        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0171; FRL-10000-73-Region 4]
        Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Knox County Miscellaneous Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve several Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on behalf of Knox County's Air Quality Management Division by a letter dated May 24, 2018. The submissions revise four sections of Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations covering definitions, opening burning, permits and emissions reporting requirements. These actions are being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0171 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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:

          Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at wong.richard@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        In letter dated May 24, 2018, TDEC submitted SIP revision to EPA for approval into the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP.1
           Specifically, the May 24, 2018, SIP revision includes changes to the following Knox County SIP-approved regulations: Section 13.0—“Definitions,” Section 16.0—“Open Burning,” Section 25.11—“Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping,” and Section 26—“Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting.” These revisions are intended, in part, to conform Knox County's regulations with the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved regulations. EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the SIP. Additional detail on the analysis of the SIP submittal and our reasoning for proposing to approve the revisions are presented below.

            1 EPA notes that the Agency received the SIP revision on May 29, 2018.

        II. Analysis of Tennessee's Submittal
        A. Section 13—“Definitions”

        The SIP revision includes the following changes to Section 13—Definitions: 2

            2 See the May 24, 2018 SIP revisions for full regulatory text. The SIP revisions are located in the docket for these proposed actions.

        • “Air Containment Source”—Under the revised definition, “Air Contaminant Source” means “any and all sources of emissions of air contaminants, whether privately or publicly owned or operated.” The definition was revised by removing the phrases “into the outdoor atmosphere” and “including stationary and mobile sources” from this sentence. The submission also revises the list of sources that are included in the definition by changing the term “residences” to “multiple family residences;” adding “piles” and “all stack and other chimney outlets;” and removing “salvage operations.” 3
           Additionally, the revision exempts from this definition certain motor vehicles manufactured prior to enactment of national vehicle emissions standards. These older vehicles were never subject to any state or local regulation concerning emission controls and the change will not affect the way mobile source emissions for the on-road source category are accounted for in air quality modeling. Overall, the revisions conform the Knox County definition to the definition in Tennessee's SIP-approved rules and will not change the regulatory status of any sources under the rules.

            3 The definition provides that the list of source categories specifically identified as included under this definition does not limit the generality of the term “Air Contaminant Source,” as defined in the first sentence.

        • “Air Curtain Destructor”—The term “Air Curtain Destructor” is revised to “Air Curtain Destructor or Air Curtain Incinerator.” The definition is revised to conform to the definition for such devices in the County's SIP-approved regulations for “Open Burning” at Section 16.2. Among other changes, the revision provides that portable or stationary combustion devices are specifically covered.
        • “Continuous Monitoring”—The SIP revision adds the term “ambient” to the definition to clarify the meaning of “concentration” as used. Thus, under the revised definition, “Continuous Monitoring” means “the sampling and analysis of air contaminants in a continuous or timed sequence, using techniques which will adequately reflect actual emissions levels or ambient concentrations on a continuous basis.”
        • “Emissions”—The SIP revision changes the defined term to “Emission,” removes “air contaminant into the outdoor atmosphere” and replaces it with “material to the ambient air” to clarify the definition. Thus, under the revised definition, “`Emission' shall mean the release of material to the ambient air.”
        • “Equivalent Method”—The revision adds more details and stipulations to the definition to require that the equivalent method must have a “quantitatively known” relationship to a reference method “under specific conditions.” Under the revised definition, “equivalent method” can also include any method so designated by the County's regulations, but the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP under Section “27.2 Source Sampling and Analysis” provides that “[a]ny equivalent or alternative methods must first be approved by the EPA Administrator.” Therefore, under the SIP, equivalent methods may only be used upon approval by EPA.
        • “Hazardous Air Containment”—The revision corrects a typographical error.
        • “Incinerator”—The definition describes the types of devices, equipment, or contrivances that are considered incinerators and is modified to remove “combustion device” and a modifier that limited incinerators to such devices “specifically designed for destruction by burning of solid, semi-solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible [waste].” As revised, incinerator means “any equipment, device, or contrivance used for disposal of waste or refuse by burning, including air curtain destructors and air curtain incinerators.” The definition is revised to conform to Tennessee's SIP-approved definition.
        • “Malfunction”—The revision corrects a typographical error.
        • “Modification”—The revision expands the burden of proof required of an owner or operator to establish that a change is excepted from the definition of modification and thereby does not require a construction permit to include paragraphs E and F. Paragraph E refers to operational flexibility, and minor permit modifications for major sources subject to title V permitting. Paragraph F refers to certain changes that do not result in emissions exceeding allowable levels or in the emission of any new air contaminant, and are not subject to Part C or D NSR. Previously, the burden of proof requirement for the owner or operator only extended to routine maintenance, repair, and replacement changes, and certain other changes such as increased production rate or hours of operation, the use of alternative fuels. The revision also makes typographical corrections to the definition.
        • “Opacity”—The SIP revision includes several changes to the definition, including removing reference to the Ringelmann number 4
           and removing an exclusion from obscuration of vision from uncombined water droplets. The changes align with the federal definition found in 40 CFR 60, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources” (40 CFR 60.2).

            4 The Ringelmann number is an early method used to observe smoke evaluation from point source stacks. This was a previously accepted approach to determine opacity levels which is now replaced by EPA Methods 9 and 22.

