        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Surface Transportation Board
        49 CFR Chapter X
        [Docket No. EP 719]
        Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed size standards for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and request for public comment.

          SUMMARY:
          The Board is proposing to define “small business” for the purpose of RFA analyses as including only those rail carriers with revenues that would bring them within the definition of a Class III rail carrier.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by August 15, 2013.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The RFA requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities. The RFA defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 1
           5 U.S.C. 601(6). Generally, a small business is a business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. 5 U.S.C. 601(3); 15 U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has developed size standards to carry out the purposes of the Small Business Act. An agency may establish other definitions for “small business” that are appropriate to the agency's activities after consultation with the SBA's Office of Advocacy and opportunity for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

            1 The RFA defines “small organization” as meaning “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field . . . ,” and “small governmental jurisdiction” as meaning “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. . . .” 5 U.S.C. 601(4) & (5).

        Pursuant to its statutory authority, the SBA promulgated regulations that clarify the term “small business” by industry, using number of employees or annual income as criteria. Under these regulations, line-haul railroads with 1,500 or fewer employees and short line railroads with 500 or fewer employees constitute small entities. 13 CFR 121.201 (industry subsector 482). The Board proposes to establish a size standard for purposes of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction based on annual operating revenues rather than number of employees.

        The Board was created by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), on January 1, 1996, to assume some functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was terminated by that same Act. The majority of the functions that the Board assumed are related to the regulation of freight railroads. The ICC had previously developed a classification system for freight railroads based on annual operating revenue, pursuant to which railroads were classified as Class I, II, or III. This classification system was used by the ICC as early as 1911, and the Board continues to use it in the administration of its duties. Currently, the Board's regulations define Class I rail carriers as having operating revenues of $250 million or more, Class II rail carriers as having less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million, and Class III rail carriers as having $20 million or less, after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its Web site.

        This classification system is used pervasively by the Board and the railroad industry to identify rail entities by size. The Board's governing statute, its precedent, and its regulations often impose different requirements depending on the class of carrier involved. In 2003, the Federal Railroad Administration acknowledged the soundness of this system when it adopted, after consultation with the SBA's Office of Advocacy and opportunity for public comment, a definition of small entity for RFA purposes as including only those rail carriers with revenues that would bring them within the Class III definition. 68 FR 24,891 (2003); see also 62 FR 43,024 (1997). The SBA's Office of Advocacy has been consulted with respect to the Board's decision to use this system for the purpose of RFA analyses. The Board proposes to define “small business” as including only those rail carriers with revenues that would bring them within the Class III definition. The Board believes that this definition is more realistic and useful than the general definitions previously established by the SBA, and it is consistent with the practices of the Federal Railroad Administration.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          It is ordered:
        1. Comments are due by August 15, 2013.
        2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
        3. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.
        4. This decision is effective on its service date.

          Decided: July 11, 2013.

          By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Mulvey.
          Jeffrey Herzig,
          Clearance Clerk.

      [FR Doc. 2013-17022 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0230; FRL-9929-03]
        RIN 2070-ZA16
        Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD); Proposed Pesticide Tolerance; Technical Correction

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; technical correction.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015, concerning Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), in or on all food commodities. This document corrects typographical errors.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of May 29, 2015 (80 FR 30640) (FRL-9927-02).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Does this action apply to me?
        The Agency included in the May 29, 2015 proposed rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
        II. What does this technical correction do?
        EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015, that was concerning Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), in or on all food commodities. EPA inadvertently listed a government agency incorrectly.
        The preamble for FR Doc. 2015-12530 published in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015 (80 FR 30640) (FRL-9927-02) is corrected as follows:
        1. On page 30640, second column, under the heading ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, line 4, correct Banda de Lupinus albus doce BLAD to read Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD).
        2. On page 30641, second column, paragraph 3, line 3, Federal Drug Administration is corrected to read: Food and Drug Administration.
        III. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this action?
        No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and executive order review, refer to Unit VII. of the May 29, 2015 proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 11, 2015.
          Robert McNally,
          Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.

      [FR Doc. 2015-15403 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
        Drug Enforcement Administration
        21 CFR Part 1308
        [Docket No. DEA-333P]
        Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Carisoprodol Into Schedule IV

          AGENCY:
          Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule is issued by the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to place the substance carisoprodol, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, into schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This proposed action is based on a recommendation from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and on an evaluation of the relevant data by DEA. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and criminal sanctions of schedule IV on those who handle carisoprodol and products containing carisoprodol.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 17, 2009. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the last day of the comment period.

