derivation of this value is FY 2015 Hot Cell (and others) (1.A.(2)(c)) 912,000 shown in Table IX, with FY 2014 values Facility type Proposed (fee category) annual fee Uranium Enrichment (1.E.) ...... 4,459,000 shown for comparison purposes. UF6 Conversion and High-Enriched Uranium Fuel Deconversion (2.A.(1)) ...... 1,925,000 (1.A.(1)(a)) ...... $9,424,000

TABLE IX—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $10.9 $11.6 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥9.5 ¥10.1 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 1.3 1.5 Allocated generic transportation ...... N/A N/A Fee-relief adjustment ...... ¥0.0 ¥0.2 Billing adjustments ...... ¥0.1 ¥0.1

Total required annual fee recovery ...... 1.2 1.2

In comparison to FY 2014, the the total annual fee amount for this fee uranium mill sites licensed by the NRC proposed FY 2015 budgetary resources class between the DOE and the other or Agreement States in or after 1978. for uranium recovery licensees licensees in this fee class. The NRC In FY 2015, the annual fee assessed to increased due to greater resources regulates DOE’s Title I and Title II DOE includes recovery of the costs required for environmental reviews of activities under the Uranium Mill specifically budgeted for the NRC’s uranium mining applications and tribal Tailings Radiation Control Act UMTRCA Title I and II activities, plus consultations with uranium recovery (UMTRCA). The Congress established 10 percent of the remaining annual fee licensing actions. Specifically, staff the two programs, Title I and Title II, amount, including generic/other costs worked to expedite environmental under UMTRCA to protect the public (minus 10 percent of the fee-relief reviews for uranium mining and the environment from uranium adjustment), for the uranium recovery applications by improving the National milling. The UMTRCA Title I program class. The NRC assesses the remaining Historic Preservation Act Section 106 is for remedial action at abandoned mill 90 percent generic/other costs minus 90 Tribal Consultation process to accelerate percent of the fee-relief adjustment, to tailings sites where tailings resulted NRC consideration of uranium mining the other NRC licensees in this fee class largely from production of uranium for applications. that are subject to annual fees. Since FY 2002, the NRC has the weapons program. The NRC also The costs to be recovered through computed the annual fee for the regulates DOE’s UMTRCA Title II annual fees assessed to the uranium uranium recovery fee class by allocating program, which is directed toward recovery class are shown in Table X.

TABLE X—COSTS RECOVERED THROUGH ANNUAL FEES; URANIUM RECOVERY FEE CLASS

FY 2015 Summary of costs Proposed annual fee

DOE Annual Fee Amount (UMTRCA Title I and Title II) General Licenses: ...... $593,233 UMTRCA Title I and Title II budgeted costs less 10 CFR part 170 receipts. 10 percent of generic/other uranium recovery budgeted costs ...... 78,076 10 percent of uranium recovery fee-relief adjustment ...... ¥17,954

Total Annual Fee Amount for DOE (rounded) ...... 653,000 Annual Fee Amount for Other Uranium Recovery Licenses: ...... 702,680 90 percent of generic/other uranium recovery budgeted costs less the amounts specifically budgeted for Title I and Title II activities. 90 percent of uranium recovery fee-relief adjustment ...... ¥161,582

Total Annual Fee Amount for Other Uranium Recovery Licenses ...... 541,098

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

The NRC will continue to use a (11e.(2) disposal facilities); and uranium generic uranium recovery program matrix, which is included in the work water treatment facilities. activities for each type of generic papers, to determine the level of effort Second, the matrix identifies the activity in the matrix. This is done by associated with conducting the generic types of operating activities that support assigning, for each fee category, separate regulatory actions for the different (non- and benefit these licensees. The benefit factors for each type of DOE) licensees in this fee class. The activities related to generic regulatory activity in the matrix. Benefit weights derived in this matrix are used decommissioning/reclamation are not factors are assigned on a scale of 0 to 10 to allocate the approximately $541,098 included in the matrix because they are as follows: 0 (no regulatory benefit), 5 annual fee amount to these licensees. included in the fee-relief activities. (moderate regulatory benefit), and 10 The use of this uranium recovery annual Therefore, they are not a factor in (high regulatory benefit). These benefit fee matrix was established in the FY determining annual fees. The activities factors are first multiplied by the 1995 final fee rule (60 FR 32217; June included in the matrix are operations, relative weight assigned to each activity 20, 1995). The FY 2015 matrix is waste operations, and groundwater (described previously). The NRC then protection. The relative weight of each calculates total and per licensee benefit described as follows. type of activity is then determined, factors for each fee category. Therefore, First, the methodology identifies the based on the regulatory resources these benefit factors reflect the relative categories of licenses included in this associated with each activity. The regulatory benefit associated with each fee class (besides DOE). These categories operations, waste operations, and licensee and fee category. are: Conventional uranium mills and groundwater protection activities have Table XI displays the benefit factors heap leach facilities; uranium In Situ weights of 0, 5, and 10, respectively, in per licensee and per fee category, for Recovery (ISR) and resin ISR facilities, the matrix. each of the non-DOE fee categories and mill tailings disposal facilities, as Each year, the NRC determines the included in the uranium recovery fee defined in Section 11e.(2) of the AEA level of benefit to each licensee for class as follows:

TABLE XI—BENEFIT FACTORS FOR URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSES

Benefit Benefit Fee category Number of factor per Total factor licensees licensee value percent total

Conventional and Heap Leach mills (2.A.(2)(a)) ...... 1 150 150 9 Basic In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(b)) ...... 8 190 1,520 76 Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(c)) ...... 1 215 215 11 11e.(2) disposal incidental to existing tailings sites (2.A.(4)) ...... 1 85 85 4 Uranium water treatment (2.A.(5)) ...... 1 25 25 1

Total ...... 12 665 1,995 100

Applying these factors to the TABLE XII—ANNUAL FEES FOR c. Operating Power Reactors approximately $541,098 in budgeted URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSEES The total budgeted costs to be costs to be recovered from non-DOE [Other than DOE] uranium recovery licensees results in recovered from the power reactor fee the total annual fees for each fee FY 2015 class in FY 2015 in the form of annual category. The annual fee per licensee is Facility type (fee category) proposed fees is $503.6 million, as shown in calculated by dividing the total annual fee Table XIII. The FY 2014 values are allocated budgeted resources for the fee shown for comparison. (Individual Conventional and Heap Leach values may not sum to totals due to category by the number of licensees in mills (2.A.(2)(a)) ...... $40,700 that fee category, as summarized in Basic In Situ Recovery facilities rounding.) Table XII. (2.A.(2)(b)) ...... 51,500 Expanded In Situ Recovery fa- cilities (2.A.(2)(c)) ...... 58,300 11e.(2) disposal incidental to ex- isting tailings sites (2.A.(4)) .... 23,100 Uranium water treatment (2.A.(5)) ...... 6,800

TABLE XIII—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $799.3 $809.5 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥290.9 ¥288.5

Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 508.4 521.0 Allocated generic transportation ...... 1.1 1.7 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge ...... 0.6 ¥11.3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15485

TABLE XIII—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS—Continued [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Billing adjustment ...... ¥10.2 ¥7.8

Total required annual fee recovery ...... 499.9 503.6

The operating power reactor annual reactor. Additionally, each power The increased annual fee is due to an fee increase is partially the result of a reactor licensed to operate would be increase in budgetary resources for slight rise in budgetary resources in the assessed the FY 2015 spent fuel storage/ rulemaking, a decrease in 10 CFR part FY 2015 President’s budget, partially reactor decommissioning annual fee of 170 billings, and a decrease in the the result of a $2 million 10 CFR part $237,000. The total FY 2015 annual fee number of licensees. Staff has dedicated 170 reduction in estimated billings, and is $5,324,000 for each power reactor significant time working on partially the result of the December licensed to operate. The annual fees for improvements to 10 CFR part 71 to 2014 shutdown of Vermont Yankee. The power reactors are presented in ensure compatibility with International permanent shutdown of the Vermont § 171.15. Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yankee reactor decreases the fleet of d. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactors in transportation and storage standards— operating reactors, which subsequently Decommissioning this generic rulemaking activity must be increases the annual fees for the rest of the fleet. As noted earlier, when the For FY 2015, budgeted costs of $28.9 recovered through 10 CFR part 171 fees. final fee rule incorporates the reduction million for spent fuel storage/reactor Furthermore, the estimated 10 CFR part included in the FY 2015 appropriations, decommissioning would be recovered 170 fees decreased because staff this operating power reactor annual fee through annual fees assessed to 10 CFR finalized major reviews in 2014. Table will decrease. part 50 power reactors and to 10 CFR XIV shows the calculation of this annual The budgeted costs to be recovered part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 fee amount. The FY 2014 values are through annual fees to power reactors CFR part 50 license. Those reactor shown for comparison. (Individual are divided equally among the 99 power licensees that have ceased operations values may not sum to totals due to reactors licensed to operate, resulting in and have no fuel onsite would not be rounding.) an FY 2015 annual fee of $5,087,000 per subject to these annual fees.

TABLE XIV—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR THE SPENT FUEL STORAGE/REACTOR IN DECOMMISSIONING FEE CLASS [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $32.7 $33.4 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥5.4 ¥4.6

Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 27.3 28.8 Allocated generic transportation ...... 0.6 1.0 Fee-relief adjustment ...... 0.0 ¥0.5 Billing adjustments ...... ¥0.4 ¥0.3

Total required annual fee recovery ...... 27.5 28.9

The required annual fee recovery e. Research and Test Reactors (Non- Table XV summarizes the annual fee amount is divided equally among 122 Power Reactors) calculation for the research and test licensees, resulting in an FY 2015 Approximately $350,000 in budgeted reactors for FY 2015. The FY 2014 annual fee of $237,000 per licensee. costs would be recovered through values are shown for comparison. annual fees assessed to the research and (Individual values may not sum to totals test reactor class of licenses for FY 2015. due to rounding.)