        • “Open Burning”—The definition is revising the term to “mean the burning of any matter under such conditions that products of combustion are emitted directly into the atmosphere without passing through any stack.” Previously, the term meant “the unconfined burning of combustible material where no equipment has been provided or used for the control of air for combustion.”
        • “Particulate Matter”—The definition is modified to remove language stating that the material is considered particulate matter only “at standard conditions.” Under this changed definition, emissions would be considered particulate matter without consideration of specific ambient temperature and pressure conditions, which is consistent with EPA's definition of particulate matter at 40 CFR 60.2.
        • “PM10 Emissions”—The definition is revised by stating that these emissions are “as measured by an applicable reference method, or equivalent or alternative method, specified by the regulations, or a test method specified in these regulations.” The changes also correct a typographical error. The changes are consistent with EPA's federal regulations pertaining to “PM10 emissions” at 40 CFR 50.6 and 60.2.
        • “Process Emissions”—The SIP revision excludes wigwam burners from the definition, changes the term “outdoor atmosphere” to “ambient air,” and makes typographical changes. The County has historically considered wigwam burners as a type of “open burning” and, thus, have never classified the burners as “process emissions.” Excluding wigwam burners from the definition of “Process Emissions” does not exempt the burners from the Knox County opacity requirements and any visible emissions from these burners would remain subject to the 20 percent opacity limit specified in Section “17.0 Regulation of Visible Emissions.”

        • “Process Weight”—The term applies to the weight of materials added to a process that may cause emissions. The SIP revision changes the description of the type of emissions from “air contaminants” to “particulate matter.” This revision does not impact the regulation of process emissions because the term “Process Weight” as used in the applicable emissions standards in Section 19—Regulation of Process Emissions is specific to particulate matter.

        • “Suspended Particulates”—The definition is revised to change language describing the suspended particles as particulate matter which “will” remain suspended in air for an appreciable amount of time rather than those that “may tend to” remain suspended in air. The defined term, “Suspended Particulates” is a subset of the term Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Knox County defines TSP as particulate matter as measured by the method described in Appendix B, 40 CFR 50. Historically, EPA regulated TSP through a National Ambient Air Quality Standard but replaced TSP as an indicator for particulate matter with PM10 in 1987. See 52 FR 24634 (July1, 1987). As indicated in the definition of TSP, the revision to the term “Suspended Particulates” will not change the methodology used to measure such emissions and therefore will not change the suspended particulate measured by the Division.
        Additionally, the SIP revision includes the addition of the following definitions to the Knox County portion of the SIP: “Alternative Method,” 5
           “Continuous Emission Monitor,” “Isokinetic Sampling,” “Nonattainment Area,” “Particulate Matter Emissions,” “Part Per Billion (ppb),” “Parts Per Million (ppm),” “Political Subdivision,” “Portland Cement Plant,” “Proportional Sampling,” “Standard,” “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC),” and “Wigwam Burner.” 6

            5 The Knox County portion of the TN SIP already contemplates the use of “alternative methods” under Section “27.2 Source Sampling and Analysis” where it states that “Any equivalent or alternative methods must first be approved by the EPA Administrator.” Therefore, under the SIP, alternative methods may only be used upon approval by EPA.

            6 See the May 24, 2018 SIP revisions for the full text of these new definitions.

        The revisions and additions to the definitions in Section 13 align with the SIP-approved Tennessee rules, and where applicable, federal definitions. The changes also provide clarity to terms referenced in Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations and permits.

        EPA has reviewed the aforementioned changes to Knox County's Section 13—Definitions and proposes to approve the changes into the SIP. These changes are not expected to interfere with any applicable requirement of the SIP concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement under the CAA.
        B. Section 16—“Open Burning”

        The SIP revision includes a change to the definition of open burning in Section 16.2 to align with the revised definition of that term in Section 13 as discussed above. The change revises the definition to mean “burning of any matter under such conditions that products of combustion are emitted directly into the open atmosphere without passing directly through a stack.” All applicable requirements for open burning remain unchanged and are found in Section 16—Open Burning. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the change into the SIP.
        C. Section 25.11—“Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping”

        The revision at Section 25.11-B.1.d amends the frequency for submitting emission logs to Knox County for volatile organic compound (VOC) and individual hazardous air pollutants from a monthly to a semi-annual requirement for sources limiting potential VOC emissions in accordance with Section 25.11. Sources are still required to maintain records in accordance with Section 25.11, including a 12-month rolling emissions log, and are also required to provide notification to Knox County within one week of any emissions exceedance. This revision aligns with the approach for title V major sources, including reports of excess emissions. In 1999, EPA issued a rulemaking that reduced the required reporting frequency under the General Provisions for 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 from quarterly to semiannually. See “Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction,” 64 FR 7458 (February 12, 1999). EPA noted in its action that semiannual reporting “provides sufficiently timely information to both ensure compliance and enable adequate enforcement of applicable requirements.” Id. Also, changing the frequency of reporting does not change the underlying applicable requirements or emissions limitations. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the change in frequency of applicable reporting requirements into the SIP because EPA believes the reporting frequency is sufficient to ensure compliance and adequate enforcement.
        D. Section 26—“Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting”
        Knox County is adding a new regulation at Section 26.7—Emission Inventory Requirements. The rule requires stationary sources meeting the emission thresholds established in the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at 40 CFR 51, subpart A, to submit emissions inventory reports to the Division by June of each year. The AERR, set forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, requires states to report to EPA an emission inventory of criteria air pollutants and precursors for all point sources, mobile sources, and nonpoint sources within the state. The requirements for reporting of point source emissions are outlined in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, which sets an annual or triennial reporting period based on thresholds of potential to emit.