          ADDRESSES:

          To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-333” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments sent via regular or express mail should be sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152. Comments may be sent to DEA by sending an electronic message to dea.diversion.policy@usdoj.gov. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. DEA will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file formats only. DEA will not accept any file formats other than those specifically listed here.

            Please note that DEA is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight EST on the day the comment period closes because http://www.regulations.gov terminates the public's ability to submit comments at midnight EST on the day the comment period closes. Commenters in time zones other than EST may want to consider this so that their electronic comments are received. All comments sent via regular or express mail will be considered timely if postmarked on the day the comment period closes.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone (202) 307-7183.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Comments and Requests for Hearing: In accordance with the provisions of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 556 and 557). All persons are invited to submit their comments or objections with regard to this proposal. Requests for a hearing may be submitted by interested persons and must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44 and 1316.47. The request should state, with particularity, the issues concerning which the person desires to be heard and the requestor's interest in the proceeding. Only interested persons, defined in the regulations as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may request a hearing. 21 CFR 1308.42. Please note that DEA may grant a hearing only “for the purpose of receiving factual evidence and expert opinion regarding the issues involved in the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule issuable” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a). All correspondence regarding this matter should be submitted to the DEA using the address information provided above.

          Posting of Public Comments: Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and in the Drug Enforcement Administration's public docket. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.
        If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
        If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.

        Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the DEA's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
        Background
        Carisoprodol is a centrally acting muscle relaxant and is indicated for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Carisoprodol has been available since 1959 as a prescription drug in the United States under the trade name Soma®. It is also marketed as generic products. Carisoprodol is similar to a variety of central nervous system (CNS) depressants, including meprobamate (C-IV) and chlordiazepoxide (C-IV). The actual abuse data from several databases demonstrate that carisoprodol is abused in the United States. Because of growing concerns about abuse of carisoprodol, a number of states have regulated carisoprodol under their controlled substance regulations, and a number of additional states are currently considering such regulation.
        Because of the evidence relating to diversion, abuse, and trafficking of carisoprodol, in March 1996, the DEA requested from the DHHS a scientific and medical evaluation and a scheduling recommendation for carisoprodol, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b).
        In February 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Abuse Advisory Committee (DAAC) deliberated upon the abuse and scheduling issues and concluded that the data were insufficient to control carisoprodol under the CSA at that time. Since the FDA DAAC meeting, pharmacological studies addressing the abuse liability of carisoprodol have been conducted under the direction of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD). DEA acquired new carisoprodol-related data on actual abuse, law enforcement encounters and other information and sent this supplementary information to DHHS on November 14, 2005. FDA acquired new data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), Florida Medical Examiners Commission reports, FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) and information from the published scientific literature and conducted a scientific and medical evaluation. These data collectively indicate that carisoprodol has abuse potential and is being diverted, trafficked, with increasing frequency and magnitude.
        Carisoprodol abuse has been associated with increasing numbers of emergency department (ED) visits in recent years as indicated by DAWN. The “abuse frequency,” calculated as ED visits per 10,000 prescriptions, of carisoprodol (frequency range during 2002-2007: 15.1 to 22.6 visits/10,000 prescriptions) is similar to that of a schedule IV drug, diazepam (frequency range during 2002-2007: 12.5 to 14.1 visits/10,000 prescriptions). Carisoprodol is used as either the sole drug or in combination with other substances such as opioids, benzodiazepine, alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. Data from the AERS database show that carisoprodol is associated with adverse health events including dependence and withdrawal syndrome.

