        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AP60-----
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 9

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 9), incorporating the public hearing document and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce and is requesting comments from the public. The goal of Amendment 9 is to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP became effective in 1999. Amendment 9 would establish multi-year specifications for all four species managed under the FMP (mackerel, butterfish, Illex squid (Illex), and Loligo squid (Loligo)) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points recommended by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) for Loligo; designate essential fish habitat (EFH) for Loligo eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 9 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 9, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portalhttp://www.regulations.gov;

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 9.”

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        This amendment is needed to remedy deficiencies in the FMP and to address other issues that have arisen since Amendment 8 to the FMP (64 FR 57587, October 26, 1999) became effective in 1999. Although Amendment 8 was partially approved in 1999, NMFS noted that the amendment inadequately addressed some Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements for Federal FMPs. Specifically, the amendment was considered deficient with respect to: Consideration of fishing gear impacts on EFH as they relate to MSB fisheries; designation of EFH for Loligo eggs; and the reduction of bycatch and discarding of target and non-target species in the MSB fisheries.

        An earlier draft of Amendment 9, adopted by the Council on February 15, 2007, contained several management measures intended to address deficiencies in the MSB FMP that relate to discarding, especially as they affect butterfish. Specifically, these management measures would have attempted to reduce finfish discards by MSB small-mesh fisheries through mesh size increases in the directed Loligo fishery, removal of mesh size exemptions for the directed Illex fishery, and establishment of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). However, these specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished.
        In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished and this triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, Amendment 10 to the FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Amendment 10 contains a rebuilding program for butterfish with management measures designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding. Management measures that reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action is proposed in Amendment 9 to address these issues. Through the development and implementation of Amendment 10, each of the measures to reduce the bycatch of finfish will be given full consideration. Additionally, Amendment 10 will include updated analyses on the effects of the alternatives and, as Amendment 10 is expected to be implemented soon after Amendment 9, no meaningful delay in addressing the bycatch deficiencies in the FMP should occur.

        The final version of Amendment 9 contains alternatives that consider allowing for multi-year specifications and management measures, extending or eliminating the moratorium on entry to the directed Illex fishery, revising the biological reference points for Loligo, designating EFH for Loligo eggs, implementing area closures to reduce gear impacts from MSB fisheries on EFH of other federally-managed species, increasing the incidental possession limit for Illex vessels during a closure of the Loligo fishery, and requiring real-time electronic reporting via vessel monitoring systems in the Illex fishery. The Council held four public meetings on Amendment 9 during May 2007. Following the public comment period that ended on May 21, 2007, the Council adopted Amendment 9 on August 6, 2007.

        In Amendment 9, measures recommended by the Council would: Allow for multi-year specifications for all four managed species (mackerel, butterfish, Illex, and Loligo) for up to 3 years; extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision; adopt biological reference points for Loligo recommended by the SARC; designate EFH for Loligo eggs based on best available scientific information; and prohibit bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 9 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 9 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of Amendment 9 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by May 27, 2008, whether specifically directed to Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 9. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 9. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

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

          Dated: March 19, 2008.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-6001 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 80
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0683; FRL 9965-88-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AT61
        Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Several Parishes in Louisiana

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve an April 10, 2017 request from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) volatility standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the following parishes: Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. For this action, EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the RVP volatility standard for the 11 named parishes to increase from 7.8 pounds-per-square-inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold within those parishes. EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to the Federal gasoline RVP volatility regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). LDEQ has also requested that EPA relax summertime gasoline volatility requirements for the 5-parish Baton Rouge area, and EPA will address that request in a separate rulemaking at a later date.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 2017 unless a public hearing is requested by August 24, 2017. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and announce a new deadline for public comment.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0683, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received by its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information disclosure of which is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please consult the instructions available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 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.

          For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please see the information available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dave Sosnowski, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4823; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: sosnowski.dave@epa.gov. You may also contact Rudolph Kapichak at the same address; telephone number: (734) 214-4574; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: kapichak.rudolph@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

          I. General Information
          II. Public Participation
          III. Background and Proposal
          IV. Proposal
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
          VI. Legal Authority

        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Louisiana.