        This AERR reporting requirements and schedules, promulgated December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76539), replaced the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Requirements (CERR) established on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602). The CERR replaced prior reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart Q. It expanded the pollutants covered and geographic areas reporting, and served as the basis for data collection in the EIS, which is used to develop the national emissions inventory. The AERR rulemaking was promulgated in an effort to harmonize various reporting requirements for the states, including those previously established with the CERR, additional reporting required for ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas, and reporting requirements under the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) SIP Call. The AERR was later revised on February 19, 2015, to make those reporting requirements for nonattainment areas and the NOX SIP Call optional under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, among other changes. See 80 FR 8787.
        The revision aligns with federal regulations, and EPA proposes to approve the addition of the rule into the SIP.
        III. Incorporation by Reference

        In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations, Section 13.0—“Definitions,” state effective January 24, 2018; Section 16.0—“Open Burning,” state effective January 24, 2018; Section 25.11—“Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping,” state effective October 18, 2017; and Section 26.0—“Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting,” state effective October 18, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
        IV. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP because they are consistent with the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions presented in the May 24, 2018, SIP submittals that make changes to Knox County's Air Quality Management Regulations, Section 13.0—“Definitions,” Section 16.0—“Open Burning,” Section 25.11—“Limiting a Source's Potential to Emit of VOC by Recordkeeping,” and Section 26—“Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting.”
        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 Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
        • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

        • Are 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.);
        • Do 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);
        • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Are 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 CAA; and
        • Do not provide 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).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: September 23, 2019.
           Mary S. Walker,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2019-21553 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 110328226-1228-02]
        RIN 0648-XA272
        Listing Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Chinook Salmon

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding for a petition to list the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin as threatened or endangered and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we solicit information pertaining to this species and its habitat from all interested parties.

          DATES:
          Information related to this petition finding must be received by June 13, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XA272, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http//www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Attn: Rosalie del Rosario, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov shortly after receipt. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous comments (if you wish to remain anonymous enter N/A in the required fields). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. If your submission is made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review to the extent consistent with applicable law. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The petition and other pertinent information are also available electronically at the NMFS Southwest Region Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rosalie del Rosario, NMFS, Southwest Region Office, (562) 980-4085; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On January 28, 2011, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, Environmental Protection Information Center, and The Larch Company (hereafter, the Petitioners), requesting that we list Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Upper Klamath Basin under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In their petition, the Petitioners used various phrases as well as “Upper Klamath Basin” to describe the area in which they are requesting that we list Chinook salmon. Because their request is generally made in reference to the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon, we will use the description of the currently defined ESU to describe the area in which they are requesting that we list Chinook salmon, and we will hereinafter refer to that area as the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin. NMFS described all Klamath River Basin populations of Chinook salmon from the Trinity River and Klamath River upstream from the confluence of the Trinity River as the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU, which includes both spring-run and fall-run fish (63 FR 11487; March 9, 1998).
        The Petitioners recommend three alternatives for listing Chinook salmon: (1) List spring-run only as a separate ESU; (2) list spring-run as a distinct population segment (DPS) within the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU; or (3) list the currently defined Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU, which includes both spring-run and fall-run. The petitioners also request designation of critical habitat for the Chinook salmon populations that are found to warrant listing.
        ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA implementing regulations define substantial information as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether substantial information exists for a petition to list a species, we take into account several factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a status review of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)) requires the Secretary to make a finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition (12-month finding). The Secretary has delegated the authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

        Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species, subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, we issued the Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991), which explains that Pacific salmon populations will be considered a DPS, and hence a “species” under the ESA, if it represents an “evolutionarily significant unit” of the biological species. The two criteria for delineating an ESU are: It is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and it represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. The ESU Policy was used to define the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU in 1998 (63 FR 11482, 11493; March 9, 1998), and we use it exclusively for defining distinct population segments of Pacific salmon. In 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) to clarify the interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment.” This policy provides two criteria for identifying DPSs: Discreteness from other populations and significance to its taxon. In announcing this policy, USFWS and NMFS indicated that the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon.
        The ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). A threatened species is defined as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), a species may be determined to be threatened or endangered as a result of any of the following factors: (1) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing determinations are made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species.
        Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook Salmon ESU
        In 1998, we completed a status review of west coast Chinook salmon populations that defined the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU as including all spring-run and fall-run populations from the Trinity River and the Klamath River upstream from the confluence of the Trinity River (NMFS, 1998). Based on the health of the fall-run populations within the ESU, we concluded the ESU was not at significant risk of extinction nor likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and therefore, did not warrant listing under the ESA (63 FR 11482, 11493; March 9, 1998). The Petitioners essentially request NMFS to revisit our previous conclusion based on more recent information and the current status of this ESU.
        Analysis of Petition
        The Petition contains information and arguments in support of listing Chinook salmon under the three alternatives recommended by the Petitioners. The Petitioners also include information on spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, including life history and physiology, diet, associated fish species, habitat requirements, historic and current distribution, and population status and trends.
        Under the first recommended alternative, the Petitioners present new genetic evidence to suggest the spring-run Chinook salmon populations in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU may qualify as a separate ESU from the fall-run populations. They also present information indicating the spring-run Chinook salmon may meet the ESU criteria: (1) They are substantially reproductively isolated, and (2) represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. The Petitioners also argue that the genetic differentiation in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU runs is scaled similarly to the Central Valley Chinook salmon runs, and that the designation of Central Valley spring and fall runs as separate ESUs sets a precedent for the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU Chinook salmon runs to be managed separately.
        Under the second recommended listing alternative, the Petitioners present arguments that spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU meet the two criteria to be considered a DPS: Discreteness and significance. As we described above, NMFS' policy is to list Pacific salmon stocks, such as Chinook salmon, as an ESU under the criteria described in the ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991) rather than a DPS under the criteria described in the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
        Under the third recommended listing alternative, the Petitioners argue spring-run populations are important to the overall viability of the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU and their status justifies listing the entire ESU.