        The data from National Poison Data System of the American Association of Poison Control Centers documented 8,821 carisoprodol toxic exposure cases including 3,605 cases in which it was the sole drug mentioned in 2007. Medical Examiners Commission Reports released by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) indicate that carisoprodol/meprobamate related deaths in Florida increased by 100 percent from 208 deaths in 2003 to 415 deaths in 2008.
        The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS), a DEA system that tracks analyzed drug exhibits submitted by the federal, state, and local law enforcement, documented evidence of substantial diversion of carisoprodol. For example, law enforcement submitted a total of 3,873 carisoprodol drug items to participating forensic laboratories in 2008. NFLIS consistently listed carisoprodol in the top 25 most frequently identified drugs since 2000. The 2007 NSDUH data show that 2.7 million individuals used Soma® in their lifetime (i.e., ever used) for a non-medical purpose.
        The data from in vitro electrophysiological studies using the whole-cell patch clamp technique demonstrate that carisoprodol elicits barbiturate-like effects. Intravenous drug self-administration studies in rhesus monkeys show that carisoprodol has positive reinforcing effects. Meprobamate, pentobarbital, and chlordiazepoxide substitute fully for the discriminative stimulus effects of carisoprodol in rats. Bemegride, a barbiturate antagonist, antagonizes the discriminative stimulus effects of carisoprodol.
        Data from an animal study indicates that carisoprodol has dependence liability similar to barbital (schedule IV), a central nervous system depressant. Carisoprodol administered orally fully prevented the appearance of abstinence phenomena in dogs tolerant and dependent on barbital. Several published reports document evidence of tolerance and dependence to carisoprodol and indicate the occurrence of abstinence symptoms during carisoprodol withdrawal in humans.
        On October 6, 2009, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Health, DHHS, sent the Deputy Administrator of DEA a scientific and medical evaluation and a letter recommending that carisoprodol be placed into schedule IV of the CSA. Enclosed with the October 6, 2009, letter was a document prepared by the FDA entitled, “Basis for the Recommendation for Control of Carisoprodol in Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).” The document contained a review of the factors which the CSA requires the Secretary to consider (21 U.S.C. 811(b)). The factors considered by the Assistant Secretary of Health and DEA 21 U.S.C. 811(c)) with respect to carisoprodol were:
        (1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse;
        (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects;
        (3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
        (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
        (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
        (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
        (7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
        (8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
        Based on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health, received in accordance with section 201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811(b)), and the independent review of the available data by DEA, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 811(b)), finds that:
        1. Carisoprodol has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule III. Animal studies indicate that carisoprodol is similar to schedule IV drugs such as meprobamate and chlordiazepoxide in its central nervous system depressant effects. The documented data on law enforcement encounters and actual abuse of carisoprodol demonstrate that it has a potential for abuse and is being diverted and abused. Since 2000, DEA's NFLIS database consistently mentioned carisoprodol in the top 25 drugs that were most frequently identified by state and local forensic laboratories thereby indicating that carisoprodol is being diverted. Emergency department visits data from DAWN indicate that abuse frequency of carisoprodol is similar to that of diazepam, a schedule IV drug. Recent data from DAWN medical examiner reports and emergency department visits showed an increase in carisoprodol abuse.
        2. Carisoprodol has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Carisoprodol is an FDA approved drug and is used for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions.
        3. Abuse of carisoprodol may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. Carisoprodol, similar to barbital (schedule IV), prevents the abstinence syndrome in drug withdrawn barbital-dependent dogs. Published reports indicate that carisoprodol causes psychological or physical dependence and withdrawal syndrome.
        Based on these findings, the Deputy Administrator of DEA concludes that carisoprodol, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible warrants control in schedule IV of the CSA. (21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4))
        References to the above studies and data may be found in the Health and Human Services scheduling recommendation and DEA's independent analysis, both of which are available on the electronic docket associated with this rulemaking.
        Requirements for Handling Carisoprodol
        If this rule is finalized as proposed, carisoprodol would be subject to CSA regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, and exporting of a schedule IV controlled substance, including the following:

          Registration. Any person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research or conducts instructional activities with carisoprodol, or who desires to manufacture, distribute, dispense, import, export, engage in instructional activities or conduct research with carisoprodol, would need to be registered to conduct such activities in accordance with 21 CFR part 1301.

          Security. Carisoprodol would be subject to schedules III-V security requirements and would need to be manufactured, distributed, and stored in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71, 1301.72(b), (c), and (d), 1301.73, 1301.74, 1301.75(b) and (c), 1301.76, and 1301.77.

          Labeling and Packaging. All labels and labeling for commercial containers of carisoprodol which are distributed on or after finalization of this rule would need to comply with requirements of 21 CFR 1302.03-1302.07.

          Inventory. Every registrant required to keep records and who possesses any quantity of carisoprodol would be required to keep an inventory of all stocks of carisoprodol on hand pursuant to 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04 and 1304.11. Every registrant who desires registration in schedule IV for carisoprodol would be required to conduct an inventory of all stocks of the substance on hand at the time of registration.