            Examples of potentiallyregulated entities

            NAICS 1 Codes

            Petroleum refineries
            324110

            Gasoline Marketers and Distributors
            424710424720

            Gasoline Retail Stations
            447110

            Gasoline Transporters
            484220484230

            1 North American Industry Classification System.

        The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that could be affected by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization may be affected by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
        B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
        The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
        II. Public Participation

        EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble by August 24, 2017. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and announce a new deadline for public comment.
        III. Background and Proposal
        A. Summary of the Proposal

        EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Louisiana to change the summertime gasoline RVP volatility standard for the parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). EPA is deferring action on the State's relaxation request for the Baton Rouge area (i.e., the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge) pending a revision of Louisiana's SIP to address the requisite CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that using the higher RVP fuel will not negatively impact air quality in the area or interfere with the area's ability to meet any applicable CAA requirements.
        The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of gasoline volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section III.D. provides information specific to Louisiana's request for the 11 parishes, and EPA's rationale for proposing approval without a CAA section 110(l) noninterference demonstration from the State.
        B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement
        On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
        The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP, which is measured in pounds-per-square-inch or psi. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
        The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new CAA section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
        On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate requests to change volatility requirements applicable to them. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.

        Because these 11 parishes are no longer within the timeframe covered by any approved maintenance plan for ozone the State does not need to submit and EPA does not need to approve either a revision to an approved maintenance plan or a non-interference demonstration under CAA section 110(l). CAA section 110(l) states that the “Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan, if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter” [emphasis added]. CAA section 110(l) applies when the Administrator approves a revision to a plan. In the case of the 11 parishes and the request to relax the federal summertime gasoline volatility limit, there is no plan to revise and the action, if finalized, would result in a change to the Federal gasoline volatility regulation as opposed to a change to any approved state plan. EPA's reasons for proposing to approve the State's request are discussed in Section III.D.
        C. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Federal Gasoline Volatility Standards

        As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (See 56 FR 64706, December 12, 1991), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II summertime volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal summertime gasoline RVP volatility standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
        As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the summertime gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent summertime volatility standard.

        Some former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas that remain subject to the federal summertime RVP limit of 7.8 psi have been designated as attainment areas for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and based on the latest available air quality data are also attaining the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS.

        As required by the Phase 1 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states submitted, and EPA approved, CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for these areas. These CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans were required to provide for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for a period of 10 years after areas were designated for that NAAQS in 2004. (See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.) Such areas were not required by the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to submit a maintenance plan for that NAAQS. (See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.) These areas are not currently within the timeframe addressed by any maintenance plans for any ozone NAAQS.
        EPA has concluded that there is neither an implementation plan revision nor a CAA section 110(l) demonstration required in order for EPA to approve a state's request to relax the federal summertime gasoline RVP limit under the circumstances described above for such areas including the 11 parishes that are the subject of this proposal. In order for EPA to approve a request to relax the federal RVP limit for such areas, the Governor or his/her designee must request that the Administrator revise the federal gasoline RVP regulations to remove the subject areas from the list of required areas in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The state may provide any relevant supporting information such as recent air quality data, designation status for ozone and information on previously approved ozone maintenance plans. The Administrator's decision on whether to grant a state's request to revise the federal gasoline RVP regulations in such cases would be documented through notice and comment rulemaking.
        D. Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Summertime Gasoline RVP Volatility Requirement for Several Parishes in the State
        On April 10, 2017, LDEQ requested that EPA relax the current summertime gasoline RVP volatility standard of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for 16 Louisiana parishes, the 5 parishes of the Baton Rouge area, and 11 other parishes: Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary. These other 11 parishes attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and were redesignated to attainment with approved CAA section 175A maintenance plans. They were then designated as attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As such, the State was required by EPA's Phase 1 rule, which implemented the 1997 ozone NAAQS, to submit CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for these parishes that addressed the 10-year period from 2004 to 2014.2
           (See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.) For more information on Louisiana's section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, please refer to the following Federal Register notices approving the maintenance plans for the parishes listed parenthetically after the citation: 72 FR 62579 (Beauregard and St. Mary Parishes); 73 FR 15411 (Lafayette and Lafourche Parishes); 78 FR 57058 (Pointe Coupee Parish); 73 FR 53403 (New Orleans Parish); and 73 FR 59518 (Calcasieu and St. James Parishes). Louisiana was not required to submit second 10-year CAA section 175A maintenance plans for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for these parishes. In 2012, all 11 parishes were designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because they were designated as attainment for both the 2008 and 1997 ozone NAAQS, they were not required to submit a CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, these parishes are no longer within the timeframe that was addressed by any approved maintenance plan for any ozone NAAQS. The 11 parishes that are the subject of today's proposal are all attaining the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the State did not recommend that any of these 11 parishes be designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.3