TABLE XV—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $2.63 $2.57 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥2.28 ¥2.18

Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 0.35 0.39 Allocated generic transportation ...... 0.03 0.03

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

TABLE XV—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS—Continued [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Fee-relief adjustment ...... ¥0.01 ¥0.05 Billing adjustments ...... ¥0.03 ¥0.02

Total required annual fee recovery ...... 0.34 0.35

The increased annual fee results from category. The annual fee for rare earth g. Materials Users the decline in 10 CFR part 170 billings facilities will be $83,800. Table XVI following the completion of licensing shows the calculation of the FY 2015 For FY 2015, budget costs of $36.8 actions associated with the Aerotest annual fee amount for rare earth million for materials users would be Radiography and Research Reactor. The facilities. recovered through annual fees assessed resources required for this project are to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees. now allocated elsewhere, as these TABLE XVI—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY Table XVII shows the calculation of the licensing decisions have been CALCULATIONS FOR RARE EARTH FY 2015 annual fee amount for challenged and are currently the subject FACILITIES materials users licensees. The FY 2014 of litigation before the Commission. [Dollars in millions] values are shown for comparison. Note The required annual fee recovery the following fee categories under amount is divided equally among the FY 2015 § 171.16 are included in this fee class: four research and test reactors subject to Summary fee calculations Proposed 1.C., 1.D., 1.F., 2.B., 2.C. through 2.F., annual fees and results in an FY 2015 3.A. through 3.S., 4.A. through 4.C., annual fee of $88,500 for each licensee. Total budgeted resources ...... $0.24 5.A., 5.B., 6.A., 7.A. through 7.C., 8.A., f. Rare Earth Facilities Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 9.A. through 9.D., and 17. (Individual receipts ...... ¥0.15 The agency is establishing an annual values may not sum to totals due to fee in the FY 2015 fee rule for an Net 10 CFR part 171 re- rounding.) anticipated rare earth facility that is sources ...... 0.09 currently expected to be operational in Allocated generic transportation 0.00 2016. No fees are currently expected to Fee-relief adjustment ...... ¥0.00 ¥ be charged in this category in FY 2015; Billing adjustments ...... 0.00 establishing this fee now is intended to Total required annual fee promote regulatory predictability and recovery ...... 0.08 stability for potential licensees in this

TABLE XVII—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR MATERIALS USERS [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total budgeted resources ...... $32.8 $35.8 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts ...... ¥$0.9 ¥$1.0

Net 10 CFR part 171 resources ...... 31.9 34.8 Allocated generic transportation ...... 1.3 2.2 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge ...... 0.2 0.1 Billing adjustments ...... ¥0.3 ¥0.3

Total required annual fee recovery ...... 33.1 36.8

To equitably and fairly allocate the other regulatory costs to the diverse Multiplier x (Average Inspection Cost/ $36.8 million in FY 2015 budgeted costs categories of licenses based on the Inspection Priority) + Unique Category to be recovered in annual fees assessed NRC’s cost to regulate each category. Costs. to the approximately 3,000 diverse This fee calculation would also The constant the multiplier necessary materials users licensees, the NRC continue to consider the inspection to recover approximately $26.5 million would continue to base the annual fees frequency (priority), which is indicative in general costs (including allocated for each fee category within this class on of the safety risk and resulting generic transportation costs) is 1.49 for the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and regulatory costs associated with the FY 2015. The average inspection cost is estimated inspection costs for each fee categories of licenses. the average inspection hours for each category. Because the application fees The annual fee for these categories of fee category multiplied by the hourly and inspection costs are indicative of materials users’ licenses is developed as rate of $277. The inspection priority is the complexity of the license, this follows: Annual fee = Constant x the interval between routine approach would continue to provide a [Application Fee + (Average Inspection inspections, expressed in years. The proxy for allocating the generic and Cost/Inspection Priority)] + Inspection inspection multiplier is the multiple

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15487

necessary to recover approximately $9.2 The annual fee to be assessed to each class. The annual fee for each fee million in inspection costs, and is 1.73 licensee also includes a share of the fee- category is shown in § 171.16(d). for FY 2015. The unique category costs relief assessment of approximately h. Transportation are any special costs that the NRC has $448,000 allocated to the materials users budgeted for a specific category of fee class (see Table IV, ‘‘Allocation of Table XVIII shows the calculation of licenses. For FY 2015, approximately Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW the FY 2015 generic transportation $243,000 in budgeted costs for the Surcharge, FY 2015,’’ in Section II, budgeted resources to be recovered implementation of revised 10 CFR part ‘‘Discussion,’’ of this document), and for through annual fees. The FY 2014 35, ‘‘Medical Use of Byproduct Material certain categories of these licensees, a values are shown for comparison. (unique costs),’’ has been allocated to share of the approximately $560,000 (Individual values may not sum to totals holders of NRC human-use licenses. surcharge costs allocated to the fee due to rounding.)

TABLE XVIII—ANNUAL FEE SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION [Dollars in millions]

FY 2014 FY 2015 Summary fee calculations Final Proposed

Total Budgeted Resources ...... $8.0 $10.3 Less Estimated 10 CFR Part 170 Receipts ...... ¥3.1 ¥3.0 Net 10 CFR Part 171 Resources ...... 4.9 7.3

The NRC must approve any package are $7.35 million. The overall increase assess a separate annual fee under used for shipping nuclear material is due to rulemaking activities involving § 171.16, fee category 18.A., for DOE before shipment. If the package meets 10 CFR part 71 Compatibility with IAEA transportation activities. The amount of NRC requirements, the NRC issues a Transportation Standards & the allocated generic resources is Radioactive Material Package Certificate Improvements and the increased calculated by multiplying the of Compliance (CoC) to the organization activities from the development of the percentage of total CoCs used by each requesting approval of a package. Continued Storage Rule and associated fee class (and DOE) by the total generic Organizations are authorized to ship Generic Environmental Impact transportation resources to be recovered. radioactive material in a package Statement. The distribution of these resources to approved for use under the general Generic transportation resources the license fee classes and DOE is licensing provisions of 10 CFR part 71, associated with fee-exempt entities are shown in Table XIX. The distribution is ‘‘Packaging and Transportation of not included in this total. These costs adjusted to account for the licensees in Radioactive Material.’’ The resources are included in the appropriate fee-relief each fee class that are fee-exempt. For associated with generic transportation category (e.g., the fee-relief category for example, if four CoCs benefit the entire activities are distributed to the license nonprofit educational institutions). research and test reactor class, but only fee classes based on the number of CoCs Consistent with the policy established 4 of 31 research and test reactors are benefitting (used by) that fee class, as a in the NRC’s FY 2006 final fee rule (71 subject to annual fees, the number of proxy for the generic transportation FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the NRC CoCs used to determine the proportion resources expended for each fee class. would recover generic transportation of generic transportation resources The total FY 2015 budgetary resources costs unrelated to DOE as part of allocated to research and test reactor for generic transportation activities, existing annual fees for license fee annual fees equals (4/31) x 4, or 0.5 including those to support DOE CoCs, classes. The NRC would continue to CoCs.

TABLE XIX—DISTRIBUTION OF GENERIC TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES, FY 2015 [Dollars in millions]

Number of CoCs Allocated License fee class/DOE benefiting Percentage of generic fee class total CoCs transportation or DOE resources

Total ...... 90.4 100.0 7.35 DOE ...... 20.0 22.1 1.63 Operating Power Reactors ...... 21.0 23.2 1.71 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning ...... 12.0 13.3 0.98 Research and Test Reactors ...... 0.4 0.4 0.03 Fuel Facilities ...... 10.0 11.1 0.81 Materials Users ...... 27.0 29.9 2.20

The NRC assesses an annual fee to Note that DOE’s annual fee includes a resulting in a total annual fee of DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs reduction for the fee-relief surplus $1,511,000 million for FY 2015. The it holds and does not allocate these adjustment (see Table IV, ‘‘Allocation of overall increase is due to rulemaking DOE-related resources to other Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW activities involving 10 CFR part 71 licensees’ annual fees, because these Surcharge, FY 2015,’’ in Section II, Compatibility with IAEA Transportation resources specifically support DOE. ‘‘Discussion,’’ of this document), Standards & Improvements. This