          Records. All registrants would be required to keep records pursuant to 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, 1304.21, 1304.22, and 1304.23.

          Prescriptions. All prescriptions for carisoprodol or prescriptions for products containing carisoprodol would be required to be issued pursuant to 21 CFR 1306.03-1306.06 and 1306.21, 1306.22-1306.27.

          Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of carisoprodol would need to be in compliance with 21 CFR part 1312.

          Criminal Liability. Any activity with carisoprodol not authorized by, or in violation of, the Controlled Substances Act or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act occurring on or after finalization of this proposed rule would be unlawful.
        Regulatory Certifications
        Executive Order 12866
        In accordance with the provisions of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 and, as such, are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(1).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this regulation, and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        In considering the impact on small entities, the first question is whether a substantial number of small entities are affected. In this instance, the entities affected are those now selling carisoprodol-containing products without registration. DEA has identified 22 firms manufacturing carisoprodol-containing products in 2009.1
           Fifteen of these firms have existing DEA registrations. This leaves seven firms from this data set selling carisoprodol without registration. DEA has no information on the number of non-registrants distributing or importing carisoprodol, but there is every reason to believe that the number of such firms is well in excess of the seven already identified. The Small Business Administration size standard for a small wholesaler of drugs is 100 employees. It is clearly possible to operate a drug distributing firm with fewer than 100 employees. There can be no question that a substantial number of small entities will be affected by this rule.

            1 IMS Health National Prescription Audit (NPA).

        The impact on non-registrants now selling carisoprodol will occur in two forms: the cost of registration and the cost of meeting the security requirements in 21 CFR part 1301. There is also a potential impact on firms not now selling carisoprodol who might have wished to enter the market.
        The annual registration fee for a distributor, importer, or exporter is $1,147. There is some uncertainty in estimating the cost of meeting the security requirements, because most nonregistrants already meet the security requirements, at least in part, for schedule III and IV substances. To be conservative, it is assumed that every nonregistrant will have to buy a safe to store carisoprodol. A safe with capacity of 13.5 cubic feet should be adequate. A safe of this size may be purchased for $1,350.2
           Annualized over 15 years at 7.0 percent, that is $148 per year. Total annual cost of compliance with the rule, then, is $1,295. The usual standard for a significant economic impact is 1.0 percent of revenue. For $1,295 per year to be a significant economic impact, annual revenue of a firm would have to be under $130,000. Any firm in the business of distributing drugs needs annual revenue well in excess of that amount to sustain itself.

            2 NationwideSafes.com http://www.nationwidesafes.com/capacity-more-than-4pt0-cu-ft.html.

        It should be acknowledged that, for a small firm, there may be some inconvenience and expense in preparing necessary forms for registration and registration renewal. These are minor costs. There are also recordkeeping requirements, but these impose little or no incremental cost for a firm that is already maintaining records needed for a wholesale business. The costs of registration and security requirements will not be a significant economic impact.
        If a firm chose not to register and to drop its carisoprodol line, the cost to the firm would exceed its earnings on the carisoprodol sales. The firm might also lose some customers who do not want to buy from a vendor without carisoprodol in its product line. A competent manager will recognize this cost. In light of the very small cost of registering, he would presumably choose to drop carisoprodol from the firm's products only if the firm were earning a negligible profit from that line and he judged that dropping it would not turn away significant customers. In light of the foregoing analysis, DEA finds that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DEA has no information regarding the number of persons who may distribute carisoprodol-containing products, but do not manufacture, package, repackage, or relabel those products. Therefore, DEA seeks comment on any entities that might be affected by this control action.
        Executive Order 12988
        This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
        Executive Order 13132
        This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
        Congressional Review Act
        This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets.

          List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
          Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Narcotics, Prescription drugs.

        Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(a) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), and delegated to the Administrator of DEA by Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR 0.100), and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator hereby proposes that 21 CFR part 1308 be amended as follows:

          PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
          1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) unless otherwise noted.

          2. Section 1308.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(52) as paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(53) and adding a new paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

            § 1308.14
            Schedule IV.

            (c) * * *

                (5) Carisoprodol
                8192

            Dated: November 10, 2009.
            Michele M. Leonhart,
            Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E9-27583 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


        FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-P-7605]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

          DATES:
          The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.