            2 The Phase 1 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS did not require the submission of a second 10-year maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

            3 On September 29, 2015 Louisiana submitted a letter to EPA recommending designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The State recommended that all of the 11 parishes addressed in this proposed action be designated as unclassifiable/attainment. The letter is available at: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-designations/ozone-designations-2015-standards-louisiana-state-recommendations.

        The current ozone design values for the parishes in question, based upon 2013-2015 air quality data are well below the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 parts-per-billion (ppb) as shown in Table 1 below.

            4 Beauregard and St. Mary Parishes were allowed to discontinue their ozone monitors in 2006. Beauregard Parish sits just north of Calcasieu Parish and Calcasieu Parish is meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS with a 2013-2015 ozone design value of 68 ppb. St. Mary Parish sits between Lafayette and Lafourche Parishes, which both are currently meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Lafayette has a 2013-2015 ozone design value of 67 ppb and Lafourche Parish has a 2013-2015 ozone design value of 65 ppb. Orleans and St. Charles Parishes were allowed to discontinue their ozone monitors at the end of 2014. Thus, the design values in the table for these two parishes are based on data from 2012-2014. Orleans and St. Charles Parishes are in the New Orleans metropolitan area. Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes are also in the New Orleans area. Both of these parishes are meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS with design values of 68 ppb and 65 ppb, respectively.

          Table 1—Ozone Design Values 4

            Parish
            2013-2015Ozone design
              value (ppb)

            Beauregard
            N/A

            Calcasieu
            68

            Jefferson
            68

            Lafayette
            67

            Lafourche
            65

            Orleans
            67

            Pointe Coupee
            68

            St. Bernard
            65

            St. Charles
            65

            St. James
            65

            St. Mary
            N/A

        As previously explained, because these 11 parishes are no longer within the timeframe addressed by any ozone maintenance plan and are not subject to any additional ozone planning requirement under the Act, the proposed change from the more stringent federal RVP gasoline volatility requirement of 7.8 psi to the less stringent 9.0 psi gasoline RVP requirement in these areas does not trigger a requirement that the State provide a non-interference demonstration under CAA section 110(l) for these parishes, as would otherwise be required if the areas in question were still within the time period addressed by a CAA section 175A or CAA section 110(a) maintenance plan or were currently designated as nonattainment for any ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the projections for VOC emissions (i.e., the ozone precursor controlled through RVP limitations) from the previously approved CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the areas covered by the State's request show relatively flat or downward trends through 2014, as illustrated in Table 2 below.

          Table 2—Maintenance Plan VOC Emission Projections

            Parish
            2002(tpd) 5

            2014(tpd)

            Change(tpd)

            Beauregard
            13.91
            14.02
            0.11

            Calcasieu
            49.59
            48.93
            −0.66

            Lafayette
            27.23
            19.75
            −7.48

            Lafourche
            24.2
            17.95
            −6.25

            New Orleans
            161.83
            129.71
            −32.12

            Pointe Coupee
            8.63
            7.66
            −0.97

            St. James
            7.81
            8.28
            0.47

            St. Mary
            18.74
            15.01
            −3.73

        There are several reasons why these trends are expected to continue regardless of EPA's proposed approval of the State's request to relax federal summertime gasoline RVP volatility requirements in these 11 parishes. For example, the maintenance plan projections listed in Table 2 do not include the emissions impacts from several national rules that will reduce actual VOC and/or oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from point sources, area sources, as well as on-road and nonroad mobile sources. The national rules that result in VOC and/or NOX emission reductions not included in the above projection include: EPA's national rules for VOC emission standards for Consumer and Commercial Products (71 FR 58745, 72 FR 57215, 73 FR 40230, 73 FR 58481); Locomotive and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines rule (73 FR 16435); Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428); Control of Emissions from Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR 59034); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342); and Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22896). Each of these rules was adopted either at the time that Louisiana submitted the CAA section 110(a) maintenance plans for the 11 parishes or after those plans were submitted to EPA for approval. These rules all result in reductions of VOCs and/or NOX that will ensure the downward trends seen in the maintenance plans for the covered areas continue into the future and that the parishes continue to maintain all of the ozone NAAQS including the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

            5 tpd = tons per day.