        The Petitioners also present substantial information on the status of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon populations in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin. They cite numerous reports describing the significant decline and low numbers in the populations of the two runs of fish that additionally are increasingly dominated by hatchery fall-run Chinook salmon (e.g., Moyle et al. 2008; National Research Council 2004). The Petitioners also provide a detailed description and an analysis of the five listing factors in support of their contention that spring-run or the entire Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU warrants listing. According to the petition, a history of dams, mining, water diversions, habitat degradation, disease, and fisheries, among other factors, have played a key role in the decline of the populations.
        Petition Finding
        Based on the information contained in the petition, which is summarized above, and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions concerning listing spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin as a separate ESU or listing the entire Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU may be warranted. Accordingly, we will convene a biological review team (BRT) to assess the status of Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon and evaluate the petitioned actions. The BRT will: (1) Compile and evaluate biological and ecological information necessary to assess whether the spring-run component of the currently defined ESU should be a separate ESU, and if so, compile and evaluate biological information necessary to assess its status; and (2) if the spring-run component does not warrant delineation as a separate ESU, it will compile and evaluate biological and ecological information necessary to assess the status of the currently defined ESU. In addition, the BRT will evaluate Chinook salmon hatchery stocks and programs in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin to assess the level of divergence between hatchery and naturally spawning stocks. We will use the results of this status review in making a determination as to whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted.

        Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), this finding requires NMFS to commence a status review of the species. We are now initiating this review, and thus, the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU is considered a candidate species (50 CFR 424.02(b)). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (by January 28, 2012), we will make a finding as to whether the petitioned actions are warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)). If any of the petitioned actions are warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before preparing a final rule.
        Information Solicited for Status Review
        To ensure the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, fishing groups, industry, and any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin. Specifically, we request information on: (1) Historic and current distribution, presence, and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historic and current life history traits of spring-run and fall-run populations; (3) historic and current Chinook salmon habitat conditions; (4) population status and trends; (5) genetic population structure of spring-run and fall-run; (6) reproductive isolation of spring-run and fall-run; (7) information on any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species, including but not limited to commercial, recreational, and Tribal harvest, especially as related to the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) and listed above; and (8) ongoing efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat.
        We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
        Critical Habitat
        Section 3(5) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) defines critical habitat as: (1) Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of a listed species. Critical habitat shall be specified to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time the species is proposed for listing. If designation of critical habitat is not prudent or determinable, the reasons will be stated in the 12-month finding.
        We also request information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for Chinook salmon in the Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basin. Areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species should be identified. Areas outside the present range should also be identified if such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Essential features may include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional and physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)).
        For areas having physical and biological features that may be essential to conservation, We request information describing: (1) The activities that affect the essential features or that could be affected by the designation; and (2) the economic costs and benefits of management measures likely to result from the designation. NMFS is required to consider the probable economic and other impacts on proposed or ongoing activities in making a final critical habitat designation (50 CFR 424.19).
        Peer Review
        On July 1, 1994, NMFS and USFWS (the Services) jointly published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). In addition, on January 14, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664). The purpose of the Services' peer review policy is to ensure listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. The purpose of the OMB Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the government's scientific information. We are soliciting the names of recognized experts in the field that could take part in the peer review process for this status review. Independent peer reviewers can be selected from the academic and scientific community, Tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and State agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: April 6, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-8736 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Designation of the Gunnison Sage Grouse as a Candidate Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of designation of a candidate species.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, we present information on the recent addition of the Gunnison sage grouse (Centrocercus minimus) found in Colorado and Utah to the list of candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate taxa can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and, thereby, possibly remove the need to list taxa as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list this candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in fewer restrictions on activities by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to this species.
          We also announce the availability of the candidate and listing priority assignment form for this candidate species. This document describes the status and threats that we evaluated to determine that Gunnison sage grouse warrants consideration for listing, and to assign a listing priority to this species.
          We request additional status information that may be available for the Gunnison sage grouse. We will consider this information in evaluating, monitoring, and developing conservation strategies for this species.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments on this document at any time.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments and data regarding the Gunnison sage grouse to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field Office, 764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Terry Ireland, at the above address, e-mail <terry_ireland@fws.gov>, or telephone (970) 243-2778.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we list taxa of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. As part of this program, we also identify taxa that we regard as candidates for listing. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have on file sufficient information to support issuance of a proposed rule to list under the Act. In addition to our annual review of all candidate taxa (64 FR 57534; October 25, 1999), we have an on-going review process, particularly to update taxa whose status may have changed markedly.
        Section 3 of the Act generally defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation affecting the species;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the species; and
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.

        We are required to make the listing determination “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” and “taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas.” Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A) and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(f) require us to consider any State or local laws, regulations, ordinances, programs, or other specific conservation measures that either positively or negatively affect a species' status (i.e., efforts that create, exacerbate, reduce, or remove threats identified through the section 4(a)(1) analysis).
        We maintain the list of candidate species for a variety of reasons, including—to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to solicit input from interested parties to identify those candidate taxa that may not require protection under the Act or additional taxa that may require the Act's protections; and to solicit information needed to prioritize the order in which we will propose taxa for listing. We encourage consideration of candidate taxa in environmental planning, such as in environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and in local and Statewide land use planning.
        According to our 1983 Listing Priority System (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983), all species that are candidates for listing are assigned a listing priority number. This system ranks species according to—(1) the magnitude of threats they face, (2) the immediacy of these threats, and (3) the taxonomic distinctiveness of the entity that may be listed. Listing priority numbers range from 1 (highest priority) to 12 (lowest priority). We will complete proposals to list candidate species, based on their listing priority, to the extent that our resources for listing activities and our workload for other listing activities will allow.