          ADDRESSES:
          The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461 or (e-mail) matt.miller@fema.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        FEMA proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

          National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because proposed or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

          Regulatory Classification. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

          Executive Order 12612, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

          Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]
            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                State
                City/town/county
                Source of flooding
                Location
                #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet. (NGVD)  A(NAVD)
                Existing
                Modified

                AR
                Vadnais Heights, City of Ramsey County
                Ponding Area
                Pond west of McMenemy Road, north of Meadowood Lane, and southeast Foothill Trail
                None
                *889

                Ponding area northeast of the intersection of McMenemy Road and Commerce Court
                None
                *892

                Ponding Area
                Ponding area north of Commerce Court and south of Oak Grove Parkway and west of SOO Line Railroad
                None
                *904

                Ponding area north of Oak Grove Parkway approximately 1,500 feet east of its intersection with McMenemy Road
                None
                *918

                Ponding area east of the SOO Line Railroad, north of Spring Hill Road and west of Morningside Avenue
                None
                *912

                Pond north of Willow Grove Lane and west of Greenhaven Drive
                None
                *915

                Pond north of Clearbrook Lane, east of Bramblewood Avenue, west of Evergreen Drive and South of Birch Ridge Road
                None
                *920

                Pond north of Heritage Court East and South of Valley Oaks Road
                None
                *941

                Ponding area south of Westfield Lane, east and north of Oakcrest Drive and north of South Oak Drive
                None
                *902

                Ponding area south of North Oak Drive, west of Thornhill Lane, and North of County Road “F”
                None
                *898

                Ponding area
                Ponding area south of Bridgewood Terrace, east of Thornhill Lane and west of Centerville Road
                None
                *907

                Ponding area north of County Road “F,” east of Thornhill Lane and west of Centerville Road
                None
                *901

                Ponding area along Edgerton Street, south of Bear Avenue North and north of Stockdale Road
                None
                *897

                Ponding area along Arcade Street and Stockdale Road, south of County Road “F,” north of Kohler Road, east of Stockdale Drive and west of Centerville Road
                None
                *896

                Ponding area east of Interstate 35E, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of Labore Road and north of County Road “E”
                None
                *908

                Ponding area north of Hiawatha Avenue, west of Greenbrier Street, and south of the Burlington Northern Railroad
                None
                *904

                Ponding area east of Centerville Road, and north of Vadnais Road
                None
                *900

                Pond south of Manor Street and north of Interstate 694
                None
                *909

                Ponding area
                Ponds south of Vadnais Center Drive, east of Interstate 35 and west of the intersection of Labore Road and Willow Lake Boulevard
                None
                *915

                Willow Lake
                None
                *884

                Ponding area south of County Road “E,” east of Montmorency Street and north of Willow Lake Boulevard
                None
                *949

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 800 East County Road E, Vadnais Heights, Minnesota.

                Send comments to the Honorable Susan Banovetz, Mayor, City of Vadnais Heights, 800 East County Road E, Vadnais Heights, MN 55127.

                IA
                Marshall County (Unincorporated Areas)
                Iowa River

                *861
                *881

                Maps are available for inspection at the Marshall County Court House, 1 East Main Street, Marshalltown, Iowa.

                Send comments to The Honorable Gordie Johnson, Chairman, Marshall County Board of Supervisors, 1 East Main Street, Marshalltown, Iowa 50158.

                MO
                Madison County (Unincorporated Areas)
                Little St. Francis River
                Approximately 8,550 feet downstream of West Main Street
                None
                *703

                Approximately 3,960 feet downstream of the Missouri Pacific Railroad
                None
                *716

                Saline Creek
                Approximately 530 feet upstream of the abandoned Railroad Spur
                None
                *718

                Approximately 2,510 feet upstream of the abandoned Railroad Spur
                None
                *726

                Village Creek
                Just downstream of Catherine Mine Road
                None
                *707

                Just downstream of the Missouri Pacific Railroad
                None
                *709

                Maps are available for inspection at Madison County Courthouse, #1 Courthouse Square, Fredericktown, Missouri.

                Send comments to the Honorable Robert Mooney, Presiding Commissioner, Madison County Courthouse, #1 Courthouse Square, Fredericktown, Missouri 63645.