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking is essential for 10 CFR part individual. The NRC staff believes this not charged additional annual fees for 71 updates and compliance. method of distribution does not ancillary activities. An identical change consider that some licensees generate is also proposed under 10 CFR 171.16, Administrative Changes more direct work than others. The NRC, ‘‘Annual Fees: Materials Licensees, The NRC is proposing the following therefore, proposes to allocate overhead Holders of Certificates of Compliance, 12 administrative changes: costs to each licensee based on direct Holders of Sealed Source and Device 1. Increase Direct Hours per Full-Time time to each docket. This method Registrations, Holders of Quality Equivalent in the Hourly Rate ensures that a licensee’s overhead costs Assurance Program Approvals, and Calculation. The hourly rate in 10 CFR are proportional to the regulatory Government Agencies Licensed by the part 170 is calculated by dividing the services rendered by the NRC. This NRC.’’ cost per direct FTE by the number of method aligns with the NRC’s 7. Correct Definition for ‘‘Overhead direct hours per direct FTE in a year. longstanding fee policy that fees and General and Administrative Costs’’ ‘‘Direct hours’’ are hours charged to assessed to licensees should, to the under 10 CFR 171.5, ‘‘Definitions.’’ The mission direct activities in the Nuclear maximum extent practicable, reflect the NRC proposes to correct the definition Reactor Safety Program and Nuclear actual costs of NRC regulatory services, for ‘‘Overhead and General and Reactor Materials and Waste Program. and does not penalize licensees who Administrative Costs’’ to reflect the FY The FY 2014 final fee rule used 1,375 require fewer regulatory services. 2008 merger of the Advisory Committee hours per direct FTE in the hourly rate 5. Add Fee Subcategories to 10 CFR on Nuclear Waste with the Advisory calculations. The NRC staff reviewed 170.31 to Reflect a License with Multiple Committee on Reactor Safeguards. and analyzed time and labor data for FY Sites. The staff proposes to add fee 8. Revise Fees to Reflect Biennial 2010 through FY 2012 to determine if it subcategories to 3.L. licenses (broad Review of Fees. To comply with the should revise the direct hours per FTE scope) under 10 CFR 170.31 to assess Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the for the FY 2015 budget formulation. additional fees to licensees such as the NRC evaluates, on a biennial basis, the Between FY 2010 and FY 2012, total United States Department of Agriculture historical professional staff hours used direct hours charged by direct and the Department of the Army, in to process a new license application. employees increased. The increase in order to accurately reflect the cost of The NRC also evaluates the inspection direct hours was apparent in all mission services provided by the NRC. The staff time by reviewing hours spent by NRC business lines. To reflect this increase in spends a disproportionate amount of staff on those materials users’ fee productivity as demonstrated by the time on these licensees as compared to categories that are subject to flat time and labor data, the staff determined other licensees in the same fee category. application fees. This review also that the number of direct hours per FTE These two broad scope licenses also includes new license and amendment should increase to 1,420 hours for FY have a considerable number of sites applications for import and export 2015. The staff used 1,420 hours in the throughout the country and operate in a licenses. Changes resulting from this FY 2015 budget formulation cycle. manner similar to master materials biennial review impact 10 CFR part 170 2. Add New Definition for ‘‘Overhead licenses under fee category 17. In FY flat fees for the small materials users and General and Administrative Costs’’ 2014, the staff compared the work and import and export licensees. under 10 CFR 170.3, ‘‘Definitions.’’ The efforts expended by the NRC for master Two program offices, the Office of NRC proposes to add a new definition materials licenses with multiple sites to Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to describe overhead and general and NRC work efforts for broad scope (NMSS) and the Office of International administrative costs that are included in licenses with multiple sites. The staff Programs (OIP), have completed their full cost charges relating to hours concluded that NRC work efforts for biennial review to the CFO regarding charged by resident inspectors and multi-site broad scope licensees are the FY 2015 fees. The NMSS project managers to licensees. The similar to work efforts for master recommended changes to the identical definition is also proposed materials licensees. Therefore, professional staff hours for most of the under 10 CFR 171.5, ‘‘Definitions.’’ consistent with NRC policy that fees small materials users. The OIP also 3. Revise Definition for ‘‘Utilization assessed to licensees accurately reflect recommended changes to the hours for Facility’’ under 10 CFR 170.3, the cost of services provided, the NRC some import and export license fee ‘‘Definitions.’’ The NRC proposes to proposes to revise its fee categories to categories. revise the definition for ‘‘utilization consider the number of sites a broad Cumulatively, the FY 2015 biennial facility’’ to reflect the definition scope licensee has in establishing fees. review resulted in increased contained in the direct final rule, An identical change is also proposed to professional staff hours within 11 fee ‘‘Definition of a Utilization Facility,’’ 10 CFR 171.16, ‘‘Annual Fees: Materials categories and decreased professional published October 17, 2014 (79 FR Licensees, Holders of Certificates of staff hours within 11 fee categories. The 62329) and effective December 31, 2014. Compliance, Holders of Sealed Source changes in the number of hours and the The proposed definition would allow and Device Registrations, Holders of hourly rate are components that will be the NRC to add SHINE Medical Quality Assurance Program Approvals, used to determine the 10 CFR part 170 Technologies, Inc.’s proposed and Government Agencies Licensed by fees for the materials user’s licenses as accelerator-driven subcritical operating the NRC.’’ well as import and export applications. assemblies to the NRC’s definition of a 6. Modify 10 CFR 170.31, Footnote 6, 9. Change Small Entity Fees. In ‘‘utilization facility.’’ to Avoid Duplicate Billing. The NRC accordance with NRC policy, the staff 4. Revise the Assessment of proposes to revise footnote 6 to 10 CFR conducted a biennial review of small Administrative Time for Project 170.31, ‘‘Schedule of Fees for Materials entity fees to determine if the fees Managers and Resident Inspectors. The Licenses and Other Regulatory Services, should be changed. The small entity NRC staff has examined the charging of Including Inspections, and Import and fees primarily impact the NRC’s small overhead time for project managers and Export Licenses,’’ to avoid duplicate materials licensees. In FY 2015, the staff resident inspectors under 10 CFR part billing for fuel cycle facility licensees. performed a biennial review using the 170. The current practice evenly The NRC currently charges a single fee methodology developed in FY 2009 distributes overhead time charges annual fee to fuel cycle facility licensees that applies a fixed percentage of 39 among the sites assigned to the for major activities. These licensees are percent to the prior 2-year weighted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15489

average of materials users’ fees. As a the cost of services provided, the NRC and Administrative Costs’’ and revise result, the upper tier small entity fee proposes to revise its fee categories to the definition for ‘‘Utilization facility.’’ increased from $2,800 to $4,000 and the consider the number of sites a broad 10 CFR 170.20, Average Cost per lower-tier fee increased from $600 to scope licensee has in establishing fees. Professional Staff-Hour $900. This constitutes a 43 percent and 12. Modify 10 CFR 171.16, Footnote 50 percent increase, respectively. 16, to Avoid Duplicate Billing. The NRC The NRC proposes to revise this Implementing this increase would have proposes to revise the footnote section to reflect the hourly rate for FY a disproportionate impact upon the description under 10 CFR 171.16, 2015. NRC’s small licensees compared to ‘‘Annual Fees: Materials Licensees, 10 CFR 170.21, Schedule of Fees for other licensees. Therefore, the NRC staff Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Production or Utilization Facilities, revised the increase to 21 percent for the Holders of Sealed Source and Device Review of Standard Referenced Design upper-tier fee. The 21 percent increase Registrations, Holders of Quality Approvals, Special Projects, was applied based on historical trends Assurance Program Approvals, and Inspections, and Import and Export in the small entity fee and has been Government Agencies Licensed by the Licenses used in previous biennial reviews. The NRC,’’ to avoid duplicate billing for fuel NRC staff is amending the upper-tier cycle facility licensees. The NRC’s The NRC proposes to revise fees for small entity fee to $3,400 and amending current policy charges a single large fee category code K. to reflect the FY the lower-tier small entity fee to $700 annual fee to fuel cycle facility licensees 2015 proposed hourly rate for flat fee for FY 2015. The staff believes these fees for major activities. These licensees are applications. are reasonable and provide relief to not charged additional annual fees for 10 CFR 170.31, Schedule of Fees for small entities while at the same time ancillary activities. Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory recovering from those licensees some of FY 2015 Billing Services, Including Inspections, and the NRC’s costs for activities that benefit Import and Export Licenses them. The FY 2015 fee rule will be a major The NRC proposes to add 10. Increase the NRC’s Small Business rule as defined by the Congressional Lower-Tier Receipts-Based Threshold. subcategories to fee category 3.L. Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801–808). licenses (broad scope) to assess The NRC staff proposes to increase the Therefore, the NRC’s fee schedules for lower-tier receipts-based threshold from additional fees to licensees such as the FY 2015 will become effective 60 days United States Department of Agriculture $485,000 to $520,000. This change after publication of the final rule in the would reflect approximately the same and the Department of the Army, in Federal Register. Upon publication of percentage adjustment as the NRC’s order to accurately reflect the cost of the final rule, the NRC will send an upper-tier receipts-based standard services provided by the NRC. The NRC invoice for the amount of the annual adjustment from $7 million to $7.5 also proposes to revise footnote 6 to fees to reactor licensees, 10 CFR part 72 million and is consistent with the Small avoid duplicate billing for fuel cycle licensees, major fuel cycle facilities, and Business Administration’s interim final facility licensees. other licensees with annual fees of rule, ‘‘Small Business Size Standards: $100,000 or more. For these licensees, 10 CFR 171.5, Definitions Inflation Adjustment to Monetary Based payment is due 30 days after the Size Standards,’’ published in the The NRC proposes to correct the effective date of the FY 2015 final rule. Federal Register on June 12, 2014 (79 definition for ‘‘Overhead and General FR 33647) and effective July 14, 2014. Because these licensees are billed and Administrative Costs’’ to reflect the 11. Add Fee Subcategories to 10 CFR quarterly, the payment amount due is FY 2008 merger of the Advisory Part 171 to Reflect a License with the total FY 2015 annual fee less Committee on Nuclear Waste with the Multiple Sites. The NRC proposes to add payments made in the first three Advisory Committee on Reactor fee subcategories to 3.L. licenses (broad quarters of the fiscal year. Safeguards. scope) under 10 CFR 171.16 to assess Materials licensees with annual fees of less than $100,000 are billed 10 CFR 171.15, Annual Fees: Reactor additional fees to licensees such as the Licenses and Independent Fuel Storage United States Department of Agriculture annually. Those materials licensees Licenses and the Department of the Army, in whose license anniversary date during order to accurately reflect the cost of FY 2015 falls before the effective date of The NRC proposes to revise paragraph services provided by the NRC. The staff the FY 2015 final rule will be billed for (b)(1) to reflect the required FY 2015 spends a disproportionate amount of the annual fee during the anniversary annual fee to be collected from each time on these licensees as compared to month of the license at the FY 2014 operating power reactor by September other licensees in the same fee category. annual fee rate. Those materials 30, 2015. The NRC proposes to revise These two broad scope licenses also licensees whose license anniversary the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) have a considerable number of sites date falls on or after the effective date to reflect FY 2015 in reference to annual throughout the country and operate in a of the FY 2015 final rule will be billed fees and fee-relief adjustment. The NRC manner similar to master materials for the annual fee at the FY 2015 annual proposes to revise paragraph (c)(1) and licenses under fee category 17. In FY fee rate during the anniversary month of the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) 2014, the staff compared the work the license, and payment will be due on to reflect the FY 2015 spent fuel storage/ efforts expended by the NRC for master the date of the invoice. reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage annual fee for 10 CFR part 50 materials licenses with multiple sites to IV. Section-by-Section Analysis NRC work efforts for broad scope licenses and 10 CFR part 72 licensees licenses with multiple sites. The staff The following paragraphs describe the who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 concluded that NRC work efforts for specific amendments proposed by this license, and the FY 2015 fee-relief multi-site broad scope licensees are rulemaking. adjustment. The NRC proposes to revise similar to work efforts for master the introductory text of paragraph (d)(1) 10 CFR 170.3, Definitions materials licensees. Therefore, and paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to consistent with NRC policy that fees The NRC proposes to add a new reflect the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment assessed to licensees accurately reflect definition of ‘‘Overhead and General for the operating reactor power class of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

