        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Part 1201
        [Docket No. EP 763]
        Montana Rail Link, Inc.—Petition for Rulemaking—Classification of Carriers

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) proposes to modify the thresholds for classifying rail carriers.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by November 2, 2020. Reply comments are due by December 1, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and replies may be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website at www.stb.gov and will be posted to the Board's website.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Under 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a), rail carriers are grouped into one of three classes for purposes of accounting and reporting. The classification of rail carriers is also used in a variety of other contexts, including differentiating the legal standards and procedures that apply to certain transactions subject to Board licensing, see, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10902, 11324, 11325, and prescribing labor protection conditions, see, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10903(b)(2), 11326, among others.

        The class to which any rail carrier belongs is determined by its annual operating revenues after application of a revenue deflator adjustment. Section 1-1(b)(1). Currently, Class I carriers have annual operating revenues of $504,803,294 or more, Class II carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $504,803,294 and more than $40,384,263, and Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $40,384,263 or less, all when adjusted for inflation. Section 1-1(a) (setting thresholds unadjusted for inflation); Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 10, 2020) (calculating revenue deflator factor and publishing thresholds adjusted for inflation based on 2019 data).1

           The revenue classification levels for railroads set forth at 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a) were adopted in 1992 by the Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mont. Rail Link, Inc. & Wis. Cent. Ltd., Joint Pet. for Rulemaking with respect to 49 CFR part 1201 (1992 Rulemaking), 57 FR 27184 (June 18, 1992), 8 I.C.C.2d 625 (1992).

            1 The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The formula is as follows: Current Year's Revenues × (1991 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index). 49 CFR part 1201, Note A. Each year, the Board calculates the annual revenue deflator factor and publishes the updated railroad revenue thresholds for each class of carrier in a decision and on its website.

        Background

        On February 14, 2020, Montana Rail Link, Inc. (MRL), filed a petition for rulemaking to amend the Board's rail carrier classification regulations. In its petition, MRL requests that the Board increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers to $900 million. (Pet. 1.) MRL contends that it continues to be a regional railroad operationally and economically but may exceed the Class I revenue threshold within two years. (Id.) Citing principles drawn from the 1992 Rulemaking, in which the revenue thresholds were last raised, MRL asks that the Board address “whether a regional carrier such as MRL should be treated as a Class I carrier, taking into account (1) the financial and operational differences between MRL and existing Class I carriers, and (2) the cost-benefit analysis of imposing Class I requirements on MRL.” (Id. at 12.)

        MRL argues that, from an operational standpoint, it is clearly different from a typical Class I carrier because of its heavy dependence on a single Class I interchange partner and because of the regional nature of its operations, with approximately 95% of its mainline track located in Montana. (Id. at 5-6.) From a financial standpoint, MRL also notes, among other things, that the average operating revenue for Class I railroads in 2018 was more than 27 times MRL's total revenue for that year and that the operating revenue for even the smallest Class I railroad was about 3.5 times the total revenue of MRL. (Id. at 8.) MRL contends that treating a regional railroad like MRL, with its operational and financial characteristics, as a Class I carrier would impose significant burdens on MRL with no offsetting public benefit. (Id. at 12.)
        MRL submitted eight letters in support of its petition.2
           No replies to MRL's petition were received.

            2 Letters of support were from the Montana Contractors' Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Montana Grain Elevator Association, Montana Petroleum Association, Inc., Montana Taxpayers Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Treasure State Resources Association, and Montana Wood Products Association.

        On May 14, 2020, the Board initiated a rulemaking proceeding to consider MRL's petition and consider issues related to the Class I carrier revenue threshold determination. The Board invited “comment about whether it should amend 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1(a), to increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers, and, if so, whether $900 million or another amount would be appropriate.” Mont. Rail Link, Inc.—Pet. for Rulemaking—Classification of Carriers, 85 FR 30680 (May 20, 2020), EP 763, slip op. at 2 (STB served May 14, 2020).
        The Board received two comments in response to its May 14, 2020 decision. On June 15, 2020, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) filed a comment in support of MRL's petition, and Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) filed a comment opposing MRL's petition. MRL filed a reply on July 2, 2020.

        ASLRRA supports MRL's petition, arguing that Class II railroads such as MRL are distinctly different from Class I railroads and that, in addition to many operational differences, there is a massive revenue gap between the largest Class II and the smallest Class I railroad. (ASLRRA Comment 2-3.) ASLRRA argues that MRL and similarly situated Class II railroads should continue to be classified in their current category, as the accounting, financial, and other burdens imposed on a Class II carrier by becoming a Class I carrier would outweigh any resulting benefits. (Id. at 3-4.) In addition to the cost of preparing the reports,3

           ASLRRA notes that reclassifying MRL and other similarly situated railroads as Class I carriers would unnecessarily deprive them of the benefit of the Short Line Rehabilitation Tax Credit, which has provided MRL almost $3 million per year in additional funds to invest in infrastructure, and the Railroad Industry Agreement, which provides a mechanism for the railroads to work together to increase rail traffic. (Id. at 4.)

            3 In its petition, MRL estimates it would have to expend at least $150,000 annually to prepare the required reports, in addition to the costs associated with converting its accounting system, training employees, and maintaining and recording the reports. (Pet. 9.)