                TX
                Corinth, Town of Denton County
                Swisher Creek
                At North Shady Shores Road
                *537
                *537

                Lake Dallas, City of Denton County
                Swisher Creek
                At Jean Street about 70 feet east of Fairview Drive
                None
                *579

                GS-1
                At North Shady Shores Road
                *537
                *537

                Shady Shores, Town of Denton County
                GS-1
                About 100 feet upstream of Dobbs Road
                None
                *552

                Maps are available for inspection at Denton County Government Center, 306 North Loop 288, Suite 115, Denton, Texas.

                Send comments to the Honorable Scott Armey, Court-House-on-the-Square, 110 West Hickory Street, Denton, Texas 76201.

                Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 2003 South Corinth Street, Corinth, Texas.

                Send comments to The Honorable J. B. Troutman, Town Hall, 2003 South Corinth Street, Corinth, Texas 76205.

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 303 Alamo, Lake Dallas, Texas.

                Send comments to The Honorable Steve Wohr, City Hall, 303 Alamo Avenue, Lake Dallas, Texas 75065.

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 101 South Shady Shores Road, Shady Shores, Texas.

                Send comments to The Honorable Olive Stephens, P.O. Box 362, Lake Dallas, Texas 75065.

                TX
                Town of Leona, Leon County
                Adkisson Branch

                •298
                •325

                Leona Branch

                •300
                •356

                Leona Branch Tributary 1

                •315
                •349

                Leona Branch Tributary 2

                •299
                •315

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, Highway 75, Leona, Texas.

                Send comments to The Honorable Travis Oden, Mayor, Town of Leona, P.O. Box 193, Leona, Texas 75850.

            (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”)
            Dated: May 14, 2002.
            Robert F. Shea,
            Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration.

      [FR Doc. 02-12650 Filed 5-20-02; 8:45 am
      BILLING CODE 6718-04-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket 03-123; DA 09-1255]
        Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Commission via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) extends the comment filing deadline for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register May 21, 2009 (73 FR 23815). The Bureau finds that in this case an extension of the comment period is warranted to afford parties the necessary time to file comments that will result in a more complete record in this proceeding.

          DATES:
          Comments are due July 6, 2009. Reply Comments are due July 20, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 03-123, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting electronic filings.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting electronic filings.
          • By filing paper copies.

          For electronic filers through ECFS or the Federal eRulemaking Portal, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

            Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
          The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). DA 09-1255 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Thomas Chandler, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-1475 (voice), (202) 418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail: Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau's document DA 09-1255. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the Dates section. The full text of DA 09-1255 and subsequently filed documents in this matter are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160. DA 09-1255 and subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs (insert CG Docket No. 03-123 into the Proceeding block).
        Synopsis

        The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau extends the comment period for issues raised in the Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Public Notice and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 09-39, published at 74 FR 23815, May 21, 2009 and 74 FR 23859, May 21, 2009 (PN and NPRM).
        The NPRM portion seeks comment on whether, notwithstanding the rate methodology established in Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 07-186, published at 73 FR 44170, July 30, 2008, the Commission should modify the compensation rates for Video Relay Service (VRS) for the 2009-2010 Fund year. Pursuant to the NPRM, comments are presently due on June 4, 2009, and reply comments are due June 11, 2009. Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson), a VRS provider, filed Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Motion to Rescind VRS Rate NPRM or, in the Alternative, to Extend the Comment Period, CG Docket No. 03-123 (May 19, 2009) (Motion to Rescind). A coalition of consumer organizations filed comments taking no position on Sorenson's Motion to Rescind, but supporting an extension of the comment period, see Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Comments on Sorenson Communications, Inc.'s Motion to Rescind VRS Rate NPRM or, in the Alternative, to Extend the Comment Period, filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc.; National Association of the Deaf; Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; American Association of the Deaf-Blind; and Hearing Loss Association of America (May 26, 2009).
        Although the Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.46(a), the Commission finds that in this case an extension of the comment period is warranted to afford parties the necessary time to file comments that will result in a more complete record in this proceeding. This limited extension will not unduly delay the Commission's consideration of the issues.
        Ordering Clauses

        The Motion to Extend the Comment Period filed by Sorenson Communications, Inc., is granted to the extent indicated herein.
        This action is taken pursuant to the authority provided in § 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, and under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.141 and 0.361 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.141, 0.361.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Suzanne M. Tetreault,

            Acting Deputy Chief,
            Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E9-13864 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258; FRL-9936-31-Region 10]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport of Ozone

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On June 28, 2010, the State of Idaho made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any other state.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 30, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258, by any of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email:
            R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov

          • Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. State Submittal
          III. EPA Evaluation
          IV. Proposed Action
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in several past regulatory actions.1
           We most recently promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.2
           CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.3

            1 NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

            2 76 FR 48208.