licenses, the number of operating power NRC conducts the biennial review of well-organized manner. The NRC has reactors, and the FY 2015 fee-relief fees as required by the Office of Chief written this document to be consistent adjustment for spent fuel storage reactor Financial Officer Act. with the Plain Writing Act as well as the decommissioning class of licenses. The For this proposed rule, small entity Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain NRC proposes to revise paragraph (e) to fees would increase to $3,400 for the Language in Government Writing,’’ reflect the FY 2015 annual fees for maximum upper-tier small entity fee published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). research reactors and test reactors. and increase to $700 for the lower-tier The NRC requests comment on the small entity as result of the biennial 10 CFR 171.16, Annual Fees: Materials proposed rule with respect to the clarity review which factored in the number of Licensees, Holders of Certificates of and effectiveness of the language used. increased hours for application reviews Compliance, Holders of Sealed Source and inspections in the fee calculations. IX. National Environmental Policy Act and Device Registrations, Holders of The next small entity biennial review is Quality Assurance Program Approvals, The NRC has determined that this scheduled for FY 2017. and Government Agencies Licensed by rule is the type of action described in 10 Additionally, the Small Business the NRC CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act environmental impact statement nor The NRC proposes to revise requires all Federal agencies to prepare environmental assessment has been paragraphs (d) and (e) to reflect FY 2015 a written compliance guide for each rule prepared for this proposed rule. annual fees and the FY 2015 fee-relief for which the agency is required by 5 adjustment. The NRC also proposes to U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory X. Paperwork Reduction Act add subcategories to fee category 3.L. flexibility analysis. The NRC, in This rule does not contain any licenses (broad scope) to assess compliance with the law, has prepared information collection requirements additional fees to licensees such as the the ‘‘Small Entity Compliance Guide,’’ and, therefore, is not subject to the Department of Agriculture and the which is available as indicated in requirements of the Paperwork Department of the Army, in order to Section XIII, Availability of Documents, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 accurately reflect the cost of services of this document. et seq.). provided by the NRC. The NRC also proposes to revise footnote 6 to avoid VI. Regulatory Analysis Public Protection Notification duplicate billing for fuel cycle facility Under OBRA–90, as amended, and The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, licensees. the AEA, the NRC is required to recover and a person is not required to respond 90 percent of its budget authority, or V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification to a request for information or an total appropriations of $1,059.5 million, information collection requirement Section 604 of the Regulatory in FY 2015. The NRC established fee unless the requesting document Flexibility Act requires agencies to methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part displays a currently valid OMB control perform an analysis that considers the 170 in 1978, and more fee methodology number. impact of a rulemaking on small guidelines through the establishment of entities. The NRC’s regulatory flexibility 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards analysis for this proposed rule is rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its The National Technology Transfer available as indicated in Section XIII, fees without changing the underlying and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Availability of Documents, of this principles of its fee policy in order to Law 104–113, requires that Federal document, and a summary is provided ensure that the NRC continues to agencies use technical standards that are in the following paragraphs. comply with the statutory requirements developed or adopted by voluntary The NRC is required by the OBRA–90, for cost recovery in OBRA–90 and the consensus standards bodies unless the as amended, to recover approximately AEA. 90 percent of its FY 2015 budget In this rulemaking, the NRC continues use of such a standard is inconsistent authority through the assessment of user this long-standing approach. Therefore, with applicable law or otherwise fees. The OBRA–90 further requires that the NRC did not identify any impractical. In this proposed fee rule, the NRC establish a schedule of charges alternatives to the current fee structure the NRC is proposing to amend the that fairly and equitably allocates the guidelines and did not prepare a licensing, inspection, and annual fees aggregate amount of these charges regulatory analysis for this rulemaking. charged to its licensees and applicants, among licensees. as necessary, to recover approximately The FY 2015 proposed rule VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 90 percent of its budget authority in FY establishes the schedules of fees The NRC has determined that the 2015, as required by OBRA–90, as necessary for the NRC to recover 90 backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not amended. This action does not percent of its budget authority for FY apply to this proposed rule and that a constitute the establishment of a 2015. The proposed rule estimates some backfit analysis is not required. A standard that contains generally increases in annual fees charged to backfit analysis is not required because applicable requirements certain licensees and holders of these amendments do not require the XII. Availability of Guidance certificates, registrations, and approvals, modification of, or addition to, systems, and in decreases in those annual fees structures, components, or the design of The Small Business Regulatory charged to others. Licensees affected by a facility, or the design approval or Enforcement Fairness Act requires all these proposed estimates include those manufacturing license for a facility, or Federal agencies to prepare a written who qualify as small entities under the the procedures or organization required compliance guide for each rule for NRC’s size standards in § 2.810. to design, construct, or operate a which the NRC is required by 5 U.S.C. The NRC prepared a FY 2015 biennial facility. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility regulatory analysis in accordance with analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the FY 2001 final rule (66 FR 32467; VIII. Plain Writing the law, prepared the ‘‘Small Entity June 14, 2001). This rule also stated the The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. Compliance Guide’’ for the FY 2015 small entity fees will be reexamined L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to proposed fee rule. This document is every 2 years and in the same years the write documents in a clear, concise, and available as indicated in Section XIII,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15491

‘‘Availability of Documents,’’ of this XIII. Availability of Documents interested persons through one or more document. The documents identified in the of the following methods, as indicated. following table are available to

Adams accession Document No./Web link

FY 2015 Proposed Rule Work Papers ...... ML15021A198. FY 2015 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ...... ML15058A385. FY 2015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Small Entity Compliance Guide ...... ML15058A332. NUREG–1100, Volume 30, ‘‘Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2015’’ (March 2014) ...... http://www.nrc.gov/read- ing-rm/doc-collections/ nuregs/staff/sr1100/v30/. NRC Form 526, Certification of Small Entity Status for the Purposes of Annual Fees Imposed under 10 CFR Part http://www.nrc.gov/read- 171. ing-rm/doc-collections/ forms/nrc526.pdf. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ...... https://www.congress.gov/ 113/bills/hr83/BILLS- 113hr83enr.pdf. SECY–05–0164, ‘‘Annual Fee Calculation Method,’’ September 15, 2005 ...... ML052580332. Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–14–0082, ‘‘Jurisdiction for Military Radium and U.S. Nuclear Regu- ML14356A070. latory Commission Oversight of U.S. Department of Defense Remediation of Radioactive Material,’’ December 22, 2014.

Throughout the development of this PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES, management services for the rule, the NRC may post documents MATERIALS IMPORT AND EXPORT Commission and special and related to this rule, including public LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY independent reviews, investigations, comments, on the Federal rulemaking SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC and enforcement and appraisal of NRC Web site at http://www.regulations.gov ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED programs and operations. Some of the under Docket ID NRC–2014–0200. The organizations included, in whole or in ■ Federal rulemaking Web site allows you 1. The authority citation for part 170 part, are the Commissioners, Secretary, continues to read as follows: to receive alerts when changes or Executive Director for Operations, additions occur in a docket folder. To Authority: Independent Offices General Counsel, Congressional and subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket Appropriations Act sec. 501 (31 U.S.C. 9701); Public Affairs (except for international Atomic Energy Act sec. 161(w) (42 U.S.C. safety and safeguards programs), folder NRC–2014–0200; (2) click the 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act sec. 201 ‘‘Sign up for Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) Inspector General, Investigations, (42 U.S.C. 5841); Chief Financial Officers Act Enforcement, Small Business and Civil enter your email address and select how sec. 205 (31 U.S.C. 901, 902); Government Rights, the Technical Training Center, frequently you would like to receive Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 Advisory Committee on Reactor emails (daily, weekly, or monthly). U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act secs. 623, Energy Policy Act of 2005 sec. 651(e), Safeguards, and the Atomic Safety and List of Subjects Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 783 (42 U.S.C. Licensing Board Panel. The Commission 2201(w), 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). views these budgeted costs as support 10 CFR Part 170 ■ 2. In § 170.3, add a new definition for for all its regulatory services provided to applicants, licensees, and certificate Byproduct material, Import and ‘‘Overhead and General and holders, and these costs must be export licenses, Intergovernmental Administrative Costs’’ in alphabetical recovered under Public Law 101–508. relations, Non-payment penalties, order and revise the definition for Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants ‘‘Utilization facility’’ to read as follows: * * * * * Utilization facility means: and reactors, Source material, Special § 170.3 Definitions. (1) Any nuclear reactor other than one nuclear material. * * * * * designed or used primarily for the 10 CFR Part 171 Overhead and General and formation of plutonium or U–233; or Administrative Costs means: (2) An accelerator-driven subcritical Annual charges, Byproduct material, (1) The Government benefits for each operating assembly used for the Holders of certificates, registrations, employee such as leave and holidays, irradiation of materials containing approvals, Intergovernmental relations, retirement and disability benefits, special nuclear material and described Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear health and life insurance costs, and in the application assigned docket materials, Nuclear power plants and social security costs; number 50–608. reactors, Source material, Special (2) Travel costs; ■ 3. Revise § 170.20 to read as follows: (3) Overhead [e.g., supervision and nuclear material. support staff that directly support the § 170.20 Average cost per professional For the reasons set out in the NRC’s Nuclear Reactor Safety Program staff-hour. preamble and under the authority of the and Nuclear Materials Safety and Waste Fees for permits, licenses, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; Program; administrative support costs amendments, renewals, special projects, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, (e.g., rental of space, equipment, 10 CFR part 55 re-qualification and as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC telecommunications, and supplies)]; replacement examinations and tests, is proposing to adopt the following and other required reviews, approvals, and amendments to 10 CFR parts 170 and (4) Indirect costs that would include, inspections under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 171. but not be limited to, NRC central policy will be calculated using the professional direction, legal and executive staff-hour rate of $277 per hour.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

■ 4. In § 170.21, in the table, revise the § 170.21 Schedule of fees for production fee category K. to read as follows: or utilization facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special projects, inspections, and import and export licenses.

SCHEDULE OF FACILITY FEES [See footnotes at end of table]

Facility categories and type of fees Fees 12

******* K. Import and export licenses: Licenses for the import and export only of production or utilization facilities or the export only of components for pro- duction or utilization facilities issued under 10 CFR part 110. 1. Application for import or export of production or utilization facilities 4 (including reactors and other facilities) and exports of components requiring Commission and Executive Branch review, for example, actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b). Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $18,000 2. Application for export of reactor and other components requiring Executive Branch review, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a). Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $9,700 3. Application for export of components requiring the assistance of the Executive Branch to obtain foreign govern- ment assurances. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $4,400 4. Application for export of facility components and equipment not requiring Commission or Executive Branch re- view, or obtaining foreign government assurances. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $5,000 5. Minor amendment of any active export or import license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms or conditions or to the type of facility or component authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis or review or consultation with the Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign government authorities. Minor amendment to license ...... $2,800 1 Fees will not be charged for orders related to civil penalties or other civil sanctions issued by the Commission under § 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these orders. For orders unrelated to civil penalties or other civil sanctions, fees will be charged for any resulting licensee-specific activities not otherwise exempted from fees under this chapter. Fees will be charged for ap- provals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission’s regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 73.5) and any other sections in effect now or in the future, regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. 2 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended. For applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of the final rule will be determined at the professional rates in effect when the service was pro- vided. ******* 4 Imports only of major components for end-use at NRC-licensed reactors are authorized under NRC general import license in 10 CFR 110.27.