        This document provides specific explanation for the classification of Gunnison sage grouse as a candidate. It is important to note that candidate assessment is an ongoing function and changes in status should be expected. If we remove taxa from the candidate list, they may be restored to candidate status if additional information supporting such a change becomes available to us. We issue requests for such information in a Candidate Notice of Review published in the Federal Register every year.
        Findings

        In 1977, Dr. Clait Braun, formerly with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, noticed that sage grouse (Centrocercus sp.) wings collected in the Gunnison Basin of southwestern Colorado were smaller than sage grouse wings collected in northern Colorado. Over the 2 decades since then, Dr. Braun and others have been studying the morphological (Hupp and Braun 1991), behavioral (Young et al. 1994, Braun and Young 1995) and genetic differences (Quinn et al. 1997, Kahn et al. 1999, Oyler-McCance 1999) between the sage grouse. The differences are great enough that the American Ornithologists' Union has determined that the sage grouse in southwestern Colorado are a distinct species, the Gunnison sage grouse (C. minimus). The American Ornithologists' Union included a footnote about the Gunnison sage grouse potentially becoming a distinct species in their latest list of bird species. The July 2000 issue of Auk is planned to contain the American Ornithologists' Union's next list of bird species that will formally include the Gunnison sage grouse as a distinct species (Dr. Richard Banks, National Museum of Natural History, pers. comm. 2000).
        Through museum specimens or written accounts, Braun (1995) determined that the Gunnison sage grouse's historic range occurred in southwestern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, northwestern Oklahoma, northern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and southeastern Utah. There are currently believed to be seven population areas in Colorado and one population in Utah. The Gunnison Basin breeding population is the largest with up to 3,000 birds. The other 6 populations in Colorado only have 6 to 300 breeding birds, and the Monticello, Utah, population also is only around 120 birds for a total breeding population around 4,000. Long-term trends since at least the 1970s have shown steady declines in the number of males/lek, and one area, Sims Mesa, may have recently been extirpated. The overall population numbers have increased the last 2 to 3 years in the Gunnison Basin; however, this may be attributed to increased survey efforts. The number of males/lek in the Crawford Area population has increased since 1993, though the overall population estimate is no greater than about 320. Other populations appear to be stable in the last 3 to 4 years but remain small.

        The Gunnison sage grouse uses a variety of habitats throughout the year but the primary component necessary is species of Artemisia spp. (sagebrush) (Braun 1995). The most important sagebrushes are subspecies of A. tridentata (big sagebrush). Sagebrush is used for hiding and thermal cover as well as a major source of food in the winter (Hupp and Braun 1989). From mid-March to early June males will display on leks (strutting grounds) that are open areas with good visibility (for predator detection) and acoustics (for transmission of male display sounds). After mating, females will select nest sites, typically in relatively tall and dense stands of sagebrush from 200 yards (183 meters) to 5 miles (8 kilometers) away from the leks. Nest sites selected have residual grass and forbs that provide additional hiding cover. Hens with chicks remain in sagebrush uplands if hiding cover is adequate and if food consisting of succulent forbs and insects are available. As chicks mature and vegetation in the uplands desiccates, hens will move their broods to wet meadow areas that retain succulent forbs and insects through the summer (Klebenow 1969, Wallestad 1971). Preferred wet meadow areas also contain tall grasses for hiding and at least 165-yard (150-meter) wide sagebrush stands (Dunn and Braun 1986) along the periphery for hiding and foraging areas. From mid-September into November all sage grouse will use upland areas with 20 percent or greater sagebrush cover and some green forbs. As winter progresses and snow cover is extensive (greater than 80 percent) and deep (greater than 12 inches (30 centimeters)), sage grouse forage in tall sagebrush (greater than 16 inches (41 centimeters)) in valleys and lower flat areas (Hupp and Braun 1989) and roost in shorter sagebrush along ridge tops. Roosting and foraging is typically restricted to south or west facing slopes where snow is often shallower and less extensive (Hupp and Braun 1989). Small foraging areas that have 30-40 percent big sagebrush canopy cover also are important.

        Potential threats include reduction in habitat by direct habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from building development, road and utility corridors, fences, energy development, conversion of native habitat to hay or other crop fields, alteration or destruction of wetland and riparian areas, inappropriate livestock management, competition for winter range by big game, and creation of large reservoirs.

        Other factors affecting the Gunnison sage grouse include fire suppression allowing encroachment of its habitat by Pinus edulis (pinyon) and Juniperus spp. (juniper) invasion, fire suppression resulting in decadent stands of the sagebrush community, overgrazing by elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus hemionus), drought, disturbance or death by off-highway-vehicles, disturbance by construction projects, harassment from people and pets, continuous noise that impairs acoustical quality of leks, genetic depression, herbicides, pesticides, pollution, and competition for habitat from other species.
        Despite development of the Conservation Plans and numerous actions implemented under those Plans to date, all of the threats to the Gunnison sage grouse, under the five listing factors, should be considered non-imminent threat with a high magnitude of occurring, or have potential to occur. In addition, the reduction of about 75 percent of the range and uncertain continued existence of the small, disjunct, populations outside of the Gunnison Basin population, leads us to believe that listing the Gunnison sage grouse as threatened is warranted. Therefore, we have assigned the Gunnison sage grouse a listing a priority of five under our Listing Priority System.
        Request for Information
        We request you submit any further information on the Gunnison sage grouse as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are seeking the following types of information:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the Gunnison sage grouse;
        (2) Reasons why any habitat of this species should or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
        (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and,
        (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on this species.