        TTD, a coalition of 33 affiliate unions, opposes MRL's petition and requests that the Board not increase the Class I threshold. (TTD Comment 1.) TTD contends that increasing the Class I threshold could prevent MRL employees from benefiting from labor protective conditions that would apply if MRL were to become a Class I and engage in a transaction with a Class III railroad. (See id. at 1-2.) Additionally, TTD contends that MRL has not shown that raising the threshold is appropriate or necessary or that classification as a Class I would be overly burdensome. (Id. at 1.) TTD also disagrees with MRL's assertion that the ICC intended the 1992 Rulemaking to prevent large regional railroads from becoming Class I railroads. (Id. at 2.) TTD asks that, if the Board grants MRL's petition, it adopt “unique conditions” for MRL; specifically, TTD requests that, if the Board finds it necessary to relieve MRL of financial reporting requirements, it nevertheless should apply the labor protective arrangements that would otherwise apply if MRL were to become a Class I railroad under the current threshold. (Id.)

        In its reply, MRL reiterates that its operating and financial profiles are distinct from those of the current Class I carriers (noting, for example, that in 2018 it operated only about 720 miles of mainline track, nearly all of which is in one state, whereas the smallest current Class I carrier operated 3,397 miles of track across 10 states and two countries) and that significant burdens would be imposed on MRL if the threshold is not increased, while limited, if any, benefits would accrue to the public. (MRL Reply 2, 5.) Further, MRL notes that the petition has received no opposition from any shipper, shipper organization, or governmental entity. (Id. at 5.) MRL also argues that the petition has not received “broad-based opposition” from labor organizations. (Id.) 4

           Regarding TTD's concern that MRL's proposal would keep its employees from benefiting from labor protective conditions, (see TTD Comment 1-2), MRL argues that the rail carrier classification system was established for the purpose of implementing accounting and reporting requirements and that TTD offers no rationale to support treating MRL as a Class I carrier for purposes of labor protections. (MRL Reply 3, 4.)

            4 MRL states that TTD only represents approximately 11.5% of MRL's employees. (MRL Reply 1.)

        Proposed Amendments

        The agency “has broad discretion to require rail carriers to report financial and operating data, and to prescribe an underlying accounting system to produce that information.” 1992 Rulemaking, 8 I.C.C.2d at 631; see also 49 U.S.C. 11144, 11145, 11161-64. As noted above, the Board's classification of rail carriers affects the degree to which they must file annual, quarterly, and other operational reports and is relevant in other regulatory contexts as well. See 1992 Rulemaking, 8 I.C.C.2d at 631-32: 49 CFR parts 1201, 1241-1250.
        After reviewing the petition and comments, the Board will propose amendments to its rail carrier classification regulations. The proposed amendments would raise the Class I revenue threshold from $504,803,294 (as adjusted for inflation) to $900 million and have the effect of excluding MRL (and other similarly situated carriers) from Class I status unless they have met the proposed revenue threshold for three years.
        In proposing the amendments, the Board has considered ASLRRA's and MRL's arguments that the operational characteristics of regional railroads, like MRL, significantly differentiate it from the Class Is. For example, ASLRRA argues that small railroads are largely dependent on their Class I interchange partners for revenue, power, and car supply. (ASLRRA Comment 2.) This is true for MRL, which states that its only interchange partner is BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and that approximately 84% of MRL's total revenue is generated from traffic interchanged with BNSF and ancillary services MRL performs for BNSF and 96% of MRL's non-switching traffic is subject to rates set by BNSF. (MRL Reply 2.) ASLRRA also contends that smaller railroads are often dependent upon a limited market and a traffic base that may be non-diversified. (ASLRRA Comment 3.) This characteristic also appears to apply to MRL, as a majority of its traffic consists of only three commodities. (MRL Reply 2.) Based on the record to date, it does appear that regional railroads, such as MRL, even with revenues approaching the current threshold, function more like significant Class II carriers and do not possess the comparative attributes of Class I carriers.

        Moreover, MRL provides a persuasive argument that the benefits of certain Class II carriers becoming Class I carriers under the Board's existing revenue thresholds would not outweigh the burdens that would be imposed on the newly classified carriers. (Pet. 8-9 (arguing that the same reasons that led the ICC in the 1992 Rulemaking to increase the Class I threshold to prevent regional railroads from becoming Class I carriers still apply today).) Should a regional carrier, such as MRL, become a Class I carrier pursuant to the current threshold, several significant accounting and financial reporting requirements would begin to apply even though the carrier's revenues would still be many hundreds of millions of dollars less, and its operations far more limited, than those of the smallest Class I carrier. (See id. (arguing that the key burden on MRL, if it were to become a Class I carrier, is the financial reporting); see also MRL Reply 2-3.) While the accounting and financial reporting required of Class I carriers is critical to the Board's regulatory framework, it is not apparent that additional reporting by carriers with MRL's characteristics is warranted,5

           particularly when the regulatory impact to such carriers extends beyond the Board's regulations. (See, e.g., ASLRRA Comment 4.) Therefore, the Board proposes to increase the Class I revenue threshold at this time in order to preserve an appropriate distinction between Class I and II railroads.6

            5 Traditionally, the agency has not found the need to collect accounting and reporting information from regional and smaller railroads to the same extent as the Class I rail carriers, all of which have much larger networks and different operational and financial characteristics. See, e.g., Calculation of Variable Costs in Rate Complaint Proceedings involving Non-Class I R.Rs., 6 S.T.B. 798, 799 (2003); Elimination of Accounting & Reporting Requirements of Class II R.Rs., No. 37614, slip op. at 2 (ICC served Feb. 25, 1982); Reduction of Accounting & Reporting Requirements, No. 37523, slip op. at 2 (ICC served Dec. 15, 1980). Consistent with these findings, the burden of additional reporting by carriers with MRL's characteristics is not justified by any potential use of that information from analysis, monitoring, and other purposes.