■ 5. In § 170.31, revise the table to read § 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials as follows: licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export licenses. * * * * *

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

1. Special nuclear material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of U-235 or plutonium for fuel fabrication activities. (a) Strategic Special Nuclear Material (High Enriched Uranium) [Program Code(s): 21130] ...... Full Cost. (b) Low Enriched Uranium in Dispersible Form Used for Fabrication of Power Reactor Fuel [Program Code(s): Full Cost. 21210]. (2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in Category 1.A.(1) which are licensed for fuel cycle activities. (a) Facilities with limited operations [Program Code(s): 21310, 21320] ...... Full Cost. (b) Gas centrifuge enrichment demonstration facilities ...... Full Cost. (c) Others, including hot cell facilities ...... Full Cost. B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel and reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste at an inde- Full Cost. pendent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) [Program Code(s): 23200]. C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material of less than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers. 4 Application [Program Code(s): 22140] ...... $1,300.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15493

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in sealed or unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those under Category 1.A. 4 Application [Program Code(s): 22110, 22111, 22120, 22131, 22136, 22150, 22151, 22161, 22170, 23100, 23300, $2,600. 23310]. E. Licenses or certificates for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility [Program Code(s): 21200] ...... Full Cost. F. For special nuclear materials licenses in sealed or unsealed form of greater than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 of Full Cost. this chapter.4 [Program Code(s): 22155]. 2. Source material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride Full Cost. or for deconverting uranium hexafluoride in the production of uranium oxides for disposal. [Program Code(s): 11400]. (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ recovery, heap- leaching, ore buying stations, ion-exchange facilities, and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode. (a) Conventional and Heap Leach facilities [Program Code(s): 11100] ...... Full Cost. (b) Basic In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11500] ...... Full Cost. (c) Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11510] ...... Full Cost. (d) In Situ Recovery Resin facilities [Program Code(s): 11550] ...... Full Cost. (e) Resin Toll Milling facilities [Program Code(s): 11555] ...... Full Cost. (f) Other facilities [Program Code(s): 11700] ...... Full Cost. (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from Full Cost. other persons for possession and disposal, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) or Category 2.A.(4) [Program Code(s): 11600, 12000]. (4) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from Full Cost. other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the li- censee’s milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) [Program Code(s): 12010]. (5) Licenses that authorize the possession of source material related to removal of contaminants (source material) from Full Cost. drinking water [Program Code(s): 11820]. B. Licenses which authorize the possession, use, and/or installation of source material for shielding 678 Application [Program Code(s): 11210] ...... $1,220. C. Licenses to distribute items containing source material to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 40 of this chapter. Application [Program Code(s): 11240] ...... $2,800. D. Licenses to distribute source material to persons generally licensed under part 40 of this chapter. Application [Program Codes(s): 11230, 11231] ...... $2,700. E. Licenses for possession and use of source material for processing or manufacturing of products or materials con- taining source material for commercial distribution. Application [Program Code(s): 11710] ...... $2,600. F. All other source material licenses Application [Program Code(s): 11200, 11220, 11221, 11300, 11800, 11810] ...... $2,600. 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for the possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chap- ter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution. Application [Program Code(s): 03211, 03212, 03213] ...... $13,000. B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution. Application [Program Code(s): 03214, 03215, 22135, 22162] ...... $3,600. C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72 and/or 32.74 of this chapter that authorize the processing or manufacturing and dis- tribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources and devices containing by- product material. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under § 170.11(a)(4). Application [Program Code(s): 02500, 02511, 02513] ...... $5,200. D. [Reserved] ...... N/A. E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units). Application [Program Code(s): 03510, 03520] ...... $3,200. F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes. Application [Program Code(s): 03511] ...... $6,500.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes. Application [Program Code(s): 03521] ...... $61,800. H. Licenses issued under Subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that re- quire device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. The category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons ex- empt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. Application [Program Code(s): 03254, 03255, 03257] ...... $6,600. I. Licenses issued under Subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quan- tities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. Application [Program Code(s): 03250, 03251, 03252, 03253, 03256] ...... $11,000. J. Licenses issued under Subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons gen- erally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. Application [Program Code(s): 03240, 03241, 03243] ...... $2,000. K. Licenses issued under Subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quan- tities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. Application [Program Code(s): 03242, 03244] ...... $1,100. L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 1–5. (1) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chap- ter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 6–20. (2) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chap- ter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 20 or more. Application [Program Code(s): 01100, 01110, 01120, 03610, 03611, 03612, 03613] ...... $5,500. M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for research and de- velopment that do not authorize commercial distribution. Application [Program Code(s): 03620] ...... $5,000. N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Cat- egory 3.P.; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Cat- egories 4.A., 4.B., and 4.C. Application [Program Code(s): 03219, 03225, 03226] ...... $6,300. O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations. Application [Program Code(s): 03310, 03320] ...... $3,200. P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4.A. through 9.D. 9 Application [Program Code(s): 02400, 02410, 03120, 03121, 03122, 03123, 03124, 03130, 03140, 03220, 03221, $2,700. 03222, 03800, 03810, 22130] Q. Registration of a device(s) generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. Registration ...... $400. R. Possession of items or products containing radium-226 identified in 10 CFR 31.12 which exceed the number of items or limits specified in that section.5 1. Possession of quantities exceeding the number of items or limits in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5) but less than or equal to 10 times the number of items or limits specified. Application [Program Code(s): 02700] ...... $2,500. 2. Possession of quantities exceeding 10 times the number of items or limits specified in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5). Application [Program Code(s): 02710] ...... $2,500. S. Licenses for production of accelerator-produced radionuclides. Application [Program Code(s): 03210] ...... $14,200. 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material N/A. from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses au- thorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material. [Program Code(s): 03231, 03233, 03235, 03236, 06100, 06101].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15495

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material. Application [Program Code(s): 03234] ...... $6,900. C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nu- $5,000. clear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material.Application [Program Code(s): 03232] 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well log- ging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies Application [Program Code(s): 03110, 03111, 03112] ...... $4,600. B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies. Licensing [Program Code(s): 03113] ...... Full Cost. 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or spe- cial nuclear material. Application [Program Code(s): 03218] ...... $22,100. 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units, teletherapy devices, or similar beam therapy devices. Application [Program Code(s): 02300, 02310] ...... $11,100. B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for by- product material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same li- cense. 10 Application [Program Code(s): 02110] ...... $8,600. C. Other licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source ma- terial, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear mate- rial in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. Application [Program Code(s): 02120, 02121, 02200, 02201, 02210, 02220, 02230, 02231, 02240, 22160] ...... $4,500. 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities. Application [Program Code(s): 03710] ...... $2,500. 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution. Application—each device ...... $5,400. B. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices. Application—each device ...... $9,000. C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution. Application—each source ...... $5,300. D. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manu- factured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel. Application—each source ...... $1,050. 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers. 1. Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and plutonium air packages ...... Full Cost. 2. Other Casks ...... Full Cost. B. Quality assurance program approvals issued under part 71 of this chapter. 1. Users and Fabricators: Application ...... $4,200. Inspections ...... Full Cost. 2. Users: Application ...... $4,200. Inspections ...... Full Cost.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

C. Evaluation of security plans, route approvals, route surveys, and transportation security devices (including immobiliza- Full Cost. tion devices). 11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities ...... Full Cost. 12. Special projects: Including approvals, pre-application/licensing activities, and inspections Application [Program Code: 25110] ...... Full Cost. 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance ...... Full Cost. B. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under § 72.210 of this chapter ...... Full Cost. 14. A. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decon- Full Cost. tamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter, including MMLs. Ap- plication [Program Code(s): 3900, 11900, 21135, 21215, 21240, 21325, 22200]. B. Site-specific decommissioning activities associated with unlicensed sites, including MMLs, regardless of whether or not Full Cost. the sites have been previously licensed. 15. Import and Export licenses: Licenses issued under part 110 of this chapter for the import and export only of special nuclear material, source material, trit- ium and other byproduct material, and the export only of heavy water, or nuclear grade graphite (fee categories 15.A. through 15.E.). A. Application for export or import of nuclear materials, including radioactive waste requiring Commission and Executive Branch review, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b). Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $18,000. B. Application for export or import of nuclear material, including radioactive waste, requiring Executive Branch review, but not Commission review. This category includes applications for the export and import of radioactive waste and requires NRC to consult with domestic host state authorities (i.e., Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $9,700. C. Application for export of nuclear material, for example, routine reloads of low enriched uranium reactor fuel and/or nat- ural uranium source material requiring the assistance of the Executive Branch to obtain foreign government assur- ances. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $4,400. D. Application for export or import of nuclear material not requiring Commission or Executive Branch review, or ob- taining foreign government assurances.. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $5,000. E. Minor amendment of any active export or import license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms and conditions or to the type/quantity/chemical composition of the material authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis, review, or consultations with other Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign government authorities. Minor amendment ...... $1,400. Licenses issued under part 110 of this chapter for the import and export only of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of ra- dioactive material listed in Appendix P to part 110 of this chapter (fee categories 15.F. through 15.R.). Category 1 (Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110) Exports: F. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials requiring Commission review (e.g. exceptional circumstance review under 10 CFR 110.42(e)(4)) and to obtain government-to-government consent for this process. For additional consent see 15.I.). Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $15,200. G. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials requiring Executive Branch review and to obtain govern- ment-to-government consent for this process. For additional consents see 15.I. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $8,300. H. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials and to obtain one government-to-government consent for this process. For additional consents see 15.I. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $5,500. I. Requests for each additional government-to-government consent in support of an export license application or active export license. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $280. Category 2 (Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110) Exports: J. Application for export of Appendix P Category 2 materials requiring Commission review (e.g. exceptional circumstance review under 10 CFR 110.42(e)(4)). Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $15,200. K. Applications for export of Appendix P Category 2 materials requiring Executive Branch review. Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $8,300. L. Application for the export of Category 2 materials Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request ...... $4,200. M. [Reserved] ...... N/A. N. [Reserved] ...... N/A.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15497