        Information regarding the range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment for the Gunnison sage grouse is available for review by contacting the Service as specified in the ADDRESSES section.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In certain circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, is available upon request from the Marine Mammals Management Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        References Cited

          Braun, C.E. 1995. Distribution and status of sage grouse in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27:1-9.
          Braun, C.E., and J.R. Young. 1995. A new species of sage grouse from Colorado. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of The Wilson Ornithological Society and the Virginia Society of Ornithology. Williamsburg, Virginia. Abstract #23.
          Commons, M.L., R.K. Baydack, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse response to pinyon-juniper management. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999:238-239.
          Dunn, P.O., and C.E. Braun. 1986. Late summer-spring movements of juvenile sage grouse. Wilson Bulletin 98:83-92.
          Hupp, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:823-829.
          Hupp, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1991. Geographic variation among sage grouse in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 103:255-261.
          Kahn, N.W., C.E. Braun, J.R. Young, S. Wood, D.R. Mata, and T.W. Quinn. 1999. Molecular analysis of genetic variation among large- and small-bodied sage grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequences. Auk 116:819-824.
          Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-662.
          Oyler-McCance, S.J. 1999. Genetic and habitat factors underlying conservation strategies for Gunnison sage grouse. Abstract of PhD Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 162 pp.
          Quinn, T.W., N.W. Kahn, J.R. Young, N.G. Benedict, S. Wood, D. Mata, and C.E. Braun. 1997. Probing the evolutionary history of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations using mitochondrial DNA sequence. Wildlife Biology 3: 291.
          Wallestad, R.O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse broods in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 35:129-136.
          Young, J.R., J.W. Hupp, J.W. Bradbury, and C.E. Braun. 1994. Phenotypic divergence of secondary sexual traits among sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, populations. Animal Behaviour 47:1353-1362.

        Author
        The author of this notice is Terry Ireland (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: December 19, 2000.
          John A. Blankenship,
          Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-33089 Filed 12-27-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0468; FRL-9914-51-Region 7]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Nebraska; Fine Particulate Matter New Source Review Requirements.

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Nebraska. This proposed action will amend the SIP to include revisions to Nebraska's Air Quality Regulations “Definitions”, “Construction Permits—When Required”, and “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality” to make the state regulations consistent with the Federal regulations for the fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This proposed revision will amend the state minor source construction permitting program including the addition of a minor source permitting threshold for PM2.5. These revisions are necessary to properly manage the increment requirements (maximum allowable deterioration to the air quality) of the PSD program and assure continued attainment with the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This proposed action also recognizes the state's request to not include, into the SIP, provisions relating to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMCs). These provisions were vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 22, 2013.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 3, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0468, by mail to Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at crable.gregory@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: July 21, 2014.
          Mike Brincks,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 2014-18249 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Office of the Secretary
        45 CFR Parts 170 and 171
        RIN 0955-AA01
        21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program

          AGENCY:
          Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 4, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed rule that would implement certain provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act, including conditions and maintenance of certification requirements for health information technology (health IT) developers under the ONC Health IT Certification Program (Program), the voluntary certification of health IT for use by pediatric health care providers, and reasonable and necessary activities that do not constitute information blocking. The comment period for the rule was scheduled to close on May 3, 2019. This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days to June 3, 2019.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published March 4, 2019, at 84 FR 7424, is extended. Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0955-AA01, by any of the following methods (please do not submit duplicate comments). Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, or Adobe PDF; however, we prefer Microsoft Word. http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Attention: 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program Proposed Rule, Mary E. Switzer Building, Mail Stop: 7033A, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Please submit one original and two copies.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Attention: 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program Proposed Rule, Mary E. Switzer Building, Mail Stop: 7033A, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Please submit one original and two copies. (Because access to the interior of the Mary E. Switzer Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the mail drop slots located in the main lobby of the building.)

            Enhancing the Public Comment Experience: To facilitate public comment on this proposed rule, a copy will be made available in Microsoft Word format on ONC's website (http://www.healthit.gov). We believe this version will make it easier for commenters to access and copy portions of the proposed rule for use in their individual comments. Additionally, a separate document (“public comment template”) is available on ONC's website (http://www.healthit.gov) for the public to use in providing comments on the proposed rule. This document is meant to provide the public with a simple and organized way to submit comments on proposals and respond to specific questions posed in the preamble of the proposed rule. While use of this document is entirely voluntary, we encourage commenters to consider using the document in lieu of unstructured comments, or to use it as an addendum to narrative cover pages. We believe that use of the document may facilitate our review and understanding of the comments received.

            Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period will be available for public inspection, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. Please do not include anything in your comment submission that you do not wish to share with the general public. Such information includes, but is not limited to: A person's social security number; date of birth; driver's license number; state identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; credit or debit card number; any personal health information; or any business information that could be considered proprietary. We will post all comments that are received before the close of the comment period at http://www.regulations.gov.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Mary E. Switzer Building, Mail Stop: 7033A, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201 (call ahead to the contact listed below to arrange for inspection)..