        VOC and NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources are also projected to decrease as the in-use fleet turns over to newer, cleaner vehicles. In this vein, it is worth noting that the implementation of EPA's Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards should also help to continue the downward trend in ozone precursors well into the future. (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014.) The Tier 3 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline standards went into effect on January 1, 2017. The rule is designed to produce an immediate decrease in emissions of VOCs and NOX due to both the cleaner new vehicles but also because the gasoline required under the Tier 3 rule contains less sulfur. Gasoline sulfur controls like those included in the Tier 3 fuel standards are necessary for the introduction of advanced clean technologies on vehicles, which emit at very low levels. Less sulfur in the gasoline allows the catalytic converters on vehicles in the existing fleet to function better for a longer period of time providing a reduction in NOX and VOC emissions from the existing fleet that starts immediately.
        Lastly, while relaxing the federal gasoline RVP volatility requirement in the areas covered by the State's request could, if considered in isolation, result in a slight increase in VOCs, it is not appropriate to consider the relaxation in these parishes in isolation. The RVP relaxation must be considered in context with the emissions reductions that are attributable to recent regulations on a wide range of sources including the Tier 3 vehicle emission and fuel regulations, which have been implemented since the State last submitted maintenance plans for these areas. When considered with those other recent regulations, the RVP relaxation is not likely to interfere with the 11 parishes' ability to continue meeting the applicable ozone standards. For the reasons cited above, EPA does not believe that the RVP relaxation will translate into measurable ground-level ozone concentration changes.

        Therefore and given that: (1) The design values for the areas covered by the request are already well below even the most recent and stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb, and (2) any increase in VOC emissions are expected to be offset by continued fleet turnover and national rules aimed at reducing VOC and NOX emissions from numerous sources, EPA has concluded that a relaxation of the federal RVP fuel requirement will not have an appreciable impact on ozone levels and that these 11 parishes will remain in attainment of the ozone NAAQS. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Louisiana's relaxation request for the 11 parishes included in the State's request.
        IV. Proposal

        In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP volatility standard for Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary parishes from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the applicable gasoline RVP standard to allow the gasoline RVP requirements to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi as provided for at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the 11 named parishes. This proposal to approve Louisiana's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP volatility standard for the 11 parishes from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is based on the redesignation of the named areas to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and their designation as attainment for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the recent air quality data from monitors in the parishes demonstrates that they are attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. And lastly, emission reductions from national rules aimed at reducing VOCs and NOX that were not previously claimed or accounted for in the State's projection of VOC trends for its maintenance plans will ensure continued attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA intends to examine whether there is “good cause,” under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to designate the publication date of the final rule (based on today's proposal) as the effective date for implementation of the final rule.

        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Louisiana and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Louisiana. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in the Louisiana parishes of Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lafourche, Orleans, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. Mary during the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in the named parishes to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.
        E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposal affects only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Louisiana and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Louisiana. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

        EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may disproportionately affect children based on available ozone air quality data and VOC and NOX emissions information. EPA has preliminarily concluded that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with the attainment of the ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement in these 11 Louisiana parishes.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
        This action does not involve technical standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule would relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, though it is unlikely that the relaxation would cause a measurable increase in ozone concentrations and therefore it would not result in the named parishes exceeding either the original ozone standard that triggered the low RVP requirement or any subsequent ozone standard, including the most recent ozone standard promulgated in 2015 based upon EPA's previous experiences with ozone attainment areas that have relaxed fuel RVP requirements.
        VI. Legal Authority
        The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 1, 2017.
          E. Scott Pruitt,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2017-16691 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 766
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0261; FRL-9911-88]
        Receipt of Request for Waiver From Testing

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Receipt of request for waiver from testing.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA received from Nation Ford Chemical (NFC) a request for a waiver from testing requirements promulgated by rule under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to ascertain whether certain specified chemical substances may be contaminated with halogenated dibenzodioxins (HDDs)/dibenzofurans (HDFs). EPA will accept comments on this request and will publish another Federal Register document on or before July 21, 2014, announcing its decision on this request.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0261, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Hiroshi Dodahara, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0507; email address: dodahara.hiroshi@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?