            6 In 2001, the Board declined to increase the Class I revenue threshold in response to a request by Wisconsin Central Ltd.'s parent company. Proposal to Require Consol. Reporting by Commonly Controlled R.Rs., 5 S.T.B. 1050 (2001). As MRL observed, (see Pet. 5 n.1), the key reason the Board rejected Wisconsin Central's request was Wisconsin Central's subsequent acquisition by Canadian National, which was already a Class I carrier. Although in that decision the Board also noted briefly that financial reporting for larger carriers, like Wisconsin Central, would be reasonable and not unduly burdensome, see Proposal to Require Consolidated Reporting, 5 S.T.B. at 1054-55, in this proceeding MRL has provided its own arguments—described above—regarding the relative burdens of accounting and financial reporting between Class I and Class II carriers and has identified burdens beyond such reporting.

        MRL has requested that the Board set an amended Class I threshold of $900 million, and no commenter has raised specific concerns with the $900 million figure. The Board proposes $900 million as a reasonable demarcation between Class I railroads and Class II railroads as it is sufficiently above the current Class II annual revenue level and below the revenue level of the smallest Class I carrier to maintain an appropriate division between the two classes of carriers for the foreseeable future.

        TTD is concerned that MRL employees would lose the potential benefit of eligibility for the labor protective conditions available to employees of Class I carriers if the Class I threshold is raised. (TTD Comment 1-2.) However, if the threshold is raised, MRL employees would suffer no loss of eligibility for labor protection compared to the status quo; they would continue to qualify for the same level of protection—that available to employees of Class II carriers—as they have for decades. TTD's comments to date have not persuaded the Board that this continued level of labor protection would be insufficient if MRL's annual revenues were between the current threshold and the proposed threshold of $900 million. In addition, TTD's suggestion that the Board adopt “unique conditions” for MRL would not establish a more appropriate demarcation between Class I and Class II carriers generally.
        The proposed amendment to 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions § 1-l(a) would increase the revenue threshold for Class I carriers to $900 million.7
           The proposal would not materially change the current threshold between Class II and Class III carriers but would merely restate it in 2019 dollars.8
           As a result, Class I carriers would be those with annual operating revenues of $900 million or more; Class II carriers would be those with annual operating revenues of less than $900 million but in excess of $40.4 million; and Class III carriers would be those with annual operating revenues of $40.4 million or less. The proposal also would amend Note  A to replace the 1991 Average Index with the 2019 Average Index, as the new threshold levels would be calculated in 2019 dollars.

            7 Instruction section 1-1(a) currently defines Class I carriers as those with annual operating revenues of $250 million or more after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A, which, as noted above, is $504,803,294 or more in 2019 dollars.

            8 Instruction section 1-1(a) currently defines Class II carriers as those with annual operating revenues of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million and Class III carriers as those with annual operating revenues of $20 million or less, in both cases after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A. The current Class II/Class III threshold, in 2019 dollars, is $40,384,263, which the proposed rule would round to $40.4 million.

        The Board seeks comment on the proposed amendments discussed above. Interested persons may comment on the proposed amendments by November 2, 2020; replies to comments may be filed by December 1, 2020.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact of a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Section 605(b).

        Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).

        The Board's proposed changes to its regulations here are intended to update the Board's class classifications and do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to the Board's jurisdiction, the Board defines a “small business” as only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR part 1201, General Instructions section 1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 81 FR 42566 (June 30, 2016), EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) (with the Board Member Begeman dissenting). With respect to the Class III thresholds, no substantive changes are being made, as the Board is only updating the regulations to reflect the Class III threshold in 2019 dollars (rounded) as opposed to 1991 dollars. Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of RFA.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Board's proposal does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1201
          Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.

          It is ordered:

        1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register.
        2. Comments are due by November 2, 2020. Reply comments are due by December 1, 2020.
        3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
        4. This decision is effective on its service date.

          Decided: September 28, 2020.
          By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
          Jeffrey Herzig,
          Clearance Clerk.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X, part 1201 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 1201—RAILROAD COMPANIES

        1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.

          Subpart A—Uniform System of Accounts

        2. In the General Instructions in subpart A, section 1-1(a) and Note A to section 1-1 are revised to read as follows:
        General Instructions
        1-1 Classification of carriers. (a) For purposes of accounting and reporting, carriers are grouped into the following three classes:
        Class I: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of $900 million or more after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
        Class II: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of less than $900 million but in excess of $40.4 million after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.
        Class III: Carriers having annual carrier operating revenues of $40.4 million or less after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A.

          Note A:
           The railroad revenue deflator formula is based on the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The formula is as follows:
          Current Year's Revenues × (2019 Average Index/Current Year's Average Index)

      [FR Doc. 2020-21859 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AG99
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Availability of the Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Critical Habitat for the Oahu Elepaio

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed determination of critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis), a bird, on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. We are also providing notice of the reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for this bird to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened public comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until September 5, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments and information should be submitted to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001. For electronic mail address and further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, or Eric VanderWerf, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above address (telephone: 808/541-3441; facsimile: 808/541-3470).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Oahu elepaio is a small forest-dwelling bird, and is a member of the monarch flycatcher family Monarchidae. It is dark brown above and white below, with light brown streaks on the breast. The tail is long and often held up at an angle. Adults have conspicuous white wing bars, a white rump, and white tips on the tail feathers. Oahu elepaio inhabit a variety of forest types, but are most common in riparian vegetation along streambeds and in mesic forest with a tall canopy and a well-developed understory. They are not currently found in very wet, stunted forest on windswept summits or in very dry shrub land, but these areas may be used by dispersing individuals. Forest structure appears to be more important to elepaio than plant species composition, and unlike many Hawaiian forest birds, elepaio are found in disturbed forest composed of introduced plants. Historically the elepaio was common and widespread on Oahu, but it has declined seriously and the current population is approximately 1,982 birds distributed in six core subpopulations and several smaller subpopulations.