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Lipinski, Office of Policy, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 202-690-7151.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the “21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program” proposed rule that appeared in the March 4, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 7424), we solicited public comments on proposals to implement certain provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act, including conditions and maintenance of certification requirements for health information technology (health IT) developers under the ONC Health IT Certification Program (Program), the voluntary certification of health IT for use by pediatric health care providers, and reasonable and necessary activities that do not constitute information blocking. The comment period for the rule was scheduled to close on May 3, 2019. This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days until June 3, 2019.
        To date, we have received comments from organizations with broad stakeholder representation requesting that we extend the 60-day comment period for the proposed rule. For example, we have received comments requesting more time from clinicians, hospitals, health IT developers and developer associations, professional societies, researchers, quality improvement organizations, health plans, and patient advocacy organizations. The commenters have stated that due to the depth and complexity of the policies proposed, it is critical for the public to have extended time in providing sufficient and thoughtful comments to advance shared goals and shape the interoperability landscape. Based on these public comments and the stated goals of the proposed rule to improve interoperability and patient access to health information for the purposes of promoting competition and better care, we are extending the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 30 days.

          Dated: April 18, 2019.
          Alex M. Azar II,
          Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2019-08178 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4150-45-P


        POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
        39 CFR Part 3020
        [Docket No. RM2019-3; Order No. 4987]
        Competitive Postal Products

          AGENCY:
          Postal Regulatory Commission.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission seeks comments on whether to update its regulations to address proposed classification changes to product descriptions in the Mail Classification Schedule that may modify the market and/or competitive products lists. This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

          DATES:

            Comments are due: April 5, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

          I. Introduction
          II. Background
          III. Request for Comments
          IV. Ordering Paragraphs

        I. Introduction

        The Commission initiates this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments on whether to update its regulations to address proposed classification changes to product descriptions in the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) that may modify the market dominant and/or competitive product lists. The Commission is specifically reviewing changes to regulations involving updates to the size and weight limitations applicable to market dominant mail matter. See 39 CFR 3020.111.
        II. Background
        Section 3682 provides that the Postal Service may establish size and weight limitations for mail matter in the market dominant category of mail consistent with regulations the Postal Regulatory Commission may prescribe under section 3622. 39 U.S.C. 3682. Commission rule 3020.111(a) requires the Postal Service to inform the Commission of updates to size and weight limitations for market dominant mail matter. 39 CFR 3020.111(a). The Commission is required to evaluate any proposed updates “in accordance with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of 39 U.S.C.” 39 CFR 3020.111(c).
        In Docket No. MC2019-3, the Postal Service filed a request pursuant to 39 CFR 3020.111 seeking to change the weight limit to 15.994 ounces (from 64 ounces) for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International (FCMI) Large Envelopes (Flats).1
           The Postal Service stated that FCMI Flats weighing 16 ounces or more would be charged the applicable First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) price.2
           FCPIS is an existing product on the competitive product list.

            1 Docket No. MC2019-3, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Update to the Maximum Weight Limit for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Large Envelopes (Flats) in the Mail Classification Schedule, October 10, 2018.

            2 International Mailing Services: Product and Price Changes-CPI, 83 FR 52351 (October 17, 2018). The Postal Services stated that, if mailed as FCPIS, these mailpieces would be charged from 17 percent to 157 percent more than the prices for FCMI Flats. See Docket No. MC2019-3, Response of the United States Postal Service to Commission Information Request No. 1, October 26, 2018, question 2 (Response to CIR No. 1).

        In its Response to CIR No. 1, the Postal Service stated that the proposed classification change would have no effect on the market dominant product list because the FCMI product would still appear on the product list. Response to CIR No. 1, question 1. The Postal Service explained that only the portions of MCS section 1125 that concern the weight limitations for FCMI Flats would be revised, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3682. Id. The Postal Service also asserted that neither section 3682 nor the Commission rules on updates to size and weight limitations refer to 39 U.S.C. 3642 or 39 CFR part 3020 subpart B governing modifications to the product lists. Id.

        Because the proposed update was in accordance with the policies and applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39, the Commission approved the update to the weight limitation in Order No. 4932.3

           However, in that order, the Commission stated “that the practical impact of the proposed update is a transfer of FCMI Flats weighing over 15.994 ounces from the market dominant product list to the competitive product list.” Order No. 4932 at 5. The Commission went on to express concerns “that the Postal Service could use the size and weight limitation regulations to make extensive changes to product lists without proper Commission oversight.” Id. For example, the Public Representative, in that docket, considered that the Postal Service could effectively eliminate products from a product list by drastically reducing the range of a product's weight limitations or could effectively add products to a product list by greatly expanding the limitations.4

            3 Docket No. MC2019-3, Order Approving Update to Weight Limitation, December 19, 2018, at 5 (Order No. 4932).

            4 Docket No. MC2019-3, Public Representative Comments, November 13, 2018, at 7.

        III. Request for Comments

        The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019-3 to evaluate whether changes to MCS provisions that, in effect, add products to, remove products from, or transfer products between product lists, are changes that implicate the requirements of section 3642. In particular, the Commission requests comments from interested parties on whether it should update its regulations to require information pursuant to section 3642 when changes to the size and weight limitations appear to modify the product lists. Comments are due no later than 60 days after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register. Commission rules require that comments be filed online according to the process outlined at 39 CFR 3001.9(a), unless a waiver is obtained. Additional information regarding how to submit comments online can be found at: http://www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. All comments accepted will be made available on the Commission's website at: http://www.prc.gov.

        Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
        IV. Ordering Paragraphs

          It is ordered:

        1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019-3 to evaluate whether changes to MCS provisions that add products to, remove products from, or transfer products between product lists, are changes that implicate the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3642.