        This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the request for waiver. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
        vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. Background
        A. What action is the agency taking?

        EPA is announcing receipt of a request for waiver from testing from NFC. EPA will accept comments on this request on or before July 17, 2014 and will publish another Federal Register document announcing its decisions on this request. See 40 CFR 766.32(c).

        B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
        Under 40 CFR part 766, EPA requires testing of certain chemical substances to determine whether they may be contaminated with HDDs and HDFs. Under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii), a waiver may be granted if, in the judgment of EPA, the cost of testing would drive the chemical substance off the market, or prevent resumption of manufacture or import of the chemical substance, if it is not currently manufactured, and the chemical substance will be produced so that no unreasonable risk will occur due to its manufacture, import, processing, distribution, use, or disposal. The manufacturer must submit to EPA all data supporting the determination.
        Under 40 CFR 766.32(b), a request for a waiver must be made 60 days before resumption of manufacture or importation of a chemical substance not being manufactured, imported, or processed as of June 5, 1987.
        On May 21, 2014, EPA received a completed waiver request from NFC under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii) (Ref. 1). NFC originally sent a waiver request in a letter dated March 18, 2014 (Ref. 2), which was amended for a technical correction in a letter resubmitted on April 2, 2014 (Ref. 3). EPA informed NFC by letter (Ref. 4) that it would need to submit certain additional information before the submission was complete and EPA could begin its review of the request. The resubmitted request indicates that NFC intends to import 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadienel,4-dione (Chloranil) (CASRN 118-75-2), a chemical substance subject to testing under 40 CFR part 766, to use chloranil as a substitute for an ingredient in the manufacture of a pigment (Ref. 1).
        III. References

        The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          1. National Ford Chemical. Letter from Phillip McCarter to Tanya Hodge Mottley, May 16, 2014 (Received by EPA on May 21, 2014).
          2. National Ford Chemical. Letter from Phillip McCarter to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, March 18, 2014. (Received by EPA on March 27, 2014).
          3. National Ford Chemical. Technical Correction to Letter from Phillip McCarter to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, March 18, 2014. (Received by EPA on April 2, 2014).
          4. EPA. Letter to Phillip McCarter from Tanya Hodge Mottley, May 5, 2014.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 766
          Environmental protection, Chloranil, Dibenzofurans, Dioxins, Hazardous substances.

          Dated: June 9, 2014.
          Wendy C. Hamnett,
          Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

      [FR Doc. 2014-14122 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 04-217]
        Telephone Number Portability