        We were petitioned by Mr. Vaughn Sherwood on March 22, 1994, to list the Oahu elepaio as an endangered or threatened species with critical habitat. The November 15, 1994, Animal Notice of Review (59 FR 58991) classified the Oahu elepaio (then Chasiempis sandwichensis gayi) as a category 1 candidate. Category 1 candidates were those species for which we had sufficient data in our possession to support a listing proposal. On June 12, 1995 (60 FR 30827), we published a 90-day petition finding stating that the petition presented substantial information that listing may be warranted. Category 1 candidates were those taxa for which we had on file sufficient information of biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals, but issuance of the proposed rule was precluded by other pending listing proposals of higher priority. In our February 28, 1966, Federal Register Notice of Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (61 FR 7595), we discontinued designation of multiple categories of candidates. Only those taxa meeting the definition of former category 1 are now considered candidates for listing. On October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53623), we published the proposed rule to list the Oahu elepaio as an endangered species. Because C. s. gayi is a synonym of C. s. ibidis, the proposed rule constituted the final 12-month finding for the petitioned action. On April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20760), we published the final rule to list the Oahu elepaio as an endangered species.
        Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) also state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist—(1) the species is threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In the proposed listing rule we indicated that designation of critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio was not prudent because we believed a critical habitat designation would not provide any additional benefit beyond that provided through listing as endangered. Based partly on comments we received on the proposed listing rule and on recent court rulings which address the prudency standard, in the final listing rule we determined that a critical habitat designation for the Oahu elepaio was prudent because such a designation could benefit the species beyond listing as endangered by extending protection under section 7 of the Act to currently unoccupied habitat and by providing informational and educational benefits.

        Although we determined in the final listing rule that critical habitat designation for the Oahu elepaio would be prudent, we also indicated in the final listing rule that we were not able to develop a proposed critical habitat designation for the Oahu elepaio at that time due to budgetary and workload constraints. However, on June 28, 2000, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established, in the case of Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, CIV. NO. 00-00001 HG-BMK, a timetable to designate critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio, and ordered that the Service publish the final critical habitat designation by October 31, 2001.

        On November 9, 2000, we mailed letters to 32 landowners on Oahu informing them that the Service was in the process of designating critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio and requesting from them information on management of lands that currently or recently (within the past 25 years) supported Oahu elepaio. The letters contained a fact sheet describing the Oahu elepaio and critical habitat, a map showing the historic and current range of the Oahu elepaio, and a questionnaire designed to gather information about land management practices, which we requested be returned to us by November 27, 2000. We received 11 responses to our landowner mailing with varying types and amounts of information on current land management activities. Some responses included detailed management plans, provided new information on locations where elepaio have been observed recently, and described management activities such as fencing, hunting, public access, fire management, methods for controlling invasive weeds and introduced predators, and collaboration with conservation researchers. In addition, we met with several landowners and managers, including the U.S. Army and the Hawaii State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, to obtain more specific information on management activities and suitability of certain habitat areas for elepaio. The information provided in the responses and during public meetings was considered and incorporated into the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2001 (66 FR 30372).
        We have proposed to designate critical habitat consisting of five units whose boundaries encompass a total area of approximately 26,853 hectares (ha) (66,354 acres (ac)) on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for the Oahu elepaio, and comments received during the previous comment periods, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations. The draft economic analysis is available at the Internet and mailing addresses in the Public Comments Solicited section below.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened public comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and proposed rule by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: FW1PIE_OahuElep_crithab@r1.fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AG99” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Pacific Islands Office at telephone number 808/541-3441.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Pacific Islands Office at the address given above.
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov/wesa/endspindex.html or by request from the Field Supervisor at the address and phone number under (1 and 2) above.
        Author(s)
        The primary author of this notice is John Nuss, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: July 27, 2001.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-19766 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
        46 CFR Parts 515, 520, 525, 530, 531, 532, 535, 540 and 565
        [Docket No. 17-04]
        RIN 3072-AC69
        Regulatory Reform Initiative

          AGENCY:
          Federal Maritime Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of inquiry.

          SUMMARY:
          The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) is issuing this Inquiry to solicit information and comments in an effort to identify existing FMC regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation, impose costs that exceed benefits, or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies. This action is taken in conjunction with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.”

          DATES:
          Comments are due July 5, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
          • Email: secretary@fmc.gov. Include in the subject line: “Docket No. 17-04, Regulatory Reform Initiative.” Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential comments and public versions of confidential comments should be submitted by email. Comments containing confidential information should not be submitted by email.
          • Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Ste. 1046, Washington, DC 20573-0001.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-04.