            3 CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS.

        In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered “linked” to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
        In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one percent was appropriate.4
           The EPA evaluated the comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be excluded.5
           In addition, the EPA determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels.6
           The EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in modest increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a “0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors—an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.” 7

            4 CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).

            5 See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Appendix F; Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.

            6 CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).

            7 Id.

        In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single “bright line” air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.8

           The projected contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.9

            8 Id.

            9 Id.

        II. State Submittal
        CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
        On June 28, 2010, Idaho submitted a SIP to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone NAAQS. The Idaho submittal included documentation of a public comment period from May 11, 2010 through June 10, 2010, and opportunity for public hearing. We find that the process followed by Idaho in adopting the submittal complies with the procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing regulations.

        With respect to the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the Idaho submittal referred to applicable rules in the Idaho SIP, meteorological and technical characteristics of areas with ozone nonattainment problems in surrounding states, data on nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Idaho sources, satellite monitoring data, and the impacts of terrain and prevailing wind direction on the potential for transport of ozone precursors. The Idaho submittal concluded that given the relatively low amount of NOX emitted by Idaho sources, the general lack of substantial concentrations of VOCs in areas surrounding Idaho, the impacts of significant terrain features on the movement of pollutants, and technical information on the two areas in states bordering Idaho that are having ozone attainment and maintenance problems (Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming and Clark County, Nevada), it is reasonable to conclude that emissions of ozone precursors from Idaho sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
        The Idaho submittal provided further information to support this conclusion by citing major source permitting regulations approved into the Idaho SIP that require new sources and modifications to protect the ambient air quality standards, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to existing sources, the Idaho submittal stated that stationary source operating rules in the Idaho SIP require an owner or operator to demonstrate that the source does not cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard.
        III. EPA Evaluation
        On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.10

           The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case NOX and volatile VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting technical documents have been included in the docket for this action.

            10 See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)).

        The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For purposes of evaluating Idaho's interstate transport SIP submittal with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states whose contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors are considered non-significant. The modeling indicates that Idaho's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.23 ppb and Idaho's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.35 ppb.11
           These values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Idaho and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. Note that the EPA has not done an assessment to determine the applicability for the use of the one percent screening threshold for western states that contribute above the one percent threshold. There may be additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions regarding “potential” linkages in the west identified by the modeling.

            11 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3.

        IV. Proposed Action
        As discussed in Section II, Idaho concluded based on its own technical analysis that emissions from the State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. The EPA's modeling, discussed in Section III, confirms this finding. Based on the modeling data and the information and analysis provided in Idaho's June 28, 2010 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submittal for purposes of meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA's modeling confirms the results of the State's analysis: Idaho does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
        • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: October 15, 2015.
          Dennis J. McLerran,
          Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2015-27594 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464; FRL-9943-02-OAR]
        EPA Responses to Certain State Designation Recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability and public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted on its Internet Web site responses to certain state designation recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA invites the public to review and provide input on its responses during the comment period specified in the DATES section. The EPA sent its responses directly to the states on or about February 16, 2016. The EPA intends to make final the designation determinations for the areas of the country addressed by these responses no later than July 2, 2016.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2016. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment period.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general questions concerning this action, please contact Rhea Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2940, email at jones.rhea@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 1, please contact Leiran Biton, U.S. EPA, telephone (617) 918-1267, email at biton.leiran@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 2, please contact Henry Feingersh, U.S. EPA, telephone (212) 637-3382, email at feingersh.henry@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 3, please contact Irene Shandruk, U.S. EPA, telephone (215) 814-2166, email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 4, please contact Twunjala Bradley, U.S. EPA, telephone (404) 562-9352, email at bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 5, please contact John Summerhays, U.S. EPA, telephone (312) 886-6067, email at summerhays.john@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 6, please contact Dayana Medina, U.S. EPA, telephone (214) 665-7241, email at medina.dayana@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 7, please contact David Peter, U.S. EPA, telephone (913) 551-7397, email at peter.david@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 8, please contact Adam Clark, U.S. EPA, telephone (303) 312-7104, email at clark.adam@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 9, please contact Gwen Yoshimura, U.S. EPA, telephone (415) 947-4134, email at yoshimura.gwen@epa.gov. For questions regarding areas in EPA Region 10, please contact John Chi, U.S. EPA, telephone (206) 553-1185, email at chi.john@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background and Purpose