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23

O. [Reserved] ...... N/A. P. [Reserved] ...... N/A. Q. [Reserved] ...... N/A. Minor Amendments (Category 1 and 2, Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110, Export): R. Minor amendment of any active export license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic informa- tion, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms and conditions or to the type/quantity/chemical composition of the material authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis, review, or consultations with other Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign authorities. Minor amendment ...... $1,400. 16. Reciprocity: Agreement State licensees who conduct activities under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20. Application ...... $1,900. 17. Master materials licenses of broad scope issued to Government agencies Application [Program Code(s): 03614] ...... Full Cost. 18. Department of Energy: A. Certificates of Compliance. Evaluation of casks, 11packages, and shipping containers (including spent fuel, high-level Full Cost. waste, and other casks, and plutonium air packages). B. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) activities. Full Cost. 1 Types of fees—Separate charges, as shown in the schedule, will be assessed for pre-application consultations and reviews; applications for new licenses, approvals, or license terminations; possession-only licenses; issuances of new licenses and approvals; certain amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals; safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices; generally licensed device registrations; and cer- tain inspections. The following guidelines apply to these charges: (a) Application and registration fees. Applications for new materials licenses and export and import licenses; applications to reinstate expired, terminated, or inactive licenses, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs; applications filed by Agreement State licensees to register under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 150.20; and applications for amendments to materials licenses that would place the license in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category. (1) Applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category. (2) Applications for new licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application fee for fee category 1.C. only. (b) Licensing fees. Fees for reviews of applications for new licenses, renewals, and amendments to existing licenses, pre-application consulta- tions and other documents submitted to the NRC for review, and project manager time for fee categories subject to full cost fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(b). (c) Amendment fees. Applications for amendments to export and import licenses must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected. An application for an amendment to an export or import license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment, unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories, in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply. (d) Inspection fees. Inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations are not subject to fees. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(c). (e) Generally licensed device registrations under 10 CFR 31.5. Submittals of registration information must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. 2 Fees will not be charged for orders related to civil penalties or other civil sanctions issued by the Commission under 10 CFR 2.202 or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these orders. For orders unrelated to civil penalties or other civil sanctions, fees will be charged for any resulting licensee-specific activities not otherwise exempted from fees under this chapter. Fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission’s regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections in effect now or in the future), regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in fee categories 9.A. through 9.D. 2 Fees will not be charged for orders related to civil penalties or other civil sanctions issued by the Commission under 10 CFR 2.202 or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these orders. For orders unrelated to civil penalties or other civil sanctions, fees will be charged for any resulting licensee-specific activities not otherwise exempted from fees under this chapter. Fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission’s regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections in effect now or in the future), regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in fee categories 9.A. through 9.D. 3 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time multiplied by the appropriate professional hourly rate established in § 170.20 in effect when the service is provided, and the appropriate contractual support services expended. 4 Licensees paying fees under categories 1.A., 1.B., and 1.E. are not subject to fees under categories 1.C., 1.D. and 1.F. for sealed sources authorized in the same license, except for an application that deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license. 5 Persons who possess radium sources that are used for operational purposes in another fee category are not also subject to the fees in this category. (This exception does not apply if the radium sources are possessed for storage only.) 6 Licensees subject to fees under fee categories 1.A., 1.B., 1.E., or 2.A. must pay the largest applicable fee and are not subject to additional fees listed in this table. 7 Licensees paying fees under 3.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 8 Licensees paying fees under 7.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 9 Licensees paying fees under 3.N. are not subject to paying fees under 3.P. for calibration or leak testing services authorized on the same li- cense. 10 Licensees paying fees under 7.B. are not subject to paying fees under 7.C. for broad scope license licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct mate- rial, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices authorized on the same license.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR (c)(1) The FY 2015 annual fee for each (3) The FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL power reactor holding a 10 CFR part 50 allocated to the spent fuel storage/ CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS license that is in a decommissioning or reactor decommissioning class of LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF possession-only status and has spent licenses is a $533,600 fee-relief CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, fuel onsite, and for each independent assessment. The FY 2015 spent fuel REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 storage/reactor decommissioning fee- ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR relief adjustment to be assessed to each AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES part 50 license, is $237,000. operating power reactor, each power LICENSED BY THE NRC (2) The FY 2015 annual fee is reactor in decommissioning or comprised of a base spent fuel storage/ possession-only status that has spent ■ 6. The authority citation for part 171 reactor decommissioning annual fee fuel onsite, and to each independent continues to read as follows: (which is also included in the operating spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 Authority: Consolidated Omnibus Budget power reactor annual fee shown in Reconciliation Act sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99–272, paragraph (b) of this section) and a fee- licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 100–203, relief adjustment. The activities part 50 license, is a $4,374 fee-relief as amended by sec. 3201, Pub. L. 101–239, comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief assessment. This amount is calculated as amended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101–508, adjustment are shown in paragraph by dividing the total fee-relief as amended by sec. 2903a, Pub. L. 102–486 (d)(1) of this section. The activities adjustment costs allocated to this class (42 U.S.C. 2213, 2214), and as amended by by the total number of power reactor Title IV, Pub. L. 109–103 (42 U.S.C. 2214); comprising the FY 2015 spent fuel Atomic Energy Act sec. 161(w), 223, 234 (42 storage/reactor decommissioning licenses, except those that permanently U.S.C. 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy rebaselined annual fee are: ceased operations and have no fuel Reorganization Act sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); * * * * * onsite, and 10 CFR part 72 licensees Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. (d)(1) The fee-relief adjustment who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act allocated to annual fees includes a license. of 2005 sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109–58 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). surcharge for the activities listed in (e) The FY 2015 annual fees for ■ paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, plus licensees authorized to operate a 7. In § 171.15, revise paragraph (b)(1), the amount remaining after total the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), research or test (non-power) reactor budgeted resources for the activities licensed under part 50 of this chapter, paragraph (c)(1), the introductory text of included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(1), and unless the reactor is exempted from fees (d)(1)(iii) of this section are reduced by under § 171.11(a), are as follows: paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), and (e) to read the appropriations the NRC receives for as follows: these types of activities. If the NRC’s Research reactor ...... $88,500 § 171.15 Annual fees: Reactor licenses appropriations for these types of Test reactor ...... 88,500 and independent spent fuel storage activities are greater than the budgeted licenses. resources for the activities included in ■ * * * * * paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(1)(iii) of 8. In § 171.16, revise paragraph (d) (b)(1) The FY 2015 annual fee for each this section for a given FY, annual fees and the introductory text of paragraph operating power reactor which must be will be reduced. The activities (e) to read as follows; comprising the FY 2015 fee-relief collected by September 30, 2015, is § 171.16 Annual fees: Materials licensees, adjustment are as follows: $5,324,000. holders of certificates of compliance, (2) The FY 2015 annual fees are * * * * * holders of sealed source and device comprised of a base annual fee for (2) The total FY 2015 fee-relief registrations, holders of quality assurance power reactors licensed to operate, a adjustment allocated to the operating program approvals, and government base spent fuel storage/reactor power reactor class of licenses is an agencies licensed by the NRC. decommissioning annual fee, and $11,313,600 fee-relief surplus, not * * * * * associated additional charges (fee-relief including the amount allocated to the adjustment). The activities comprising spent fuel storage/reactor (d) The FY 2015 annual fees are the spent storage/reactor decommissioning class. The FY 2015 comprised of a base annual fee and an decommissioning base annual fee are operating power reactor fee-relief allocation for fee-relief adjustment. The shown in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of adjustment to be assessed to each activities comprising the FY 2015 fee- this section. The activities comprising operating power reactor is relief adjustment are shown for the FY 2015 fee-relief adjustment are approximately a $114,279 fee-relief convenience in paragraph (e) of this shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this surplus. This amount is calculated by section. The FY 2015 annual fees for section. The activities comprising the dividing the total operating power materials licensees and holders of FY 2015 base annual fee for operating reactor fee-relief surplus adjustment, certificates, registrations, or approvals power reactors are as follows: $11.3 million, by the number of subject to fees under this section are * * * * * operating power reactors (99). shown in the following table:

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 123

1. Special nuclear material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of U-235 or plutonium for fuel fabrication activities. (a) Strategic Special Nuclear Material (High Enriched Uranium) [Program Code(s): 21130] ...... $9,424,000. (b) Low Enriched Uranium in Dispersible Form Used for Fabrication of Power Reactor Fuel [Program Code(s): $3,243,000. 21210]. (2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in Category 1.A. (1) which are licensed for fuel cycle activities

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15499

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 123

(a) Facilities with limited operations [Program Code(s): 21310, 21320] ...... $912,000. (b) Gas centrifuge enrichment demonstration facilities ...... $1,824,000. (c) Others, including hot cell facilities ...... $912,000. B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel and reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste at an inde- N/A. 11 pendent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) [Program Code(s): 23200]. C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material of less than a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this $3,300. chapter, in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers.15 [Program Code(s): 22140]. D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in sealed or unsealed $8,400. form in combination that would constitute a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those under Category 1.A.15 [Program Code(s): 22110, 22111, 22120, 22131, 22136, 22150, 22151, 22161, 22170, 23100, 23300, 23310]. E. Licenses or certificates for the operation of a uranium enrichment facility [Program Code(s): 21200] ...... $4,459,000. F. For special nuclear materials licenses in sealed or unsealed form of greater than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 of $7,100. this chapter.15 [Program Code: 22155]. 2. Source material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride $1,925,000. or for deconverting uranium hexafluoride in the production of uranium oxides for disposal. [Program Code: 11400]. (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ recovery, heap- leaching, ore buying stations, ion-exchange facilities and in-processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode (a) Conventional and Heap Leach facilities [Program Code(s): 11100] ...... $40,700. (b) Basic In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11500] ...... $51,500. (c) Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11510] ...... $58,300. (d) In Situ Recovery Resin facilities [Program Code(s): 11550] ...... $0. (e) Resin Toll Milling facilities [Program Code(s): 11555] ...... N/A. 5 (f) Other facilities 4 [Program Code(s): 11700] ...... $83,800. (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from N/A. 5 other persons for possession and disposal, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) or Category 2.A.(4) [Program Code(s): 11600, 12000]. (4) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from $23,100. other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the li- censee’s milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) [Program Code(s): 12010]. (5) Licenses that authorize the possession of source material related to removal of contaminants (source material) from $6,800. drinking water [Program Code(s): 11820]. B. Licenses that authorize possession, use, and/or installation of source material for shielding.16 17 18 [Program Code: $3,700. 11210]. C. Licenses to distribute items containing source material to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 40 of $7,000. this chapter. [Program Code: 11240]. D. Licenses to distribute source material to persons generally licensed under part 40 of this chapter [Program Code(s): $6,900. 11230 and 11231]. E. Licenses for possession and use of source material for processing or manufacturing of products or materials con- $8,600. taining source material for commercial distribution. [Program Code: 11710]. F. All other source material licenses. [Program Code(s): 11200, 11220, 11221, 11300, 11800, 11810] ...... $8,000. 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for $31,700. processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03211, 03212, 03213]. B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for processing or $13,300. manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03214, 03215, 22135, 22162]. C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72 and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribu- $14,000. tion or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources and devices containing byprod- uct material. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under part 40 of this chapter when included on the same license. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under § 171.11(a)(1). [Program Code(s): 02500, 02511, 02513]. D. [Reserved] ...... N/A. 5 E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the $10,200. source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units) [Program Code(s): 03510, 03520]. F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of $12,600. materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes [Program Code(s): 03511]. G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of $112,000. materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes [Program Code(s): 03521].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 123