            Confidential Information: If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following:
          • A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
          • A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You should submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail.
          • A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You may submit the public version to the Commission by email or mail.
          The Commission will provide confidential treatment for the identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For questions regarding submitting comments or the treatment of confidential information, contact Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Ste. 1046, Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For all other questions, contact Karen V. Gregory, Managing Director, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Room 1018, Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5800. Email: omd@fmc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On February 24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (E.O. or E.O. 13777). 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). This E.O. follows closely upon the President's previous E.O. concerning government regulations, E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs. 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Among other issues, E.O. 13777 directs the head of most Federal agencies to designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO), who will “oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms.” Independent regulatory agencies such as the Commission are not subject to E.O. 13777, however they are encouraged to comply. OMB Memorandum M-17-23, Guidance on Regulatory Reform Accountability under Executive Order 13777, titled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” issued April 28, 2017. On March 13, 2017, Acting Chairman Michael A. Khouri designated the agency's Managing Director, Karen V. Gregory, to serve as Regulatory Reform Officer.
        E.O. 13777 directs Federal agencies subject to the E.O. to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force), consisting of the Agency RRO and other designated agency officials, which will evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head concerning their repeal, replacement, or modification. The FMC's Task Force is charged with evaluating existing regulations to “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Further, the E.O. directs each Task Force to attempt to identify regulations that:
        • Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
        • are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
        • impose costs that exceed benefits; or
        • create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies.
        Within 90 days of the E.O., the Task Force is directed to provide a report to the agency head detailing the agency's progress towards the goals of implementing regulatory reform and identifying regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification.
        The designation of a Regulatory Reform Officer and establishment of a Regulatory Reform Task Force is consistent with the intent of E.O. 13777 and E.O. 13771, the deregulatory spirit of the Shipping Act as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, and agency regulatory review initiatives ongoing since November 4, 2011. Building on Executive Orders of both the prior and current Administrations, the Commission is in the process of identifying those regulations that are the most ineffective, would be the easiest to repeal, and would lend themselves to a definitive timeline within the agency to move those items to a vote before the Commission.
        Commission Action
        The Commission invites comment and information from all members of the interested public, including ocean common carriers, marine terminal operators, ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs), tariff publishers, surety companies, exporters, importers, and beneficial cargo owners, on ways to make the Commission's regulations less burdensome and more effective in achieving the objectives of the Shipping Act. The Commission specifically requests comments and current information or data on any (or all) of the following areas of FMC programs and regulations:
        46 CFR Part 515 Licensing, Financial Responsibility Requirements and General Duties for Ocean Transportation Intermediaries
        Under this program, the Commission reviews all applications for OTI Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) and OTI Ocean Freight Forwarder licenses and, after investigation, may issue a license to qualified applicants. After approval, OTI licenses are issued to applicants upon receipt of acceptable proof of financial responsibility, usually in the form of a surety bond. When appropriate, the Office recommends denial.
        The Commission also manages the Regulated Persons Index as to parties licensed or registered with the Commission, receives and processes all OTI bonds and bond riders, registers foreign-based unlicensed NVOCCs, and provides for renewal of OTI licenses and registrations every three years.

        Interested parties may wish to review the record and Final Rule in FMC Docket No. 13-05, Amendments to Regulations Governing Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties, (Final Rule published at 80 FR 68721 (Nov. 5, 2015), as corrected at 81 FR 4592 (Jan. 27, 2016); rulemaking record available at www.fmc.gov/13-05/).
        46 CFR Part 520 Carrier Automated Tariffs
        Under this program, the Commission reviews carrier-published tariff systems under the accessibility and accuracy standards of the Shipping Act of 1984, reviews published tariff material for compliance with the Shipping Act's requirements, and responds to inquiries or issues that arise concerning tariff rates, rules and practices. The Commission also acts upon applications for special permission to deviate from tariff publishing rules and regulations and recommends Commission action on specific problems and concerns regarding the publication of tariffs.
        The Commission publishes the location of all VOCC and NVOCC tariffs online.
        46 CFR Part 525 Marine Terminal Operator Schedules
        The Commission's program under 46 CFR part 525 provides that a Marine Terminal Operator (MTO) may make available a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices to the public at its discretion. A complete and current set of schedules of rates, regulations, and practices must be maintained for five years, and made available to the Commission upon request.
        MTOs who currently publish a schedule are identified through Form FMC-1 and the RPI. The Commission separately publishes the location of those terminal schedules available to the public.
        46 CFR Part 530 Service Contracts

        The Shipping Act allows ocean common carriers, either individually or through agreements, to negotiate and execute service contracts with one or more shippers or shippers' associations. Under service contracts, shippers make a commitment to provide a certain volume or portion of cargo over a fixed period of time and carriers commit to a specified rate and a defined service level. These contracts are filed confidentially with the Commission, and are maintained in the Commission's SERVCON system. A concise statement of certain contract essential terms, i.e., commodity or commodities involved, minimum volume or portion, duration, and origin and destination port ranges, is required to be published in the carrier's tariffs.

        The Commission monitors service contract filings for acts prohibited by the Shipping Act of 1984. Original signed service contracts, amendments, and associated records must be maintained for five years from the termination of the contract and be made available to the Commission for audit upon request. An FMC-developed Web Service allows VOCCs to incorporate the filing of service contracts into their own contract management systems.

        Interested parties may wish to review the record and Final Rule in FMC Docket No. 16-05, Amendments to Regulations Governing Service Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements (Final Rule published at 82 FR 16288 (Apr. 4, 2017); rulemaking record available at http://www.fmc.gov/16-05/).
        46 CFR Part 531 NVOCC Service Arrangements
        NVOCCs that are in compliance with the Commission's licensing and financial responsibility requirements (46 CFR part 515) may enter into an NVOCC Service Arrangement (NSA) with one or more NSA Shippers. An NSA is the NVOCC functional equivalent to a service contract. NSAs are filed confidentially with the Commission, and maintained in the FMC's SERVCON system.

