### 26254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices

37 See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (‘‘ MEMA I’’). (hp), and new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.

CARB maintains that its CHE amendments do not regulate new engines which are used in construction or farm equipment or vehicles below 175 hp, nor do the CHE amendments regulate new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.

In light of the lack of contrary information in the record, EPA cannot make a finding that CARB’s CHE amendments are inconsistent with section 209(e)(1). Therefore, EPA cannot deny CARB’s authorization request on this basis. 3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)

The requirement that California’s standards be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. To determine this consistency, EPA has applied to California nonroad standards the same test it has used previously for California motor vehicle standards; namely, state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that timeframe. California’s accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal and California test procedures conflicted. The scope of EPA’s review of whether California’s action is consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that California’s standards are technologically infeasible, or that California’s test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedures. 37

CARB states that the smoke opacity test is a quick and inexpensive way to detect if an engine is emitting excessive emissions. CARB maintains that the smoke opacity test is technologically feasible and that compliance with the standards does not require the incorporation of any new technology not already required by existing regulations that have previously received an EPA authorization. CARB also states that the clarification of the Tier 4 FEL emission standards provisions are technologically feasible and were designed to correct an unintentional error and to clarify the original intent of the previously authorized CHE regulations. The CHE amendments only require retrofit to the Tier 4 emission level if appropriate technology is available and require the retrofit be performed within one year. EPA did not receive any comment or evidence to suggest that either of the two amendments for which CARB requested authorization is technologically infeasible.

Consequently, based on the record, EPA is unable to make the finding that the CHE amendments are not technologically feasible with the available lead time giving consideration to the cost of compliance.

EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB’s CHE amendments pose any test procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that CARB’s testing procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) and cannot deny CARB’s request based on this criterion.

III. Decision

The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating CARB’s amendments to its CHE regulations described above and CARB’s submissions for EPA review, EPA is taking the following actions.

First, EPA is granting a within-thescope authorization for the CHE amendments that modify the retrofit requirements, modify operational practices, allow demonstration of emissions equivalency for alternative technology, and modify compliance requirements.

Second, EPA is granting a full authorization for the CHE amendments that establish a new opacity based monitoring program and new retrofit requirements for engines meeting the Tier 4 FEL standards.

This decision will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/ or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with California’s requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California’s standards for which a section 209(e)(2)(A) authorization has been granted if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states. See CAA section 209(e)(2)(B). For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a final action of national applicability, and also a final action of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by July 6, 2015. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

Dated: April 29, 2015. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 2015–11034 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[FRL**

_**XXXX–X]**

**Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision**  **Approval, State of Florida**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice announces EPA’s approval of the State of Florida’s requestto revise/modify certain of its EPAauthorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

**DATES :**  EPA’s approval is effective May 7, 2015.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–1175, seeh.karen@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an


### 26255 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices

acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of proceduresavailable under existing programspecific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

On February 25, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted an application titled ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System e-Reporting Tool (NeT)’’ for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed FDEP’s request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/ modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA’s decision to approve Florida’s request to revise/ modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 403, and 503 is being published in the Federal Register : Part 123—EPA Administered Permit

Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Part 403—General Pretreatment

Regulations For Existing And New Source Of Pollution Part 501—State Sludge Management

Program Regulations

FDEP was notified of EPA’s determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard, Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.

[FR Doc. 2015–10989 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION** 

**[3060–0806]**

**Information Collection Being Submitted for Emergency Review and**  **Approval to the Office of Management and Budget** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Communication Commission.

**ACTION :**  Notice and request for

comments.

**SUMMARY :**  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection(s) of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection(s) of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.

**DATES :**  Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.

If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. **ADDRESSES :**  Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202– 395–5167 or via email at Nicholas

_A.

_ Fraser@omb.eop.gov. Also, please submit your PRA comments to the FCC by email at PRA@fcc.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Nicole Ongele, Office of the Managing Director, FCC at (202) 418–2991.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The Commission is requesting that OMB approve this revised information collection under the emergency processing provisions of the PRA, 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d), and 1320.13 by July 1, 2015.

OMB Control Number: 3060–0806. Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program, FCC Forms 470 and 471.

Form Number: FCC Forms 470 and

471.

Type of Review: Revision to a currently approved collection.

Respondents: State, local or tribal government public institutions, and other not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 82,000 respondents; 82,000

responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 hours for FCC Form 470 (3 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping); 4.5 hours for FCC Form 471 (4 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201– 205, 218–220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 405.

Total Annual Burden: 334,000 hours. Total Annual Cost: N/A. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents concerning this information collection. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Administrator be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC’s rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission seeks to revise OMB 3060–0806 to conform this information collection to changes implemented in the Second ERate Modernization Order (WC Docket No. 13–184, FCC 14–189; 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015). Collection of the information on FCC Forms 470 and 471 is necessary so that the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) have sufficient