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), its advisory committee on numbering issues, for reducing the time interval for intermodal porting (porting between wireline and wireless carriers). The Commission also seeks comment on implementation issues in the event that a reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before November 17, 2004. Reply comments are due on or before December 17, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See Comment Filing Procedures for further filing instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7705, TTY (202) 418-0484 or Jennifer Salhus, Attorney Advisor, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-1310, TTY (202) 418-1169.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-116, released September 16, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        I. Introduction
        1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the NANC's recommendation for reducing the time interval for intermodal porting. We also seek comment on implementation issues in the event that a reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted.
        II. Discussion
        2. Porting Intervals. In implementing the requirements of section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act), as amended, the Commission has sought input from the NANC on various issues. In 1997, the Commission adopted the NANC's recommendation of a four business day porting interval for wireline ports. At that time, the NANC did not specify a porting interval for intermodal porting. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has established a voluntary standard of two and one half hours for wireless-to-wireless ports.
        3. On November 10, 2003, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 68831 (December 10, 2003) (Intermodal Porting Order and FNPRM) clarifying certain aspects of intermodal porting and seeking further comment on issues relating to intermodal local number portability. Specifically, we sought comment on whether carriers should be required to reduce the current four business day porting interval for ports between wireless and wireline carriers. We also sought comment on what the reduced porting interval should be. We sought input from the NANC on this issue.
        4. NANC Report. In response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the NANC submitted a report that provides several options for reducing the intermodal porting interval. The report explains the differences between the wireline porting process and the wireless porting process and how these differences impact the intermodal porting interval. Generally, there is a two stage porting process—the Confirmation Interval (which currently takes up to 24 hours for ports involving wireline carriers) and the Activation Interval (which currently takes up to three business days for ports involving wireline carriers). The Confirmation Interval involves inter-carrier communications for the exchange of the Local Service Request (LSR or Port Response) and the Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) between the old service provider and the new service provider. During the Confirmation Interval, the new service provider collects information from the customer to prepare a LSR that is sent to the old service provider. During this process, the new service provider and old service provider exchange information and agree on a due date to port the telephone number.
        5. To reduce the overall four-day porting interval, the NANC considered reductions to the Confirmation Interval and the Activation Interval. Specifically, it developed two Confirmation Interval proposals (Proposals C1 and C2) and three Activation Interval proposals (Proposals A1, A2, and A3). Each of the two Confirmation Interval proposals were considered with each of the three Activation Interval proposals, for a total of six proposals for reducing the intermodal porting interval.
        6. After reviewing the proposals, the NANC found that the costs of Proposal C1 outweighed the potential benefits. With respect to the Activation Interval, the NANC determined that Proposal A3 provides a substantial reduction in the intermodal porting interval at a much lower cost to the industry and consumers than the other Activation Interval proposals. Likewise, the NANC notes that Proposal A2 would likely result in greater costs to the industry in comparison to the costs to implement Proposal A3.
        7. The NANC concluded that the C2/A3 combination provides a shorter porting interval and the most economical approach to a reduced intermodal porting interval. If this approach is adopted, orders received in a mechanized manner should be responded to in five hours or less (Proposal C2) and the ten-digit triggers should be set 24 hours before 12:01 a.m. of the confirmed due date (Proposal A3). According to the NANC, this combination provided the shortest “maximum porting interval” (53 hours) and the greatest total time saved (43 hours) compared to the four business day (96 hours) interval in our rules. For example, if a request to port was placed at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday, the Confirmation Interval would be completed by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. The Activation Interval could then begin. The ten-digit trigger could then be set for 11:59 p.m on Wednesday. The port could be completed as early as 12:01 a.m. on Thursday.
        8. Porting Interval Reduction. The NANC proposes a method that would reduce the intermodal porting interval by almost 45 percent, from 96 hours to 53 hours, by requiring a response to orders received in a mechanized manner in five hours or less and using a process called “Early Morning Activation.” We seek comment on the NANC's recommendation for shortening the intermodal porting interval to 53 hours. We also seek comment on alternative mechanisms for reducing the intermodal porting interval.
        9. According to the NANC's report, a uniform format for the exchange of information and a single mechanized interface could reduce the Confirmation Interval from 24 hours to five hours. Currently, each LEC may choose a different Local Service Ordering Guideline (LSOG) version based on its business needs. The NANC recommends that the industry establish one common LSOG version for porting to facilitate a reduction in the Confirmation Interval. We seek comment on the NANC's recommendation. We also seek comment on whether or not the costs of a standardized LSOG and mechanized interface would outweigh the benefits, including for small entities. Commenters advocating a uniform LSOG should specify the items that should be included in a standardized LSOG.
        10. In its report, the NANC also notes that reducing the intermodal porting interval could increase the number of inadvertent ports. We seek comment on the impact of a reduced intermodal porting interval on inadvertent ports. We also seek comment on the procedures that should be established to minimize and restore inadvertent ports. We further seek comment on the costs for correcting inadvertent ports that result from a reduced intermodal porting interval.
        11. The NANC did not consider the extent to which reducing the intermodal porting interval will benefit consumers. Thus, we seek comment on whether the costs of a reduced intermodal porting interval outweigh the benefits of making it quicker for consumers to port their numbers.
        12. Recently, many small carriers providing service in areas outside of the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) implemented number portability. We recognize that reducing the intermodal porting interval now for these carriers may produce unique challenges. The NANC notes that the economic impacts of shortening the intermodal porting interval may not be justified for rural telephone companies. We seek comment on whether certain classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers) should be exempt from a reduced intermodal porting interval, if one is adopted. Similarly, we seek comment on whether an exemption is necessary for certain classes of small telephone companies as defined generically by the SBA. We seek comment on what costs these classes of carriers face to reduce the intermodal porting interval pursuant to the NANC proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on the costs SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers would face to establish a mechanized interface pursuant to Proposal C2. In addition, we seek comment on the costs these carriers would face to establish an early morning activation method as outlined in Proposal A3. Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate length of any potential exemption and any other alternative approaches to minimizing the economic impact for SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers.
        13. Implementation. The NANC Report states that the industry could require up to 24 months to reduce the intermodal porting interval as recommended in Proposal C2/A3. We seek comment on this proposed implementation timeframe. We also seek comment on whether we should establish implementation milestones. Commenters advocating implementation milestones should specify what milestones should be established. Finally, we seek comment on whether an alternative timeframe should be established for certain classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers) or carriers operating in different geographic areas (i.e., the top 100 MSAs versus areas outside of the top 100 MSAs).
        14. The NANC also noted several issues that it believes require further exploration prior to implementing its recommendation. Specifically, the NANC recommends further exploration of the following issues which are currently being addressed by the NANC's Local Number Portability Administration Working Group: (1) Ports attempted while port conflict still unresolved; (2) intermodal “port confirmation” date not recognized; (3) inconsistent intermodal porting process causes service disruption on due date; (4) intermodal port date change (post confirmation) not recognized; (5) Customer Service Request (CSR) not executable for intermodal porting from a Type 1 reseller; and (6) various service provider operational systems issues. We seek comment on the impact of these, and any other outstanding issues, on implementing a shorter intermodal porting interval. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the resolution of these, and any other outstanding issues, will help or hinder the implementation of a reduced intermodal porting interval. Similarly, we seek comment on whether a reduced intermodal porting interval will help or hinder industry efforts to resolve these outstanding issues.
        15. Cost Recovery. In our recent order addressing BellSouth's petition for a waiver of our cost recovery rules, we rejected the request of Sprint and CenturyTel that we declare that costs associated with future changes to intermodal LNP requirements, including porting intervals, are recoverable by incumbent LECs through a new or modified LNP charge without seeking a special waiver. In that order, we determined that the issue of cost recovery for any proposed regulatory mandate should be considered in conjunction with the proposed mandate. Accordingly, we seek comment in this proceeding on the magnitude of costs that incumbent LECs would incur to reduce the intermodal porting interval pursuant to either the NANC proposal or alternative proposals under consideration in this proceeding. We also seek comment on whether the implementation of a special cost recovery mechanism for such costs is appropriate. The NANC estimates that the proposal to respond to mechanized orders within five hours or less would cost less than $50 million to implement industrywide. We seek comment on this estimate as well as estimates for alternative proposals that are submitted.