        Interested parties may wish to review the record and Final Rule in FMC Docket No. 16-05, Amendments to Regulations Governing Service Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements (Final Rule published at 82 FR 16288 (Apr. 4, 2017); rulemaking record available at http://www.fmc.gov/16-05/).
        46 CFR Part 532 NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements
        NVOCCs may enter into an NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangement (NRA), which are exempt from certain tariff rate publication requirements. NRAs are written arrangements between a shipper and a licensed or registered NVOCC to provide specific transportation service for a stated cargo quantity, from origin to destination, on and after a stated date or within a defined time frame. If an NVOCC uses NRAs, it need not publish that rate in the tariff it makes available to the public. Unlike service contracts and NSAs, NRAs are not filed with the Commission, but are maintained in private electronic systems.
        46 CFR Part 535 Ocean Common Carrier and Marine Terminal Operator Agreements Subject to the Shipping Act of 1984
        The Commission reviews agreements involving ocean common carriers and marine terminal operators under the standards of the Shipping Act of 1984. More specifically, the Commission has responsibility for competition review and market analysis, focusing on activity that is substantially anticompetitive under the standards of section 6(g) of the Shipping Act of 1984. In this regard, the Commission administers a variety of monitoring programs and other research efforts, designed to track relevant competitive and economic activity in major U.S. trade lanes and apprise the Commission of emerging commercial trends and carrier pricing and service activities.
        The Commission's agreement program activities consist of processing carrier and marine terminal operator agreement filings; making appropriate recommendations on the disposition of filed agreements, administering Monitoring Report filing requirements, and reviewing agreement meeting minutes and reports; and maintaining an agreement database that contains pertinent information on each ocean common carrier and marine terminal operator agreement filed with the Commission.

        A rulemaking proceeding is currently pending as to agreement filing requirements and processing. See FMC Docket No. 16-04, Ocean Common Carrier and Marine Terminal Operator Agreements Subject to the Shipping Act of 1984, (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published at 81 FR 53986 (Aug. 15, 2016); rulemaking record available at www.fmc.gov/16-04/). Parties are encouraged to review that rulemaking proceeding before filing comments to this Notice of Inquiry.
        46 CFR Part 540 Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility
        Under this program, the Commission issues certificates to operators of passenger vessels (PVOs) with berths for 50 or more passengers and that embark passengers from U.S. ports. The Certificate (Performance) evidences that the PVO has on file with the Commission acceptable coverage to satisfy any liability incurred for nonperformance of transportation, such as when a PVO declares bankruptcy and fails to complete the cruises booked. The coverage is used to reimburse passengers when the PVO fails to perform cruises as contracted and has taken no further actions to refund passengers. The Certificate (Casualty) evidences that the PVO has acceptable coverage on file with the Commission to satisfy any liability incurred for death or injury during a cruise.

        For additional information, please see the record and Final Rule in FMC Docket No. 11-16, Passenger Vessel Operator Financial Responsibility Requirements for Nonperformance of Transportation, (Final Rule published at 78 FR 13268 (Feb. 27, 2013); rulemaking record available at www.fmc.gov/11-16/).
        46 CFR Part 565 Controlled Carriers
        The Commission maintains a program of reviewing the reasonableness of the rates of carriers operating in the U.S.-foreign trades that are owned or controlled by foreign governments. Special regulatory oversight is exercised by the Commission to ensure that controlled carriers, whose marketplace decision-making can be influenced by foreign governmental priorities or by their access to non-market sources of capital, do not engage in unreasonable below-market pricing practices which could disrupt trade or harm privately-owned shipping companies.

        The Commission periodically publishes an updated list of controlled carriers. [Please see http://www.fmc.gov/about/controlled_carrier_list.aspx]
        With respect to any Part of the Commission's regulations set forth above, any individual regulation thereunder, or any section or subsection of such regulations, interested parties are asked to submit written comments that: (1) Identify the particular FMC regulation or program believed burdensome or ineffective; (2) provide details as to how the FMC program imposes unnecessary costs or burdens upon your business; and (3) indicate the manner by which the program or particular requirement should best be repealed, replaced, or modified. The FMC requests that comments be as specific as possible and include any supporting data or other helpful information in order to assist the Commission with its review.

          By the Commission.
          Rachel E. Dickon,
          Assistant Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-11321 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0028; FRL-9958-81-Region 9]
        Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Western Mojave Desert, Rate of Progress Demonstration

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act requirements applicable to the Western Mojave Desert (WMD) ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is proposing to approve the initial six-year 15 percent rate of progress demonstration to address requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by April 10, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0028 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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:

          Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, by phone at (415) 972-3856 or by email at kelly.thomasp@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. The State's SIP Submittal
          A. Documents Comprising the SIP Submittal
          B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals
          III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. Requirements for the ROP Demonstration
          B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 SIP Update
          C. The EPA's Evaluation of the ROP Demonstration and Proposed Action
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background

        Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In the “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1,” (“Phase 1 Rule”), we designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). The designations and classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for California areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. In the Phase 1 Rule, the EPA classified the WMD as Moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an attainment date no later than June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23858, 23884.
        On February 14, 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested that the EPA reclassify three California areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1
           For the WMD, CARB requested reclassification from Moderate to Severe-17.2
           On March 14, 2012, CARB submitted a clarification requesting that the EPA reclassify the WMD from Moderate to Severe-15.3

           Consistent with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA, we granted the State's request and reclassified the WMD area from Moderate to Severe-15 nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2019. See 77 FR 26950 (May 8, 2012).