        2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        3. Pursuant to 39 U.C.S. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

        4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

          By the Commission.
          Stacy L. Ruble,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2019-00665 Filed 2-1-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 151204999-5999-01]
        RIN 0648-BF45
        Control Date for the Blueline Tilefish Fishery in Waters North of the Virginia/North Carolina Border

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This document announces a control date that may limit or restrict access to the blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border. This action is necessary to inform fishery participants that we are considering future action. We intend for this document to promote awareness of possible future rulemaking, and discourage speculative entry into and/or investment in the Mid-Atlantic blueline tilefish fishery.

          DATES:
          December 14, 2015, is established as the “control date” for the blueline tilefish fishery, and may be used as a reference date for future management measures related to the blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border, consistent with applicable Federal laws and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's recommendations. Written comments must be received on or before February 12, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0139 by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0139, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Blueline Tilefish Control Date.”

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered. We may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, NMFS, 978-281-9341, or Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 302-526-5255.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fishery for blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps), also known as grey tilefish, in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border has, until earlier this year, been unregulated, and historically had very low landings. Landings have increased in recent years. The fishery south of this line is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council as part of the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
        In 2014, new restrictions on harvest in the South Atlantic led to a rapid, 20-fold increase in unregulated landings of blueline tilefish caught north of the Virginia/North Carolina border. This spike in landings prompted the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to request that we take emergency action to prevent long-term harm to the stock. On June 4, 2015, we published an emergency rule (80 FR 31864) to temporarily restrict harvest of this species in the Mid-Atlantic. Subsequently, the Mid-Atlantic Council initiated an amendment to the Golden Tilefish FMP to establish management measures for blueline tilefish within its jurisdiction with the intention of having new management measures in place before NMFS's emergency rule authority would expire. This would avoid a return to an unregulated fishery.

        Due to the limited time to implement new management measures, the Mid-Atlantic Council is not considering a limited access program in the current FMP amendment under development. However, the Mid-Atlantic Council has expressed interest in potentially developing such a program in a future action. At its October 2015 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Council voted to request that we publish a control date in the Federal Register that may be used to affect future participation in all sectors of the blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters. The Council's discussions clarified that it is the Council's intent that this control date apply to all forms of fishing that have caught and landed blueline tilefish, including: Commercial fishing vessels; party/charter vessels that take recreational anglers for hire; as well as private recreational vessels. However, NMFS has no current information that could be used to distinguish private angler participation in this fishery before and after a control date. Therefore, such a control date would not provide meaningful notification or guidance to private recreational anglers.
        Therefore, this notification establishes December 14, 2015, as a control date for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation for the commercial and for-hire recreational sectors of the blueline tilefish fishery. Establishing a control date does not commit us or the Council to develop any particular management program or criteria for participation in this fishery. We may choose a different control date or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date. We may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the blueline tilefish fishery. Any future action we take will be pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, will be discussed at Council meetings, and will have additional Federal rulemaking, including opportunity for public comment.
        This notification gives the public notice that interested commercial and for-hire blueline tilefish fishery participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the fishery, such as: Dealer purchase slips for commercial fishing trips; Fishing Vessel Trip Reports for both commercial and party/charter vessels; or any other relevant documents. There is no precedent in the Greater Atlantic Region for a limited access program that applies to party/charter or private recreational vessels. In light of the novelty of this aspect of the Council's control date request, we encourage the public to comment on whether limited access for party/charter and private recreational anglers is needed in the blueline tilefish fishery, and, if so, what sort of qualification criteria might be considered by the Council. This notification and control date do not impose any legal obligations, requirements, or expectation.

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

          Dated: December 8, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-31364 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 060511126-6285-02; I.D. 050306E]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources; Notification of Rockfish Pilot Program Public Workshop

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

          ACTION:
           Notification of public workshop.

          SUMMARY:
           NMFS will present a public workshop on the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (Program) for potentially eligible participants and other interested parties. NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, discuss the key Program elements and answer questions. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing this new Program.

          DATES:
          The workshop will be held on Friday, December 1, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Alaska Standard Time, Kodiak, AK.

          ADDRESSES:
          The workshop will be held at the following location: Kodiak Fisheries Research Center (Main Conference Room), 301 Research Court, Kodiak, Ak 99615.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 7, 2006 (71 FR 33040), NMFS published a proposed rule that would implement the Program as Amendment 68 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). On August 10, 2006, NMFS approved Amendment 68 to the FMP. Amendment 68 establishes a program to allocate specific Central Gulf of Alaska groundfish resources among harvesters and processors. Harvesting and processing privileges for several species of rockfish, incidental harvests of other groundfish species, and halibut prohibited species catch would be allocated to participants that meet specific requirements. Amendment 68 was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on June 6, 2005. Amendment 68 implements the Program and is designed to meet the requirements of section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-109, Section 802). Section 802 specifies the eligible participants, duration of the program, methods for allocating harvesting and processing privileges, and provides NMFS with the authority to regulate processors under this Program.

        A final rule implementing Amendment 68 will be published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2006. NMFS is conducting public workshops to provide assistance to fishery participants in reviewing the requirements of this new program. A workshop was conducted on November 17, 2006, at the Nordby Conference Center in Fishermen's Terminal, 3919 18th Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119. NMFS has scheduled a second workshop for December 1, 2006, to be held at the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center (Main Conference Room), 301 Research Court, Kodiak, AK 99615.

        At each workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, and discuss the key Program elements. The key Program elements to be discussed include quota share application; cooperative, limited access, and opt-out fishery participation provisions; cooperative quota transfer provisions; the appeals process; monitoring and enforcement; and electronic reporting. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        Special Accommodations

        The workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Glenn Merrill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 5 working days before the workshop date.

          Dated: November 14, 2006.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-19479 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S