H. Licenses issued under subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that re- $12,700. quire device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter, except specific li- censes authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licens- ing requirements of part 30 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03254, 03255]. I. Licenses issued under subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities $18,900. of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribu- tion to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03250, 03251, 03252, 03253, 03256]. J. Licenses issued under subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require $4,900. sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03240, 03241, 03243]. K. Licenses issued under subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quan- $3,500. tities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for dis- tribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03242, 03244]. L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for $18,400. research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 1–5. [Program Code(s): 01100, 01110, 01120, 03610, 03611, 03612, 03613]. (1) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of product material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter $24,600. for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 6–20. (2) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chap- $30,600. ter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 20 or more. M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for research and de- $12,800. velopment that do not authorize commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03620]. N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak $21,700. testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3.P.; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee categories 4.A., 4.B., and 4.C. [Program Code(s): 03219, 03225, 03226]. O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography $26,900. operations. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under part 40 of this chapter when authorized on the same license [Program Code(s): 03310, 03320]. P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4.A. through 9.D.19 [Program Code(s): $8,200. 02400, 02410, 03120, 03121, 03122, 03123, 03124, 03140, 03130, 03220, 03221, 03222, 03800, 03810, 22130]. Q. Registration of devices generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter ...... N/A. 13 R. Possession of items or products containing radium-226 identified in 10 CFR 31.12 which exceed the number of items or limits specified in that section: 14 1. Possession of quantities exceeding the number of items or limits in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5) but less than or $8,100. equal to 10 times the number of items or limits specified [Program Code(s): 02700]. 2. Possession of quantities exceeding 10 times the number of items or limits specified in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4) or (5) $8,600. [Program Code(s): 02710]. S. Licenses for production of accelerator-produced radionuclides [Program Code(s): 03210] ...... $32,000. 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material N/A. 5 from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses au- thorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material [Program Code(s): 03231, 03233, 03235, 03236, 06100, 06101]. B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material $22,700. from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material [Program Code(s): 03234]. C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nu- $15,200. clear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material [Program Code(s): 03232]. 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well log- $14,900. ging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies [Program Code(s): 03110, 03111, 03112]. B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies. [Program Code(s): 03113] ...... N/A. 5 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or spe- $41,200. cial nuclear material [Program Code(s): 03218]. 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, $25,500. or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units, teletherapy devices, or similar beam therapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license. [Program Code(s): 02300, 02310].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15501

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC—Continued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 123

B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of $38,500. this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for by- product material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.9 [Program Code(s): 02110]. C. Other licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source ma- $13,700. terial, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear mate- rial in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.920 [Program Code(s): 02120, 02121, 02200, 02201, 02210, 02220, 02230, 02231, 02240, 22160]. 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense $8,100. activities [Program Code(s): 03710]. 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or $8,200. special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution. B. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or $13,600. special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single appli- cant, except reactor fuel devices. C. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or spe- $8,000. cial nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution. D. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or spe- $1,600. cial nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel. 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Certificates of Compliance or other package approvals issued for design of casks, packages, and shipping containers 1. Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and plutonium air packages ...... N/A. 6 2. Other Casks ...... N/A. 6 B. Quality assurance program approvals issued under part 71 of this chapter 1. Users and Fabricators ...... N/A. 6 2. Users ...... N/A. 6 C. Evaluation of security plans, route approvals, route surveys, and transportation security devices (including immobiliza- N/A. 6 tion devices). 11. Standardized spent fuel facilities ...... N/A. 6 12. Special Projects [Program Code(s): 25110] ...... N/A. 6 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance ...... N/A. 6 B. General licenses for storage of spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210 ...... N/A. 12 14. Decommissioning/Reclamation: A. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decon- N/A. 7 tamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter, including master materials licenses (MMLs) [Program Code(s): 3900, 11900, 21135, 21215, 21240, 21325, 22200]. B. Site-specific decommissioning activities associated with unlicensed sites, including MMLs, whether or not the sites N/A. 7 have been previously licensed. 15. Import and Export licenses ...... N/A. 8 16. Reciprocity ...... N/A. 8 17. Master materials licenses of broad scope issued to Government agencies [Program Code(s): 03614] ...... $353,000. 18. Department of Energy: A. Certificates of Compliance ...... $1,511,000. 10 B. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) activities ...... $653,000. 1 Annual fees will be assessed based on whether a licensee held a valid license with the NRC authorizing possession and use of radioactive material during the current FY. The annual fee is waived for those materials licenses and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/storage licenses before October 1, 2012, and permanently ceased licensed activities entirely before this date. Annual fees for licensees who filed for termination of a license, downgrade of a license, or for a possession-only license during the FY and for new licenses issued during the FY will be prorated in accordance with the provisions of § 171.17. If a person holds more than one license, certificate, registration, or approval, the annual fee(s) will be assessed for each license, certifi- cate, registration, or approval held by that person. For licenses that authorize more than one activity on a single license (e.g., human use and irradiator activities), annual fees will be assessed for each category applicable to the license. 2 Payment of the prescribed annual fee does not automatically renew the license, certificate, registration, or approval for which the fee is paid. Renewal applications must be filed in accordance with the requirements of parts 30, 40, 70, 71, 72, or 76 of this chapter. 3 Each FY, fees for these materials licenses will be calculated and assessed in accordance with § 171.13 and will be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment. 4 Other facilities include licenses for extraction of metals, heavy metals, and rare earths. 5 There are no existing NRC licenses in these fee categories. If NRC issues a license for these categories, the Commission will consider es- tablishing an annual fee for this type of license. 6 Standardized spent fuel facilities, 10 CFR parts 71 and 72 Certificates of Compliance and related Quality Assurance program approvals, and special reviews, such as topical reports, are not assessed an annual fee because the generic costs of regulating these activities are primarily at- tributable to users of the designs, certificates, and topical reports. 7 Licensees in this category are not assessed an annual fee because they are charged an annual fee in other categories while they are li- censed to operate. 8 No annual fee is charged because it is not practical to administer due to the relatively short life or temporary nature of the license. 9 Separate annual fees will not be assessed for pacemaker licenses issued to medical institutions that also hold nuclear medicine licenses under fee categories 7.B. or 7.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:42 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 15502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules

10 This includes Certificates of Compliance issued to the U.S. Department of Energy that are not funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 11 See § 171.15(c). 12 See § 171.15(c). 13 No annual fee is charged for this category because the cost of the general license registration program applicable to licenses in this cat- egory will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees. 14 Persons who possess radium sources that are used for operational purposes in another fee category are not also subject to the fees in this category. (This exception does not apply if the radium sources are possessed for storage only.) 15 Licensees paying annual fees under category 1.A., 1.B., and 1.E. are not subject to the annual fees for categories 1.C., 1.D., and 1.F. for sealed sources authorized in the license. 16 Licensees subject to fees under categories 1.A., 1.B., 1.E., or 2.A. must pay the largest applicable fee and are not subject to additional fees listed in this table. 17 Licensees paying fees under 3.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 18 Licensees paying fees under 7.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 19 Licensees paying fees under 3.N. are not subject to paying fees under 3.P. for calibration or leak testing services authorized on the same li- cense. 20 Licensees paying fees under 7.B. are not subject to paying fees under 7.C. for broad scope license licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct mate- rial, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices authorized on the same license.

(e) The fee-relief adjustment allocated activities are greater than the budgeted Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day to annual fees includes the budgeted resources for the activities included in of March 2015. resources for the activities listed in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. paragraph (e)(1) of this section, plus the for a given FY, a negative fee-relief Maureen E. Wylie, total budgeted resources for the adjustment (or annual fee reduction) Chief Financial Officer. activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) will be allocated to annual fees. The [FR Doc. 2015–06377 Filed 3–20–15; 8:45 am] and (3) of this section, as reduced by the activities comprising the FY 2015 fee- BILLING CODE 7590–01–P appropriations the NRC receives for relief adjustment are as follows: these types of activities. If the NRC’s appropriations for these types of * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23MRP4.SGM 23MRP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 55 Monday, March 23, 2015

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING MARCH

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. Presidential Documents 2 CFR 400...... 14030 905...... 11335 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 780...... 12915 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 925...... 11346 Proposed Rules: 944...... 11346 Other Services Subtitle B ...... 13789 985...... 13502 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 Ch. IV...... 13789 3555...... 11950 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 1201...... 12092 Ch. I ...... 13789 741–6043 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 3 CFR Ch. II ...... 13789 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 Ch. III ...... 13789 101...... 13757 Ch. IV...... 13789 Proclamations: ELECTRONIC RESEARCH Ch. V...... 13789 9235...... 11845 Ch. VI...... 13789 World Wide Web 9236...... 11847 Ch. VII...... 13789 9237...... 11849 Ch. VIII...... 13789 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 9238...... 11851 Ch. IX...... 13789 is located at: www.fdsys.gov. 9239...... 11853 Ch. X...... 13789 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 9240...... 11855 Ch. XI...... 13789 Inspection List, indexes, and Code of Federal Regulations are 9241...... 14287 Ch. XIV ...... 13789 located at: www.ofr.gov. Executive Orders: Ch. XV ...... 13789 13692...... 12747 Ch. XVI ...... 13789 E-mail Administrative Orders: Ch. XVII ...... 13789 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is Memorandums: Ch. XVIII ...... 13789 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital Memorandum of Ch. XX ...... 13789 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form February 25, 2015 ...... 11317 Ch. XXV...... 13789 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and Memorandum of Ch. XXVI...... 13789 PDF links to the full text of each document. February 19, 2015 ...... 12071 Ch. XXVII...... 13789 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Memorandum of March Ch. XXVIII...... 13789 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 10, 2015 ...... 13471 Ch. XXIX...... 13789 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. Memorandum of March Ch. XXX...... 13789 4, 2015 ...... 13479 Ch. XXXI...... 13789 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Memorandum of March Ch. XXXII...... 13789 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 12, 2015 ...... 13755 Ch. XXXIII...... 13789 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html Memorandum of March Ch. XXXIV ...... 13789 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 13, 2015 ...... 14289 Ch. XXXV ...... 13789 the instructions. Notices: Ch. XXXVI ...... 13789 FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot Notice of March 3, Ch. XXXVII ...... 13789 respond to specific inquiries. 2015 ...... 12067 Ch. XXXVIII ...... 13789 Notice of March 3, Ch. XLI...... 13789 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 2015 ...... 12069 Ch. XLII...... 13789 Federal Register system to: [email protected] Notice of March 11, The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 2015 ...... 13475 9 CFR regulations. Notice of March 11, Proposed Rules: CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 2015 ...... 13475 Ch. I ...... 13789 Ch. II ...... 13789 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 5 CFR found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. Ch. III ...... 13789 532...... 15147 Ch. XV ...... 13757 10 CFR FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, MARCH Proposed Rules: 72...... 12073, 14291 11077–11316...... 2 15147–15502...... 23 Ch. XLII...... 11334 431...... 11857, 12078 11317–11534...... 3 Ch. LXXIII ...... 13789 Proposed Rules: 11535–11856...... 4 20...... 14033 7 CFR 11857–12070...... 5 30...... 13794 12071–12320...... 6 210...... 11077 40...... 13794 12321–12554...... 9 235...... 11077 50...... 13794 12555–12746...... 10 301...... 12916 52...... 13794 12747–12914...... 11 1471...... 12321 60...... 13794 12915–13198...... 12 1951...... 13199 61...... 13794 13199–13478...... 13 1956...... 13199 63...... 13794 13479–13754...... 16 Proposed Rules: 70...... 13794 13755–13994...... 17 Subtitle A; Subtitle 71...... 13794 13995–14290...... 18 B...... 13789 72...... 13794, 14332 14291–14804...... 19 319...... 11946, 12954 73...... 14876 14805–15146...... 20 340...... 11598 170...... 15476