            1 See letter dated February 14, 2008, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. In addition to the WMD, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify the Ventura County and Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181(b)(3) to higher classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to this request, the EPA reclassified the Ventura County area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment effective June 19, 2008, 73 FR 29073 (May 20, 2008), and reclassified the Sacramento Metro area from Serious to Severe-15 nonattainment effective June 4, 2010, 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).

            2 CARB subsequently submitted a SIP revision for this area to address the attainment demonstration and related requirements for severe-17 ozone nonattainment areas. See July 22, 2008, letter and enclosures from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

            3 See letter dated March 14, 2012, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Director, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

        The WMD is located in northeast Los Angeles County and southwest San Bernardino County. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The Los Angeles County portion of the WMD area is under the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), and the San Bernardino County portion of the area is under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). The districts and State are responsible for adopting and submitting plans to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for their areas. Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to the EPA a state implementation plan (SIP) providing for attainment of the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS areas designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 2004, this attainment SIP was due by June 15, 2007. See CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910.
        II. The State's SIP Submittal
        A. Documents Comprising the SIP Submittal
        California has made several SIP submittals to address the CAA planning requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the WMD. In today's proposal, we are proposing to take action only on the 15 percent volatile organic compound (VOC) rate of progress (ROP) determination for the WMD. This demonstration is contained in the 2014 CARB staff report entitled “Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas” (“2014 SIP Update”).4

            4 CARB, Staff Report, “Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” September 22, 2014. Other elements of CARB's SIP submittal include: AVAQMD, “Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area),” May 20, 2008; MDAQMD, “Federal 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area),” June 9, 2008; CARB, “2007 State Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,” April 26, 2007, and Appendices A-G, Release Date May 7, 2007. See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, US. EPA dated November 6, 2014, with enclosures.

        B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals
        Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) of the CAA require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided, consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
        For the 2014 SIP Update, CARB provided a public comment period from September 22, 2014, to October 24, 2014, and held a public hearing, on October 24, 2014. CARB formally adopted the 2014 SIP Update in Board Resolution 14-29 on October 24, 2014. Therefore, we find the submittals meet the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
        Section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that the EPA determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the date of submittal by operation of law. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The 2014 SIP Update was submitted to the EPA on November 6, 2014, and became complete by operation of law on May 6, 2015.
        III. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. Requirements for the ROP Demonstration
        For areas classified as Moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(1) requires a SIP revision providing for ROP, defined as a one time, 15 percent actual VOC emission reduction during the six years following the baseline year 1990, for an average reduction of 3 percent per year. For areas designated Serious nonattainment or above, no further action is necessary if the area fulfilled its ROP requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS (from 1990-1996). As the EPA explained in the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule,5

           for areas that did not meet the 15 percent VOC ROP reduction for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, a state may notify the EPA that it wishes to rely on a previously submitted SIP (for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS), or it may elect to submit a new or revised SIP addressing the 15 percent VOC ROP reduction (for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The ROP demonstration requirement is a continuing applicable requirement for the WMD under the EPA's anti-backsliding rules that apply once a NAAQS has been revoked. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4).

            5 69 FR 23980 (October 27, 2004).

        The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the method for calculating the requirements for the 1990-1996 period. Section 182(b)(1) requires that reductions: (1) Be in addition to those needed to offset any growth in emissions between the base year and the milestone year; (2) exclude emission reductions from four prescribed federal programs (i.e., the federal motor vehicle control program, the federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements, any RACT corrections previously specified by the EPA, and any inspection and maintenance (I/M) program corrections necessary to meet the basic I/M level); and (3) be calculated from an “adjusted” baseline relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable.

        The adjusted base year inventory excludes emission reductions from fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 and from federal RVP regulations that were promulgated by November 15, 1990, or required under section 211(h) of the Act. The effect of these adjustments is that states are not able to take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet turnover of current federal standard cars and trucks, or from already existing federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can take full credit for the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions standards, as well as any other new federal or state motor vehicle or fuel program that will be implemented in the nonattainment area, such as Tier 1 exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low emissions vehicle program, and transportation control measures.
        The Southeast Desert, which includes the WMD, has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,6
           but we have not approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the area. Per 40 CFR 51.1118, our determination that the area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS means that the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement (including the 15 percent ROP requirement for VOCs) no longer applies to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert area. The ROP demonstration requirement remains in effect for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the WMD must therefore demonstrate a six-year, 15 percent VOC ROP reduction.

            6 See 80 FR 20166 (April 15, 2015).

        B. The ROP Demonstration in the 2014 SIP Update
        The 2014 SIP Update incorporates the 15 percent VOC ROP demonstration as an element of the RFP demonstration, contained in Appendix C and discussed on page 10. For today's notice, we are acting only on the ROP emissions demonstration. Table C-2 in the 2014 SIP Update was used to create Table 1 below. The revised 15 percent ROP demonstration compares milestone year average summer weekday emissions of VOC 7

           with a 2002 base year inventory. Based on the progress of the VOC emissions reductions from 2002 to 2008, the State concluded that the WMD did not meet the ROP demonstration requirement in 2008, but found that it met the requirement in the subsequent reporting milestone, in 2011. See 2014 SIP Update at 10.

            7 The 2014 SIP Update uses the term Reactive Organic Gasses, or ROG, instead of VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC in this notice to mean either VOC or ROG.

          Table 1—15 Percent Rate of Progress Demonstration for VOC Emissions in the WMD
              a

            VOC emissions
            VOC emissions
              (tpd)

            1. 2002 baseline inventory
            71.5

            2. 2008 remaining emissions
            63.1

            3. 2008 goal (remaining emissions after 15% ROP Reduction required from 2002 baseline)
            58.2

            4. ROP reduction achieved by 2008 (Compare Line 3 to Line 2)?
            No

            5. 2011 remaining emissions
            56.1

            6. ROP reduction achieved by 2011 (compare Line 5 to Line 2)?
            Yes

            a Source: 2014 SIP Update, Table C-2.

        C. The EPA's Evaluation of the ROP Demonstration and Proposed Action
        The 2014 SIP Update demonstrates that the WMD achieved the 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions required by CAA section 182(b)(1). Although the state did not demonstrate these reductions within the six-year period set out in this section, it has shown that all necessary reductions were achieved in the earliest subsequent reporting period. The EPA has previously approved ROP demonstrations with a demonstration date more than six years from a baseline year.8
           We therefore propose to approve the ROP demonstration for the WMD.

            8 See, e.g., 65 FR 31485 (May 18, 2000). This approach was upheld in Sierra Club v. EPA, 252 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001).

        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: January 13, 2017.
          Deborah Jordan,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2017-04692 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 253
        [Docket No. 180220192-8192-01]
        RIN 0648-BH82
        Shipping Act, Merchant Marine, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) Provisions; Fishing Vessel, Fishing Facility and Individual Fishing Quota Lending Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:

          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) withdraws a proposed rule proposing to implement Fisheries Finance Program (FFP) financing of the cost of constructing new fishing vessels. NMFS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on November 2, 2018. After careful consideration, NMFS has decided that the proposed changes discussed in the proposed rule are not warranted at this time.

          DATES:
          The proposed rule published on November 2, 2018 (83 FR 55137), is withdrawn as of March 31, 2020.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elaine Saiz, NMFS, (301) 427-8752, elaine.saiz@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In 2016, Congress passed section 302 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, which included specific authority for the FFP to finance the construction of fishing vessels in a fishery that is managed under a limited access system. The proposed regulations provided guidance to implement this financing while also protecting fish resources.

        NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the financing in the Federal Register on November 2, 2018, (83 FR 55137).

        Following public comment and consultations with the President's Office of Management and Budget, NMFS again analyzed the effects of the proposed rule and decided that the changes covered in the proposed rule are not warranted at this time. Therefore, NMFS is withdrawing the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2018 (83 FR 55137).

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 23, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-06455 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [WC Docket No. 16-106; Report No. 3067]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:

          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding: Kenneth Gueck, on behalf of Oracle Corporation; Jonathan Banks, on behalf of United States Telecom Association; Thomas C. Power, on behalf of CTIA; Thomas Cohen, on behalf of American Cable Association; Stuart P. Ingis, on behalf Association of National Advertisers et al.; Steven K. Berry, on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association; Julie M. Kearney, on behalf of Consumer Technology Association; Genevieve Morelli, on behalf of ITTA—The Voice of Mid-Size Communications Companies; Brita D. Strandberg, on behalf of Level 3; Rick Chessen, on behalf of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association; and Stephen E. Coran, on behalf of Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 6, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 14, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sherwin Siy, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2783 or email: Sherwin.Siy@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3067, released January 17, 2017. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

          Subject: In the Matter of Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, FCC 16-148, published at 81 FR 87274, December 2, 2016, in WC Docket No. 16-106. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 11.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-03228 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [ADL-FRL-6948-8]
        RIN 2060-AH47
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of compliance.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is proposing to extend certain compliance dates contained in national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutant emissions for Group IV polymers and resins for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) affected sources. We are proposing this compliance extension pursuant to section 301(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to complete reconsideration of equipment leaks provisions and any necessary revision to the rule.
          In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are approving the extension of compliance dates as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

          DATES:

            Comments. Written comments must be received by March 28, 2001, unless a hearing is requested by March 8, 2001. If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by April 12, 2001.

            Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the EPA no later than March 8, 2001. If a hearing is held, it will take place on March 13, 2001, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

          ADDRESSES:

            Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-45 (Group IV Polymers and Resins), Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.

            Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Maria Noell, U.S. EPA, MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5607.

            Docket. The official record for this rulemaking has been established under docket number A-92-45. A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments and data, which does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at U.S. EPA, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Alternatively, a docket index, as well as individual items contained within the docket, may be obtained by calling (202) 260-7548 or (202) 260-7549. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Keith Barnett, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5605, fax number (919) 541-3470, and electronic mail: barnett.keith@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Docket. The docket reflects the full administrative record for this action and includes all the information relied upon by EPA in the development of this rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)

          World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

          Regulated Entities. Regulated categories and entities include:

            Category
            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            Facilities manufacturing PET using a batch dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) process, PET facilities using a continuous DMT process, PET facilities using a batch terephthalic acid (TPA) process, and PET facilities using a continuous TPA records.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the Group IV Polymers and Resins standards. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1310 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final rule that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.
        Administrative Requirements
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
        The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, under the Administrative Procedure Act or another statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a business with less than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
        This proposed rule would not impose any requirements on small entities, because only one entity is subject to the PCCT standard and it is not a small entity. In addition, this proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for all entities subject to the rule. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        For information regarding other administrative requirements for this action, please see the direct final/final rule action notice that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 20, 2001.
          Christine Todd Whitman,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 01-4653  Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P