        16. We note that section 251(e)(2) provides that “[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission.” In the Cost Recovery Order, 63 FR 35150, June, 29, 1998, the Commission determined that “‘the costs of establishing number portability' include not just the costs associated with the creation of the regional databases and the initial physical upgrading of the public switched telephone network, but also the ongoing costs, such as the costs involved in transferring a telephone number to another carrier and routing calls under the N-1 protocol.” The Commission also determined, however, that “once incumbent LECs have recovered their initial implementation costs, number portability will be a normal network feature, and a special end-user charge will no longer be necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs recover their number portability costs on a competitively neutral basis.” Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the costs of implementing a reduced porting interval, if any, are “initial implementation costs” or costs associated with “normal network features” that are not entitled to a special cost recovery mechanism.
        III. Procedural Issues
        A. Ex Parte Presentations
        17. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules.
        B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a significant number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provided below. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        1. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
        19. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on the recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), our advisory committee on numbering issues, for reducing the interval for intermodal porting (wireline to wireless and wireless to wireline porting) from 96 to 53 hours. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative mechanisms for reducing the intermodal porting interval. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the costs of a reduced intermodal porting interval outweigh the benefits of making it quicker for consumers to port their numbers. The Commission also seeks comment on whether certain classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers) should be exempt from a shorter intermodal porting interval, if adopted. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment on whether an exemption is necessary for certain classes of small telephone companies as defined generically by the SBA. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the costs these classes of carriers face to reduce the intermodal porting interval pursuant to the NANC proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate length of any potential exemption and any other alternative approaches to minimizing the economic impact on SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers.
        20. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on implementation issues in the event that a reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the implementation timeframe and whether or not it should establish implementation milestones. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the magnitude of costs that incumbent LECs would incur to reduce the intermodal porting interval pursuant to either the NANC proposal or alternative proposals under consideration in this proceeding, and whether a special recovery mechanism for such costs is appropriate.

        2. Legal Basis
        21. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 3, 4(i), 201, 202, 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154(i), 201-202, and 251.
        3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        22. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

        23. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this IRFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
        24. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for incumbent local exchange service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 employees.
        25. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for competitive local exchange service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 563 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 563 companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 91 have more than 1,500 employees.
        26. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
        27. Cellular Licensees/Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted above, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Telephone Trends Report data, 447 carriers report that they are engaged in the provision of cellular service, personal communications service, or specialized mobile radio telephony services, which are placed together in the data. We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard and 202 have more than 1,500 employees.
        28. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 “small” and “very small” business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders.

        29. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.

        4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        30. After reviewing several alternatives, the NANC found that the C2/A3 Proposal provides a shorter porting interval and the most economical approach to an intermodal porting interval based on the proposals considered. Pursuant to this plan, orders received in a mechanized manner should be responded to in five hours or less (Proposal C2) and the ten-digit trigger should be set a full day before 12:01 a.m. of the confirmed due date (Proposal A3). According to the NANC, this combination provides the shortest “maximum porting interval” (53 hours) and the greatest reduction in total time saved (43 hours). The NANC, however, estimates that the industry would need approximately 24 months to implement Proposal C2 after a Commission mandate is issued. Should the Commission decide to adopt the NANC's recommendation, or any other change, all carriers, including small entity carriers, may require upgrades to their porting systems. These potential changes may impose new obligations and costs on carriers. We seek comment on the types of burdens carriers could face if the proposed recommendations, or any other suggested recommendations are adopted. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify, if possible, the costs and benefits of potential reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. We note that the NANC estimates that the C2/A3 Proposal would cost less than $50 million to implement industry wide. The Commission seeks comment on this estimate. Commenters should address the specific costs of the NANC's recommendations for the C2/A3 Proposal, including the costs associated with establishing a mechanized interface pursuant to Proposal C2 and an early morning activation approach as described in Proposal A3. The Commission also seeks comment on the impacts of such changes on small and rural telephone companies. The Commission also considers an exemption for certain classes of carriers. We also note that the Commission may choose to keep the intermodal porting interval at four days. Thus, there would be no new requirements on any group of carriers, including small entity carriers.
        5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

        32. This IRFA seeks comment on how the NANC's recommendation, and any other potential changes to the intermodal porting interval, could be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential burden of cost compliance for small entities. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether, and for what period of time, certain classes of carriers, (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers) should be exempt from a shorter intermodal porting interval, if adopted. The Commission also seeks comment on whether an exemption is necessary for certain classes of small telephone companies as defined by the SBA. Such an exemption may benefit small entities by obviating the need, or deferring the timeframe, for small and rural telephone companies to establish a mechanized interface for intermodal porting and an early morning activation process. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative approaches that would minimize the economic impact on SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers. Thus, we seek comment on the NANC recommendation, and any other possible changes to the intermodal porting interval, and whether any or all of them would minimize the economic impact on small entities, which may include providers of wireless as well as wireline communications services. We note that the NANC considered and did not recommend higher cost alternatives. The NANC Report states that the industry could require up to 24 months to reduce the intermodal porting interval as recommended in Proposal C2/A3. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed implementation timeframe and whether implementation milestones should be established. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a different timeframe should be established for certain classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers) or carriers operating in different geographic areas (i.e., the top 100 MSAs versus areas outside of the top 100 MSAs).
        6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        33. None.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        34. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due December 17, 2004. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
        D. Comment Filing Procedures

        35. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the Further Notice or Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contained herein. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments as follows: Comments are due on or before November 17, 2004, and reply comments are due on or before December 17, 2004. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 95-116. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, (May 1, 1998).

        36. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        37. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        38. Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054.

        39. Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at bmillin@fcc.gov. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be downloaded in ASCII Text format at: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.

        IV. Ordering Clauses

        40. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, 251, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, 251, and 332, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

        41. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 04-23292 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P