        On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010) after review of the existing two primary SO2 standards promulgated on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8187). The EPA established the revised primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 parts per billion (ppb) which is attained when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb.
        The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states and tribes, as appropriate, of any intended modifications to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
        The EPA completed an initial round of SO2 designations for certain areas of the country on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment. Pursuant to a March 2, 2015, court-ordered schedule,1
           the EPA must complete SO2 designations for the remaining areas of the country by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016, December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2020. This current second round of designation addresses two groups of areas: (1) Areas that have newly monitored violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and (2) areas that contain any stationary sources that had not been announced as of March 2, 2015, for retirement and that according to the EPA's Air Markets Database emitted in 2012 either (i) more than 16,000 tons of SO2, or (ii) more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 pounds of SO2/mmBTU. The EPA has determined that the areas meeting these criteria are associated with 68 stationary sources and the island of Hawaii.

            1 Sierra Club v. McCarthy, No. 3-13-cv-3953 (SI) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015).

        On or about February 16, 2016, the EPA notified affected states of its intended designation of certain specific areas as either nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Those states now have an opportunity to demonstrate why they believe an intended modification by the EPA regarding those specified areas may be inappropriate. In 2015, the EPA encouraged these states to provide additional information for the EPA to consider in finalizing designations for these specified areas.

        The purpose of this notice of availability is to solicit input from interested parties other than states on the EPA's recent responses to the state designation recommendations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These responses, and their supporting technical analyses, can be found on the EPA's Internet Web site at http://www.epa.gov/so2designations and also in the public docket for SO2 designations at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464. The CAA section 107(d) provides a process for air quality designations that involves recommendations by states and tribes to the EPA and responses from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA promulgating final area designations and boundaries. The EPA is not required under the CAA section 107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but is electing to do so for these areas under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in order to gather additional information for the EPA to consider before making final designations for the specific areas addressed in the EPA's recent responses to states. The EPA invites public input on its responses to states regarding these areas during the 30-day comment period provided in this notice of availability. In order to receive full consideration, input from the public must be submitted by March 31, 2016. At this time, the EPA is not asking for public comments on other areas for which states and tribes have submitted designation recommendations, beyond those to which the EPA has provided the responses that are the subject of this proposed action. This notice of availability and opportunity for public comment does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, tribe or the EPA which might otherwise exist pursuant to the CAA section 107(d).
        Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above in this document for specific instructions on submitting comments and locating relevant public documents.
        In establishing nonattainment area boundaries for a particular area, the EPA is required to identify both the area that does not meet the standard and any nearby area contributing to the area that does not meet the standard. We are particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant information, if you believe that a specific geographic area that the EPA is proposing to identify as a nonattainment area should not be categorized by the CAA section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a specific nearby area not proposed by the EPA to be identified as contributing to a nonattainment area should in fact be categorized as contributing to nonattainment using the CAA section 107(d) criteria. Please be as specific as possible in supporting your views.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        • Provide your input by the comment period deadline identified.

        The EPA intends to complete designations for the areas subject to this round no later than July 2, 2016. The EPA is not yet prepared to respond to state and tribal area designation recommendations, or seek public input thereon, for other areas that are not yet designated for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA will address those areas in the last two rounds of designations scheduled for 2017 and 2020. Additional information on the EPA's intended approach for addressing designations for all areas can be found on the EPA's SO2 implementation Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. Please be advised that, in this action, the EPA is not proposing as a regulatory action and is not soliciting public comments on the intended approach for these other areas, regarding either designations or implementation.
        II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information
        A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Tiffany Purifoy, OAQPS CBI Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0878, email at purifoy.tiffany@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        B. Where can I find additional information for this rulemaking?

        The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at http://www3.epa.gov/so2designations. The Web site includes the EPA's state and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting the EPA's preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

          Dated: February 16, 2016.
          Mary E. Henigin,
          Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2016-04468 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P