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:47 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\23MRCU.LOC 23MRCU mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Reader Aids

171...... 15476 37...... 12555 53...... 12761 Ch. II ...... 13789 429...... 11599, 12876 43...... 12555 54...... 13995 1192...... 15179 430 ...... 12876, 13120, 13791 45...... 12555 602...... 12761 951...... 12352 46...... 12555 Proposed Rules: 38 CFR 170...... 12555 1 ...... 11141, 11600, 12097, 3...... 14308 11 CFR 232...... 14438 13292 4...... 14308 104...... 12079 240...... 14438 31...... 11600 114...... 12079 242...... 14564 39 CFR 27 CFR 249...... 14438 20...... 13492 12 CFR Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 111...... 13492, 13767 931...... 12753 242...... 14740 9...... 11355 933...... 12753 40 CFR 18 CFR 28 CFR 1277...... 12753 9...... 12083 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 375...... 13223 22...... 13251 15...... 12104 217...... 11349 381...... 13222 50...... 12264 791...... 11954 389...... 12758 29 CFR 51...... 12264 52 ...... 11131, 11133, 11136, 13 CFR 19 CFR 1980...... 11865 2550...... 14301 11321, 11323, 11557, 11573, Proposed Rules: 12...... 12081 2590...... 13995 11577, 11580, 11887, 11890, 107...... 14034 12264, 12341, 12343, 12345, 20 CFR 4022...... 13239 121...... 12353 4044...... 13239 12561, 13248, 13493, 13495, 124...... 12353 200...... 13763 Proposed Rules: 13768, 14019, 14310, 14312 125...... 12353 320...... 13763 Subtitle A ...... 11334 60...... 13672 126...... 12353 345...... 13763 Ch. II ...... 11334 62...... 11577 127...... 12353 404...... 14828 Ch. IV...... 11334 63...... 14248 405...... 14828 70 ...... 11577, 12264, 14312 14 CFR Ch. V...... 11334 416...... 14828 Ch. XVII ...... 11334 71...... 12264 25...... 11319, 11859 702...... 12917 1910...... 13295 81...... 11580, 12341 39 ...... 11096, 11101, 11535, 703...... 12917 1915...... 13295 98...... 12934 12332, 13481, 13483, 13486, Proposed Rules: 1917...... 13295 180 ...... 11583, 11588, 14009, 13758, 13761, 14296, 14297, Ch. IV...... 11334 1918...... 13295 14014, 14024, 14314 14299, 14805, 14808, 14810, Ch. V...... 11334 1926...... 13295 271...... 14847 15149, 15152 Ch. VI...... 11334 Ch. XXV...... 11334 721...... 12083 71 ...... 12335, 12336, 13201, Ch. VII...... 11334 2550...... 14334 Proposed Rules: 13202, 13203, 13204, 13206, 702...... 12957 Ch. I ...... 12372 13207, 13208, 13209, 14813 703...... 12957 30 CFR 50...... 15340 73...... 11106, 11107 Ch. IX...... 11334 Proposed Rules: 51...... 15340 91...... 11108, 11536 Ch. I ...... 11334 52 ...... 11148, 11610, 11974, 97 ...... 14814, 14815, 14822, 21 CFR 12109, 12373, 12374, 12604, 31 CFR 14823 11...... 13225 12607, 13312, 13510, 13512, 121...... 11108, 11537 14...... 14838 1...... 13764 14038, 14041, 14044, 14062, 125...... 11108 73...... 14839 Proposed Rules: 14338 135...... 11108, 11537 101...... 13225 1010...... 13304 60...... 15100, 15180 Proposed Rules: 510...... 13226 32 CFR 62...... 11610 25...... 11958 520...... 12081, 13226 63...... 12794 39 ...... 11140, 11960, 11964, 522...... 13226 61...... 11778 70 ...... 11610, 14037, 14338 12094, 12360, 12954, 13797, 524...... 13226 266...... 13491 93...... 15340 13799, 15171 556...... 13226 317...... 12558 174...... 11611 71 ...... 12354, 12357, 12359, 558...... 13226 706...... 15165 180...... 11611 13288, 14876, 14878 882...... 15163 33 CFR 228...... 12785 93...... 12355 895...... 11865 271...... 14894 1308...... 14842 100...... 11547, 15167 721...... 11361, 13513 15 CFR 117 ...... 11122, 11548, 12082, Proposed Rules: 12083, 12337, 12341, 12933, 742...... 13210 41 CFR 15...... 11966 13241, 13246, 13765, 13766, 748...... 11866, 13210 301-11...... 14852 170...... 13508 14305, 14307, 14844 762...... 13210 176...... 13508 165 ...... 11123, 11126, 11128, Proposed Rules: 922 ...... 11111, 12079, 13078 177...... 13508 11885, 12338, 13241, 13244, Ch. 50 ...... 11334 Proposed Rules: 189...... 13508 13246, 14009, 14845, 15167 Ch. 60 ...... 11334 702...... 11350, 12364 201...... 12364 Ch. 61 ...... 11334 Proposed Rules: 314...... 13289 774...... 11315 140...... 12784 320...... 13289 42 CFR 16 CFR 143...... 12784 606...... 12364 146...... 12784 403...... 14853 2...... 15157 610...... 12364 165 ...... 11145, 11607, 12365, 405...... 13251, 14853 3...... 15157 410...... 14853 22 CFR 12368, 13309, 14335, 15174, 4...... 15157 15176 411...... 13251, 14853 1112...... 11113 172...... 12081 412...... 14853 1230...... 11113 Proposed Rules: 34 CFR 413...... 13251, 14853 Proposed Rules: 121...... 11314 Ch. II ...... 11550 414...... 13251, 14853 Ch. II ...... 15173 Ch. III ...... 12370 425...... 14853 25 CFR 1307...... 14879 Proposed Rules: 489...... 14853 Proposed Rules: Subtitle A ...... 13803 495...... 14853 17 CFR 23...... 14880 498...... 14853 1...... 12555 36 CFR 3...... 12555 26 CFR Proposed Rules: 44 CFR 23...... 12555 1 ...... 12760, 12761, 13233 7...... 11968 64...... 11893, 11895

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:16 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\23MRCU.LOC 23MRCU mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDCU Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Reader Aids iii

Proposed Rules: 95...... 12120 1837...... 12935 50 CFR 67...... 11975 1841...... 12935 16...... 12702 48 CFR 1842...... 12935 45 CFR 17...... 12566 709...... 12935 1846...... 12935 21...... 13497 18...... 13252 752...... 12935 1849...... 12935 146...... 13995 819...... 12564 1851...... 12935 218...... 13264 1001...... 11595 1852...... 11138, 12935 222...... 14319 46 CFR 1002...... 11595 Proposed Rules: 300...... 13771 502...... 14318 1016...... 11595 Ch. 3 ...... 11266 622...... 11330, 14328 Proposed Rules: 1019...... 11595 Ch. 4 ...... 13789 648 ...... 11139, 11331, 11918, 61...... 12784 1028...... 11595 501...... 11619 12349, 14870 62...... 12784 1032...... 11595 516...... 11619 660...... 12567 67...... 11361 1034...... 11595 538...... 11619 679 ...... 11332, 11897, 11918, 1042...... 11595 552...... 11619 11919, 12781, 13500, 13787, 47 CFR 1052...... 11595 Ch. 29 ...... 11334 13788 1...... 11326 1803...... 11138 Proposed Rules: 20...... 11806 49 CFR 1809...... 12935 17 ...... 12846, 14334, 15272 63...... 11326 1815...... 12935 27...... 13253 217...... 14345 64...... 11593 1816...... 11138, 12935 37...... 13253 223 ...... 11363, 11379, 13806, 76...... 11328, 12088 1817...... 12935 191...... 12762 15272 Proposed Rules: 1823...... 12935 192...... 12762 1...... 12120 1827...... 12935 195...... 12762 224...... 11379, 15272 2...... 12120 1828...... 12935 Ch. II ...... 14027 229...... 14345 15...... 12120 1829...... 12935 Proposed Rules: 300...... 12375 74...... 11614 1831...... 12935 Ch. III ...... 12136 635...... 12394 76...... 14894 1832...... 12935 571...... 11148 648 ...... 12380, 12394, 13806 90...... 12120 1834...... 12935 845...... 14339 660...... 12611, 14066

VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:16 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\23MRCU.LOC 23MRCU mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 / Reader Aids

Register but may be ordered H.R. 1213/P.L. 114–6 enacted public laws. To in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Office of Compliance subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the Administrative and Technical listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Superintendent of Documents, Corrections Act of 2015 (Mar. publaws-l.html This is a continuing list of U.S. Government Printing 20, 2015; 129 Stat. 81) public bills from the current Office, Washington, DC 20402 Last List March 11, 2015 session of Congress which Note: This service is strictly have become Federal laws. (phone, 202–512–1808). The for E-mail notification of new This list is also available text will also be made Public Laws Electronic laws. The text of laws is not online at http:// available on the Internet from Notification Service available through this service. www.archives.gov/federal- GPO’s Federal Digital System (PENS) PENS cannot respond to register/laws. (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ specific inquiries sent to this fdsys. Some laws may not yet The text of laws is not PENS is a free electronic mail address. be available. published in the Federal notification service of newly

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:04 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\23MRCU.LOC 23MRCU mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDCU